Homeopathy is everywhere!

[BTox]

From which article?[/B]

Start with the Jacobs study. Of course, you will have to read the entire article, which will require a trip to the library or subscription to the journal of pediatrics.

Yes, I agree..[/B]

Good, then you also agree that 1X, 2X and 3X dilutions are therapeutic and not homeopathic. Gee, I wonder what FDA would do if Merck started selling zimvastatin as a homeopathic remedy. The 10 mg zocor I take they could sell in 1000 mg tablets as zimvastatin 2X. Of course, the efficacy of the product would come from the 6X table salt, not the 2X drug...

I found many sites. Some of which had things for sale with high potency, and some of which had things for sale with lower potency, and a good mix. [/B]

So you found sites that sell homeopathic remedies in 1X, 2X and 3X dilution? I'd like to see them.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Start with the Jacobs study. Of course, you will have to read the entire article, which will require a trip to the library or subscription to the journal of pediatrics.

Oh gee, well then since I am not a medical person, I will have to defer to expert opinion. Sound familiar?

Good, then you also agree that 1X, 2X and 3X dilutions are therapeutic and not homeopathic.

They are used in homeopathic medicines quite often.

So you found sites that sell homeopathic remedies in 1X, 2X and 3X dilution? I'd like to see them.

You can find them yourself. I simply did a Google search for 'homeopathic ingredients 1X', etc, and replaced the 1X by 2X, etc.

Here is one, for example:
http://www.greatestherbsonearth.com/nsp/exercise_energy_vitality.htm

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm still wondering, do you support the use of homeopathy as a currently available option for use in modern medicine?

I personally don't use homeopathic medicine, and I also have a hard time seeing how it could work, however, the medicine is legal, so perhaps there are people that know more about it than I.

So far, all I've seen from advocates is an admission that there are some 'interesting statistics'.

Well, that might be all you've seen, but I think other people have seen some different things.

While we continue to debate this, do you feel that this warrants homeopathy to be used as a drug regiment for various conditions?

I am not a medical person, so I really don't know what grants something the status of a 'medicine' or a 'drug regiment'. I know that a lot of it has been approved by the FDA and other places, and that it is legal.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

No, I'm pretty sure I was.

Claiming that a placebo medicine like homeopathy will give a clinically relevant and statistically significant effect vs true placebo is extraordinary.

Uh, hehe, ok. First, I never said "will give". Second I never said what the medicine itself will do or will not do.

I said that there exist some journal articles out there that have showed statistical significance when testing homeopathy. That is in no way an extraordinary claim.

Otherwise why would there be any debate here?

Because we are on the JREF board maybe?

 

[BTox]

Oh gee, well then since I am not a medical person, I will have to defer to expert opinion. Sound familiar?[/B]

No, not at all familiar. You claim to be a statistician, I am only interested in your opinion as to the validity of the claims made based on the populations used in the study, their stratification and the analysis of the data. Nothing more.

They are used in homeopathic medicines quite often.[/B]

1X, 2X, 3X and 4X dilutions are not used in classic homeopathy at all. If you are going to argue that this is homeopathy, you'll get nowhