Homeopathy is everywhere!

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I agree with all of that, except I don't agree completely with the "no evidence" part. In some studies of homeopathy, there have been statistical significance that must be examined further. There could be something there, or there could be errors.

Numerous studies with peer review have shown that homeopathy has no effect other than placebo. If you have any evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny to the contrary, feel free to send it to JAMA.


It seems sensible to continue to proceed scientifically and find out. We wouldn't want to possible throw out a baby.

Yes, if the baby has been drowned (as in this case), it's time to toss it.

Homeopathy does not work. Feel free to prove me wrong. The JREF challenge will accept homeopathic claims as well.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Benveniste made his discovery while working for INSERM, the French equivalent of the NIH in the U.S. He worked with a
team of 12 scientists who collaborated on the work under his direction. They consistently showed positive results which amazed
even him. When he was booted due to politics and so-called conventional wisdom, he went to work for DigiBio. The following biblio is from their website which has much more information on their work

http://www.digibio.com/

He continues to experiment in this area, on the lab bench, and not on television or in the clinical arena. We cannot dismiss the weight of Professor Ennis' 1000s of trials at Belfast either nor Beneveniste's work .........based on a single trial involving 40 specimens held on a television program conducted by two or three scientists without the benefit of peer review or oversight of any kind. Its no wonder Ennis bowed out of this debacle. In her mind the results were predictable but not because they were necessarily valid.

Insofar as the clinical studies are concerned, there are examples of overwhelmingly positive as well as overwhelmingly
negative results, contrary to what some posters here may think, believe or were told. If I were to be impartial, like Ray Hyman, all I could say is that there has to be a flaw somewhere
along the line ... whether in the preparation of the active substance, the triple or double distillation of the control
(e.g. placebo water) or some other screw-up. Now this screw up could be on either side of the aisle. I don't know.

Benveniste and many others continue to perform research in this area, confirming, replicating and repeating the earlier results and trying new variations as well, building on the original findings. There are more recent papers they do not seem to be archived yet. These below end in early year 2000.

Although I have read a lot of rhetoric here and endured numerous assertions that there is no evidence, etc etc, I seem to be the only person to back up the fact that there is something going on with published journal references .... well, at least the citations, since it would be illegal to post them here and I dont believe a lot of these are on-line anywhere either but some may be. Unfortunately I do not have the next six weeks to find them all.

Insofar as the math in quantum physics, there is a rhetorical and logistical component of this field and I have read a few QP introductions with no math involved. I think experiments and observations take precedence over math in this aspect of QP but I could be wrong as I am no expert on QP and only defer those explanations as posited by others. For sure there are areas of QP which benefit by and are backed up by mathematical proofs but this does not appear to be one of them.






Benveniste's Lab:


1987 Effect on mouse peritoneal macrophages of orally administered very high dilutions of silica.
European Journal of Pharmacology (135:313-319) E. Davenas. B. Poitevin, J. Benveniste.

1988 In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by Lung histamine and Apis mellifica.
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (25:439-444) B. Poitevin, E. Davenas, J. Benveniste.

1988 Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE.
Nature (333:816-818) E. Davenas, F. Beauvais, J. Amara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B. Poitevin, J. Benveniste.

1991 L'agitation de solutions hautement diluées n'induit pas d'activité biologique spécifique.
Comptes-Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris (312 :461-466) J. Benveniste, E. Davenas, B. Ducot, B. Cornillet, B. Poitevin, A. Spira

1991 Basophil achromasia by dilute ligand: a reappraisal.
FASEB Journal (5:A1008 (abs.)). J. Benveniste, E. Davenas, B. Ducot, A. Spira.

1991 Effect of dilute histamine on coronary flow of guinea-pig isolated heart. Inhibition by a magnetic field.
FASEB Journal. (5:A1583(abs.)). L. Hadji, B. Arnoux, J. Benveniste.

1992 Highly dilute antigen increases coronary flow of isolated heart from immunized guinea-pigs.
FASEB Journal (6:A1610(abs.) J. Benveniste, B. Arnoux, L. Hadji.

1993 Antigen signaling at high dilution.
FASEB Journal (7:A602(abs.)) M.H. Litime, J.Aïssa, J. Benveniste.

1993 Transfer of molecular signals via electronic circuitry.
FASEB Journal (7:A602 (abs.)) J. Aïssa, M.H. Litime, E. Attias, A. Allal, J. Benveniste.

1993 Molecular signaling at high dilution or by means of electronic circuitry.
Journal of Immunology. (150:146A(abs.)) J. Aïssa, M.H. Litime, E. Attias, J. Benveniste.

1994 Transfer of the molecular signal by electronic amplification.
FASEB Journal (8:A398(abs)). J. Benveniste, J. Aïssa, M.H. Litime, G.Th. Tsangaris, Y.Thomas.

1995 Direct transmission to cells of a molecular signal (phorbol myristate acetate, PMA) via an electronic device.
FASEB Journal (9: A227 (abs)). Y. Thomas, M. Schiff, M.H. Litime, L. Belkadi, J. Benveniste.

1995 Electronic transmission of the cholinergic signal.
FASEB Journal (9:A683 (abs)). J. Aïssa, P. Jurgens, M.H. Litime, I. Béhar, J.Benveniste.

1996 Modulation of human neutrophil activation by "electronic" phorbol myristate acetate (PMA).
FASEB Journal (10:A1479(abs)). Y. Thomas, H. Litime, J. Benveniste.

1996 Digital recording/transmission of the cholinergic signal.
FASEB Journal (10:A1479(abs)). J. Benveniste, P. Jurgens, J. Aïssa.

1997 Transatlantic transfer of digitized antigen signal by telephone link.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (99:S175 (abs.) J. Benveniste, P. Jurgens, W. Hsueh, J. Aïssa.
Abstract Poster

1998 Digital biology : Specificity of the digitized molecular signal.
FASEB Journal (12:A412(abs)). J. Benveniste, J. Aïssa, D. Guillonnet
Abstract Poster

1999 A simple and fast method for in vivo demonstration of electromagnetic molecular signaling (EMS) via high dilution or computer recording.
FASEB Journal (13:A163(abs)). J. Benveniste, J. Aïssa, D. Guillonnet.

1999 The molecular signal is not functional in the absence of "informed" water.
FASEB Journal (13:A163(abs)). J. Benveniste, J. Aïssa, D. Guillonnet.

1999 Specific remote detection of bacteria using an electromagnetic / digital procedure.
FASEB Journal (13:A852(abs)). J. Benveniste, L. Kahhak, D. Guillonnet.

2000 Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted phorbol-myristate acetate.
Medical Hypotheses (54:33-39). Y. Thomas, M. Schiff, L. Belkadi, P. Jurgens, L. Kahhak, J. Benveniste.





Other Labs:

1985 Activity and chronopharmacology of very low doses of physiological immune inducers
Immunology Today (6:234-235). M. Bastide, M. Doucet-Jaboeuf, V. Daurat.

1986 Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model.
Lancet (II:881-886). T. Reilly, M.A. Taylor, C. McSharry, T. Aitchison.

1992 Modifications des temps de relaxation RMN à 4 Mhz des protons du solvant dans les très hautes dilutions salines de silice/lactose.
Journal of Medical Nucl. Biophys. (16:135-145). L. Demangeat, C. Demangeat, P. Gries, B. Poitevin, A.J. Constantinesco.

1993 Effects of embryonic bursectomy and in ovo administration of highly diluted bursin on a adrenocorticotropic and immune response to chickens.
International Journal of Immunotherapy (IX:169-180). B.J. Youbicier-Simo, F. Boudard, M. Mekaouche, M. Bastide, J.D. Baylé.

1994 The effect of highly diluted agitated thyroxine of the climbing activity of frogs.
Veterinary and Human Toxicology (36:56-59). P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, G. Kastberger, F.A.C. Wiegant, J. Schulte.

1994 Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible
Lancet (344:1601-1606).D. Reilly, M.A. Taylor, N.G.M. Beattie, J.H. Campbell, C. McSharry, T.C. Aitchison, R. Carter, R.D. Stevenson.

1994 Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua
Pediatrics (93:719-725). J. Jacobs, L.M. Jiménez, S.S. Gloyd, J.L. Gale, D. Crothers.

1994 Transmission of hormone information by non-molecular means.
FASEB Journal (8:A400(abs)). P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, K. Waltl, H. Hilgers, R.Brandmaier.

1995 Hormone effects by CD record/replay.
FASEB Journal (9: A392(abs)). F. Senekowitsch, P.C.Endler, W. Pongratz, C.W. Smith.

1988 Water as a free electric dipole laser.
Physical Reviews Letter (61:1085-1088). E. del Giudice, G. Preparata, G. Vitiello.

1989 Deciphering the language of cells.
Trends in Biochemical Sciences (14:89-92). T.Y. Tsong.

1990 The response of living cells to very weak electric fields: the thermal noise limit.
Science (247:459-462). J.C. Weaver, R.D. Astumian.

1990 Electromagnetic fields: the biological evidence.
Science (249:1378-1381)
Is there an EMF-Cancer connection ?
Science (249:1096-1098). R. Pool.

1993 Electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems.
FASEB Journal (7:272-28) A.H. Frey.

1996 Analysis of immunosuppressive activity of serial dilutions of histamine on human basophil activation by flow cytometry.
Inflammation Research (Suppl. 1):S33-S34.) J. Sainte-Laudy, P. Belon.

1996 Anomalous State of Ice
Modern Physics Letters B Vol. 10, No. 19 (909-919). Shui-Yin Lo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont see the point of providing any more references or "evidence" at this point. Deaf ears are deaf ears. I do thank you all for the opportunity to point out what keeping an open mind is about, however. Should I find any additional relevant cites, I will forward them on.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I dont see the point of providing any more references or "evidence" at this point. Deaf ears are deaf ears. I do thank you all for the opportunity to point out what keeping an open mind is about, however. Should I find any additional relevant cites, I will forward them on.

Yea, but do you have any real evidence?

 

[SteveGrenard]

RichardR:

Even if Benveniste was proven right, the other principle of homeopathy (similars) is still made up of nonesense..........

This is the most non nonsensical aspect of homeopathy there is. In fact even though I have a problem understanding how diluting to lower and lower concs, to nothingness ....to mere subatomic particles leaving so called molecular footprints and that this increases potencies, I know that their law of similars has some rational basis in fact.

All of immunology is based on a variation of the law of similars starting with work of Pasteur, Jenner and other pioneers in this field. Venom is used, for example, to provoke antibodies to venom, creating anti-venom, which is then given to victims of envenomation. Vaccinations against smallpox, tuberculosis (BCG)and other infectious diseases is made with attenuated or killed viral or bacterial protein of the offending organism against which protection is sought. These miniscule, attenuated administrations provokes immune responses that protect against full blown infection.

Alpha-Neurotoxin from the venom of Asian cobras is being used to experimentally and successfully treat ALS and MS, both diseases which allopathic (snake administered) doses of this venom constitutent causes symptoms/effects very similar to these diseases.

Near homeopathic doses, as little as 10 micrograms, are used in the trials currently underway. Yes, not quite homeopathic but an example of where like cures like in mainstream or allopathic medicine.

 

[JamesM]

Although I have read a lot of rhetoric here and endured numerous assertions that there is no evidence, etc etc, I seem to be the only person to back up the fact that there is something going on with published journal references

I'm not sure anyone disputes that there are publications dealing with homeopathy in the literature. The question is whether there have been any properly controlled independent replications of any of this research. As I like to keep a weather eye on various 'anomalies of water' papers that turn up in the literature, I thank you for your efforts, as they have unearthed some references that I was previously unaware of.

Many of these papers, however, just don't add up to evidence in support of homeopathy, they merely show water behaving anomalously. I'm unaware of any independent replication of any of the purported effects, and even if they are replicated, we will have a long way to go before there is any notion of water having a 'memory' that can be used in support of homeopathy.

As for your comments on quantum theory, its mathematical basis really cannot be stressed enough. The non-mathematical descriptions are merely hand-waving verbalisations, attempts to explain the physical significance of the results of the equations. The basis of quantum theory is solving wave equations. From the use of 'solve' and 'equation', you get a pretty good idea of what that involves.

edited for grammar

 

[AlienX]

I really annoys me that these people claim to be scientific etc yet can offer no real proper science to explain any effect.

They throw around Quantum mechanic explanations because its hard stuff to grasp, hence evade the more telling questions.

Of everything on this site mediumship etc Homeopathy is the worst of them all. We have all these trials yet to be real science it needs to be repeatable by everyone who applies correct methodology - but its not.

If it has an effect it must be chemically different to "normal" water - so there would presumably be a test which did not involve people getting better or feeling better etc.

So far the tests put forward for Homeopathy fail consistently.

I understand the uncertanty principal and as far as i'm concerned i say wtf has it got to do with Homeopathy? - it's simply a science applied to a very suspect product.

I understand a little about Quantum Mechanics and it's all very complicated - hence these quaks use it as a smoke screen.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It is not sufficient for thaiboxken, James, Richard or now AlienX to merely say that tests or experiments in homeopathy fail consistently. Since I provided references to the contrary, numerous ones in fact of both clinical trials as well as benchwork,
it is necessary for these individuals or anyone of like mind to back up these assertions with references. You have made a positive statement: homeopathy trials FAIL consistently. Please provide peer reviewed journal studies/evidence of this on a calibre with the studies I provided (e.g. Lancet, FASEB, Physics Letters, J of Immunology, etc) which, in case you havent noticed (and you must not have noticed and I seriously doubt you have read these studies or their abstracts) does provide evidence that homeopathy has suceeded in ameliorating the symptoms of diseases as well as, in the lab, in vitro, demonstrated properties of water which defy conventional physics and chemistry principles.
And BTW, it was stated above, the attribute of "memory" for water does not imply memory such as sentient beings have but rather the ability to store information; memory is used in the sense of computer memory in this context.

And James, it is precisely these anomalous attributes of water which is logically responsible for any effects claimed by homeopathy. After all, it is water whats being administered after first having some stuff dissolved in it and then diluted out of existence and then shaken each step of the dilution. So you can try and separate the unusual properties of water if you like but you can't remove them as the cause for the effect. This is precisely what is being claimed. Water has many interesting properties. It is the only substance that can exist as gas, liquid or solid at sea level earth temperature ranges; it is the only unique substance of a different physical state that can be made up by combining two elements which are gases at the same temperatures and pressures at sea level earth (oxygen and hydrogen) ranges.

So thaiken, James or AlienX, can you provide evidence to back up your assertions or not? Or are you simply parrotting what you read in Randi commentaries or in the skeptical literature?
Thank you.

I asked so many unanswered questions in this thread now I have lost count. Its a good thing I am not Claus Larsen or you would really be in trouble by now.

 

[Pyrrho]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10391656&dopt=Abstract

Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy.
...
We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10649002&dopt=Abstract

Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review.
...
There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the methodology was questionable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1603601&dopt=Abstract

Clinical medicine versus homeopathy
...
The review of studies carried out according to current scientific criteria revealed--at best--a placebo effect of homeopathy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=2068543&dopt=Abstract

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis
...
Forty-four patients with active Rheumatoid Arthritis were entered into a 6-month double-blind trial comparing homeopathy and placebo. The treatments were generally equally effective in most assessments. Statistically significant improvements were produced, however, in 3 of 5 and 2 of 5 results respectively assessed in homeopathic and placebo treated groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups. Adverse effects were scarcely and comparably reported in both groups and did not require a change in therapy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=2521722&dopt=Abstract

Evaluation of 2 homeopathic products on the resumption of transit after digestive surgery. A multicenter controlled trial
...
It is concluded that the trial failed to demonstrate any effect of Opium or Raphanus on the resumption of intestinal peristalsis after digestive tract surgery. Nor did it confirm the activity of ultra-molecular dilutions claimed for this type of drugs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10703903&dopt=Abstract

Homeopathic treatment of migraine: a double blind, placebo controlled trial of 68 patients
...
Both the homeopathy and placebo groups had reduction in attack frequency, pain intensity and drug consumption, with a statistically non-significant difference favouring homeopathy. Migraine diaries showed no difference between groups. The neurologists' trial evaluation showed a statistically significant reduction in attack frequency in the homeopathy group (P= 0.04) and non-statistically significant trends in favour of homeopathy for pain intensity and overall evaluation. Further research, with improved trial design, on the possible role of homeopathy in migraine prophylaxis is justified.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12919110&dopt=Abstract

Homeopathy in dermatology
...
In dermatology, homeopathy is often used in atopic dermatitis, other forms of eczema, psoriasis, and many other conditions. To date, however, there is no convincing evidence for a therapeutic effect. There are only a few controlled trials, most of them with negative results. The few studies with positive results have not been reproduced. Acceptance by the patient seems largely based on counseling and emotional care rather than on objective responses to the homeopathic drugs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12716269&dopt=Abstract

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of classical homeopathy in generalized anxiety disorder
...
The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo. The improvement in both conditions was substantial. Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725251&dopt=Abstract

We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12799863&dopt=Abstract

Homeopathy in headaches. A review
...
While the first one reported very high effects, the best ones known in the literature, the results of the other two trials do not endorse this first finding. The London trial did not show any effect other than placebo, although a different time trend was reported. The Munich study failed to show any difference between homeopathy and placebo whatsoever. The merits and shortcomings of these studies are discussed. At present, we do not have any evidence that homeopathic therapy has any effect other than a placebo effect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12562974&dopt=Abstract

Homeopathic arnica is widely believed to control bruising, reduce swelling and promote recovery after local trauma; many patients therefore take it perioperatively....
The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11872551

Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial
...
Homoeopathic immunotherapy is not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma. The different patterns of change between homoeopathic immunotherapy and placebo over the course of the study are unexplained.

I guess that's enough for now.

 

[RichardR]

Yes, I agree with all of that, except I don't agree completely with the "no evidence" part. In some studies of homeopathy, there have been statistical significance that must be examined further. There could be something there, or there could be errors.

It seems sensible to continue to proceed scientifically and find out. We wouldn't want to possible throw out a baby. [/B]

It is not just "no evidence". It is that homeopathy is made up. Therefore, what reason do we have to even start looking for evidence to support it. Here are some questions that need to be answered in homeopathy's favor before it would be sensible to continue to proceed scientifically:

1. What was the scientific method used to arrive at the "similars" principle?
   
2. By what mechanism does the "similars" principle work?
   
3. How was the "similars" principle made falsifiable, and was it tested against the falsifiable hypothesis and not falsified? Has this test been written up in peer-reviewed scientific literature and has it been replicated?
   
4. What was the scientific method used to arrive at the "memory of water" principle?
   
5. By what mechanism does the "memory of water" principle work?
   
6. How was the "memory of water" principle made falsifiable, and was it tested against the falsifiable hypothesis and not falsified? Has this test been written up in peer-reviewed scientific literature and has it been replicated?

The only question that I an aware we have an acceptable answer for is the last one. The answer to that is it was tested successfully once, but the methodology was flawed and the results could not be replicated.

Flawed studies displaying some statistical artifact do not count for much in favor of a made up theory.

 

[RichardR]

This is the most non nonsensical aspect of homeopathy there is. In fact even though I have a problem understanding how diluting to lower and lower concs, to nothingness ....to mere subatomic particles leaving so called molecular footprints and that this increases potencies, I know that their law of similars has some rational basis in fact.

All of immunology is based on a variation of the law of similars starting with work of Pasteur, Jenner and other pioneers in this field. Venom is used, for example, to provoke antibodies to venom, creating anti-venom, which is then given to victims of envenomation. Vaccinations against smallpox, tuberculosis (BCG)and other infectious diseases is made with attenuated or killed viral or bacterial protein of the offending organism against which protection is sought.

False analogy.

You are talking about using versions of the actual virus or bacterium to prime the immune system. The mechanism for this is well known, has been tested and documented and has been shown to work.

Homeopathy's rule of "similars" is different (pun intended). Homeopathy just finds something that appears to give similar symptoms and declared that to be a cure. Mechanism unknown, untested, undocumented. That is because it was made up by Hahnemann.

If you don't see the difference you really have little understanding about this subject.

 

[RichardR]

It is not sufficient for thaiboxken, James, Richard or now AlienX to merely say that tests or experiments in homeopathy fail consistently. Since I provided references to the contrary, numerous ones in fact of both clinical trials as well as benchwork,
it is necessary for these individuals or anyone of like mind to back up these assertions with references.

Funny, I thought I had referenced a few HERE:

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: Thanks for taking the trouble to post abstracts of studies which are both equivocal, unequivocal, favor homeopathy and/ or which favor placebo. I think you failed to include a few from the same source so I'll just post these below. In any case the evidence of these studies is that there is NO evidence that controlled, double blind studies of homeopathy consistently fail to produce results which favor homeopathic intervention. Also: Richard, try these studies for your "made-up" theory. SH may've made this up as you say or he may've been fooling around in his kitchen one day and noticed an effect or whatever but it is irrelevant to modern research studies on this subject now.






Here are a few more from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez




Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Mar;22(3):229-34.


Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D.

Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. jjacobs@igc.org

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a positive treatment effect of individualized homeopathic treatment for acute childhood diarrhea, but sample sizes were small and results were just at or near the level of statistical significance. Because all three studies followed the same basic study design, the combined data from these three studies were analyzed to obtain greater statistical power. METHODS: Three double blind clinical trials of diarrhea in 242 children ages 6 months to 5 years were analyzed as 1 group. Children were randomized to receive either an individualized homeopathic medicine or placebo to be taken as a single dose after each unformed stool for 5 days. Parents recorded daily stools on diary cards, and health workers made home visits daily to monitor children. The duration of diarrhea was defined as the time until there were less than 3 unformed stools per day for 2 consecutive days. A metaanalysis of the effect-size difference of the three studies was also conducted. RESULTS: Combined analysis shows a duration of diarrhea of 3.3 days in the homeopathy group compared with 4.1 in the placebo group (P = 0.008). The metaanalysis shows a consistent effect-size difference of approximately 0.66 day (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.



Cephalalgia. 2000 Nov;20(9):835-7.


The long-term effects of homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches: 1 year follow up.

Walach H, Lowes T, Mussbach D, Schamell U, Springer W, Stritzl G, Haag G.

Department of Environmental Medicine and Hygiene, University Hospital Freiberg, Germany. walach@ukl.uni-freiburg.de

Little is known about the long-term effects of homeopathic treatment. Following a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of classical homeopathy in chronic headaches, we conducted a complete follow-up study of all trial participants. All patients enrolled in the double-blind study were sent a 6-week headache diary, a follow-up questionnaire. Eighty-seven of the original 98 patients enrolled returned questionnaires, 81 returned diaries. There was no additional change from the end of the trial to the 1-year follow up. The improvement seen at the end of the 12-week trial was stable after 1 year. No differential effects according to treatment after the trial could be seen. Patients with no treatment following the trial had the most improvement after 1 year. Approximately 30% of patients in homeopathic treatment will benefit after 1 year of treatment.



J Clin Gastroenterol. 1997 Dec;25(4):628-33. Related Articles, Links


Erratum in: (sg note: wonder how many other errors Ernst made; this one was caught -see true results below)

J Clin Gastroenterol 1998 Apr;26(3):231.

Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis.

Barnes J, Resch KL, Ernst E.

Department of Complementary Medicine, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter, United Kingdom.

Homeopathic remedies are advocated for the treatment of postoperative ileus, yet data from clinical trials are inconclusive. We therefore performed meta-analyses of existing clinical trials to determine whether homeopathic treatment has any greater effect than placebo administration on the restoration of intestinal peristalsis in patients after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. We conducted systematic literature searches to identify relevant clinical trials. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for any homeopathic treatment versus placebo; homeopathic remedies of < 12C potency versus placebo; homeopathic remedies of > or = 12C potency versus placebo. A "sensitivity analysis" was performed to test the effect of excluding studies of low methodologic quality. Our endpoint was time to first flatus. Meta-analyses indicated a statistically significant (p < 0.05) weighted mean difference (WMD) in favor of homeopathy (compared with placebo) on the time to first flatus. Meta-analyses of the three studies that compared homeopathic remedies > or = 12C versus placebo showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). Meta-analyses of studies comparing homeopathic remedies < 12C with placebo indicated a statistically significant (p < 0.05) WMD in favor of homeopathy on the time to first flatus. Excluding methodologically weak trials did not substantially change any of the results. There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue.



Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB.

Munchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universitat/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universitat, Munchen, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

Arzneimittelforschung. 1985;35(11):1745-7.

Double-blind trial comparing the effectiveness of the homeopathic preparation Galphimia potentiation D6, Galphimia dilution 10(-6) and placebo on pollinosis.

Wiesenauer M, Gaus W.

The preparation of homeopathic drugs is based on potentiation. In this potentiation the primary substance is specially mixed with a carrier (typically 90% ethanol) in the ratio 1:10. Usually this potentiation is done repeatedly and the final drug is labeled, e.g., "D6" which means a 6 times decimal potentiation. In a controlled randomized strictly double-blind trial with 164 patients the effectiveness of homeopathically prepared Galphimia D6, a conventional Galphimia dilution 10(-6) and a placebo was investigated for the therapy of pollinosis. The average duration of treatment was about 5 weeks. Although no statistical significance was achieved, it is remarkable that there was a clear trend for the superiority of Galphimia D6 while the Galphimia dilution 10(-6) was about equally effective compared with placebo. The study itself demonstrates that it is possible to do strictly controlled trials for homeopathic drugs and with medical practitioners.


Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001 Feb;20(2):177-83.

Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. jjacobs@igc.org

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotics in the initial treatment of acute otitis media is currently being questioned. Homeopathy has been used historically to treat this illness, but there have been no methodologically rigorous trials to determine whether there is a positive treatment effect. METHODS: A randomized double blind placebo control pilot study was conducted in a private pediatric practice in Seattle, WA. Seventy-five children ages 18 months to 6 years with middle ear effusion and ear pain and/or fever for no more than 36 h were entered into the study. Children received either an individualized homeopathic medicine or a placebo administered orally three times daily for 5 days, or until symptoms subsided, whichever occurred first. Outcome measures included the number of treatment failures after 5 days, 2 weeks and 6 weeks. Diary symptom scores during the first 3 days and middle ear effusion at 2 and 6 weeks after treatment were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were fewer treatment failures in the group receiving homeopathy after 5 days, 2 weeks and 6 weeks, with differences of 11.4, 18.4 and 19.9%, respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant. Diary scores showed a significant decrease in symptoms at 24 and 64 h after treatment in favor of homeopathy (P < 0.05). Sample size calculations indicate that 243 children in each of 2 groups would be needed for significant results, based on 5-day failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded and that a larger study is justified.




J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Apr;6(2):131-9.

Homeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: results from a clinical trial in Nepal.

Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Malthouse S, Chapman E, Crothers D, Masuk M, Jonas WB.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. jjacobs@igc.org

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the finding in a previous study that homeopathic medicines decrease the duration of acute diarrhea in children could be replicated in a different study population. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Private, charitable health clinic in Kathmandu, Nepal. SUBJECTS: A consecutive sample of 126 children, 6 months to 5 years of age, who presented during April through June, 1994, with more than three unformed stools in the previous 24 hours. INTERVENTION: Children received either an individualized homeopathic medicine or placebo, to be taken one dose after each unformed stool for 5 days. Parents recorded daily stools on diary cards, and health workers made home visits daily to monitor children. OUTCOME MEASURES: Predefined measures were based on the previous study: (1) duration of diarrhea, defined as the time until there were fewer than three unformed stools per day, for two consecutive days, and (2) Average number of stools per day for each group. RESULTS: Of the 126 children initially enrolled, 116 completed treatment. The mean number of stools per day over the entire 5-day treatment period was 3.2 for the treatment group and 4.5 for the placebo group (P = 0.023). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the duration of diarrhea, which included data from all patient visits, showed an 18.4% greater probability that a child would be free of diarrhea by day 5 under homeopathic treatment (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the finding from the previous study that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea.

 

[Dub]

Dub, in failing to take cognizance of the number of controlled and observational studies done on homeopathic preparations, both in vivo and in vitro, both proving and failing to prove its validity, then asks:


Answer: As many as necessary.

An ad hominem?? I would have never guessed that was coming! I am quite aware of the majority of experimental data. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that once several well controlled, double blind experiments have show that homeopathy does not work, how many more are needed? Do you want the truth? or do you just want some, any, evidence, no matter how weak, to back-up what you already believe? Due to the lack of a basic theoretical underpinnings, the evidence for homeopathy would have to be extra-ordinary and 100% conclusive. Remeber, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Again, I strongly recommend the seminal work on the modern era of homeopathic research. It is OP so may be hard to find but it is findable.

The Memory of Water

Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science

By Michel SCHIFF

Covers the way the scientific studies on homeopathy have been received by most scientists. It is an eloquent argument that the scientific community needs to end its tradition of repression of new ideas. Printed in Great Britain, 166 pages, paperback
Dimensions (in inches): 9.10 x 6.00 x .50

Your large cut-and-pastes are pointless tbh. You only need to give the author and title (if its a book) and, if its from a journal, the journal title, and edition details. Chapter titles prove nothing.

So we can go on and on, all day with some saying there is no evidence, others not sure and still others pointing to evidence of studies and we can all ask ourselves who is reading this stuff correctly, who is reading what we want to, who is listening to pro or con propaganda (and there is plenty on both sides).

I, and from what I've seen, most skeptics are willing to read about any properly controlled experiments. Research with poor controls, or that cannot be verified through repetition is worhtless.

Its fast becoming a useless exercise in discussion since nobody on the skeptic side wishes to acknowledge and discuss the major points save for one person who had a question about protocol level and sucess of studies and their relationship.

Remeber, skeptics have no motivation for believing that homeopathy does not work. No-one in their right mind would not want working medicines to 'not work'. Belivever in homeopathy however may have a strong desire to believe that is does work. This may be for several reasons such as favouring 'alternative' medicines over 'modern' ones. IMO there's no such thing as 'alternative medicine' - there's only medicines that work and medicines that dont.

 

[RichardR]

I just had to comment on Steve Grenard's reference to Benveniste's current research.

At the Amaz!ng Meeting in January, there was a presentation by Chip Denmam who explained how he had exposed flaws in Benveniste’s more recent experiments.

Benveniste still thinks water has memory. But he has gone further, now claiming that if the homeopathic water is exposed to electromagnetic radiation at roughly 22KHz, it becomes “informed water” that is biologically active. In other words, the homeopathic signal can be digitized, extracted and sent by email if necessary, and then inserted into a clean water sample at the other end to make a new homeopathic solution. Denman’s team replicated the experiments with better controls and the effect disappeared.

The experiment was designed so that a robot lined up the different samples for testing. Denham’s team noticed that several of the samples had the exact same time/date stamp on them in the computer. When he investigated this he found that a member of Benveniste’s team had manually intervened, on several occasions, to place additional samples for testing. This team member (Jamal), had already been noted by Benveniste as having “better results” than the others. (Benveniste said Jamal “enhanced” the effect while other team members “inhibited” it.) Where Jamal had not intervened there were few anomalies. Where he had intervened, five out of seven experiments had anomalies.

The term “Jamal effect” was apparently used by Benveniste to describe this mystical success of Jamal’s experiments. The cause of the Jamal effect is unknown, but it is telling that Benveniste thought he was on to something here (something to do with Jamal having better “vibrations”), rather than considering that the experiment had been compromised.

Denham also noted that problems with the data (ie no positive results), were characterized by Benveniste as being “problems with the device” (ie errors in measurement).

Denham’s team ran the experiment many times with Benveniste’s team absent, and without any unplanned changes in protocol. No anomalies were found.

 

[SteveGrenard]

LOL Dub --- you thought that was an ad hominem.? You have not seen much around here then! Right now, try out the ad hominem meter in the kook or the woo woo thread. These posters are the kings of ad hominem but they will not dissuade those they consider kooks or woos woos, ad hominems and I think I will invite more of these folks to join in on this board. Have you posted anything in those woo woo/kook threads Dub ...? eh I havent read them so don't know.

And if you really want to see the king of the ad homs, try visiting some of the thousands of posts by Larsen unless you have a low bored threshold.

This place has a few ad hom throwers but please don't class me as one of them. If you wish to neglect or overlook positive evidence, then please do so but please don't consider this an insult. If the shoe fits, of course, well er, thats different.

 

[SteveGrenard]

And who precisely is Chip Denmam or Denham? (which spelling is correct.....)

Thanks

 

[Dub]

LOL Dub --- you thought that was an ad hominem.? You have not seen much around here then! Right now, try out the ad hominem meter in the kook or the woo woo thread. These posters are the kings of ad hominem but they will not dissuade those they consider kooks or woos woos, ad hominems and I think I will invote more of these folks to join in on this board. Have you posted anything in those threads Dub ...? eh I havent read them so don't know.

And if you really want to see the king of the ad homs, try visiting some of the thousands of posts by Larsen unless you have a low bored threshold.

This place has a few ad hom throwers but please don't class me as one of them. If you wish to neglect or overlook positive evidence, then please do so but please don't consider this an insult. If the shoe fits, of course, well er, thats different.

Check when I joined this forum; Ive been around here longer than you. I dont post that often due to time contraints, but I read most topics several times a week. Your reply to my post was patronising and childish - an ad hominem. Just because other people may use ad homs more than you doesnt mean anything.

Would you like to point out where I have neglected positive evidence or do you just want to make a strawman? I have no bias as to which 'side' I believe - I let the evidence decide that for me.

The burden of proof is on homeopathy. You make the mistake of thinking that those who do not agree with you have done something wrong, i.e. neglected or overlooked the positive evidence.

 

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: Thanks for taking the trouble to post abstracts of studies which are both equivocal, unequivocal, favor homeopathy and/ or which favor placebo. I think you failed to include a few from the same source so I'll just post these below. In any case the evidence of these studies is that there is NO evidence that controlled, double blind studies of homeopathy consistently fail to produce results which favor homeopathic intervention. Also: Richard, try these studies for your "made-up" theory. SH may've made this up as you say or he may've been fooling around in his kitchen one day and noticed an effect or whatever but it is irrelevant to modern research studies on this subject now.

I think we've established that a battle of cut-and-paste is going to get us nowhere. There are at least a couple hundred such abstracts -- people should follow the link and search for themselves to get an unbiased listing.

When homeopathic preparations are required to go through to the FDA NDA process, as they should be since they're being administered to patients, I'll feel satisfied that they're receiving proper analysis. Until that time, patients have little to no assurance that what they're receiving as homeopathic preparations are at all reliable or effective. I think it would be interesting to study placebo vs. placebo and see if there is significance to be found when people are treated with identical placebos.

 

[SteveGrenard]

D: Would you like to point out where I have neglected positive evidence or do you just want to make a strawman? I have no bias as to which 'side' I believe - I let the evidence decide that for me.

Well I am glad you do not throw ad hominems like woo woos or kooks around like some people here and I am glad you let the evidence decide it for you. I hope also that the studies cited by myself and pyrrho have led you to conclude that something is going on which will need continued research and which is getting continued research. Er, by the way, even in conventional medicine, studies continue on treatments and medications long after they become approved for one use or another. Therefore, there is no magical end point in how many studies are needed.

D:The burden of proof is on homeopathy. You make the mistake of thnking that those who do not agree with you have done something wrong, i.e. neglected or overlooked the positive evidence.

I agree the burden is on homeopathy to prove itself. The only burden I posited was to those who say there was no proof, no studies that show any positive effect for homeopathy. They are making a positive claim regarding a set of data which they claim does not exist. I have refuted the claim that such data does not exist. In fact so has pyrrho. All the non-benchtop studies cited leave open room for additional clinical research; not there is nothing there, its a fake, its made up, it doesn't work, etc as we have seen sloganed around. Benchtop or lab research is important also but has limited direct clinical relevance. I would like to see them do a study with a petri dish full of bacteria and some dots of blot paper impregnanted with homeopathic remedies touted for bacterial diseases and pure water and see what happens. This in fact is the only point of contention I have with such people. They opine that there are NO studies of hoemoepathic treatment that show positive results. They are, pure and simply, incorrect. They making sweeping , Barnum like statements which simply are not true. They are not strawmen. They are real people whose words are posted above. If you feel I have made you in a strawman, back off...I apologize. There are no strawman in this dialogue. Everything is available for everyone to see.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyr: I think we've established that a battle of cut-and-paste is going to get us nowhere. There are at least a couple hundred such abstracts -- people should follow the link and search for themselves to get an unbiased listing.

Indeed. I have made my point which is that those who say there is nada out there are incorrect. Again, I thank you for opening up the Medline/PubMed files to scrutiny of many of these studies, at least those indexed by Medline recently. This debate has never even been about homeopathy and its validity, its been about skeptical inqiry, critical thinking and open mindedness.

When homeopathic preparations are required to go through to the FDA NDA process, as they should be since they're being administered to patients, I'll feel satisfied that they're receiving proper analysis. Until that time, patients have little to no assurance that what they're receiving as homeopathic preparations are at all reliable or effective. I think it would be interesting to study placebo vs. placebo and see if there is significance to be found when people are treated with identical placebos.

This worries me too. In fact it is of concern for many non regulated over the counter substance sold. The PDR has come out in recent years with companions to its Rx book that covers OTCs and Herbals/Supplements. I am not sure if homeopathic remedies are included in either of these, Ill have to check. And the cynics say homeopathic remedies are nothing more than lactose tablets impregnanted with water and don't need FDA approval, I disagree. Not just the substances themselves, but advertised claims or clinical indications for these substances should require regulatory approval and these should be based on double blind placebo controlled studies.

Giving test subjects identical placebos predictably will result in identical results, and where they are positive can be chalked up to the placebo effect which is a genuine phenomenon according to recent research which has overturned earlier research done in Denmark.

A Google search will bring up the latest + older research

The Scientist :: The Biological Basis of the Placebo Effect, Dec ...
... The Biological Basis of the Placebo Effect. ... Understanding the biological basis
of the placebo effect has potentially wide-ranging implications. ...
www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/dec/research_021209.html - 28k - Aug 30, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

The Scientist :: Bedside Manner a Placebo Effect?, Feb. 10, 2003
... University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine Philadelphia, PA 19104-6048
1. E. Russo, "The biological basis of the placebo effect," The Scientist ...
www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/feb/letters_030210.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.the-scientist.com ]

The Biological Basis of the Placebo Effect
Forensic Psychiatry & Medicine, Product Liability and Toxic Tort. The
Scientist :: The Biological Basis of the Placebo Effect, Dec. 9, 2002. ...
www.forensic-psych.com/articles/ artPlaceboeffect12.02.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

NIH News Release--Workshop (November 19-21)--Leading Experts To ...
... Workshop (November 19-21) — Leading Experts To Explore the Basis
for and Potential Applications of the Placebo Effect. Bethesda ...
www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov2000/nccam-14.htm - 6k - Aug 30, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

What does the placebo effect say about the mind-body dilemma?
... wax and wane 6)The Placebo Effect, good source of general information about the
placebo effect. This argument, with its more biological basis, seems to ...
serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ neuro02/web1/ppujara.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Yahoo! Groups : psychiatry-research Messages : Message 4489 of ...
... Msg #. From: "Ian Pitchford" <ian.pitchford@s...> Date: Sat Dec 7,
2002 10:18 am Subject: The Biological Basis of the Placebo Effect. ...
groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research/ message/4489 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

NIH Guide: ELUCIDATION OF THE UNDERLYING MECHANISMS OF PLACEBO ...
... Also, further exploration of the biological basis of pharmacological
conditioning, as it relates to the placebo effect, is needed. ...
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/ RFA-AT-02-002.html - 45k - Aug 30, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

Putting Placeo in Its Place
... given the ointment and naloxone, which blocks brain receptors for natural opioids,
had no placebo effect at all. That points to placebo's biological basis. ...
www.neuro.jhmi.edu/BrainWaves/Spring2003/placebo.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: an analysis of ...
Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: an analysis of ... Seventy-four percent
of placebo participants and 43 ... the most frequently reported basis for guessing ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3816016&dopt=Abstract - Similar pages

Scientific American: Study Finds Placebo Effect Is Fake (2001)
... The placebo effect may have no scientific basis, according to a study
published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine. ...
www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=000E64BA-E742-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F - 26k -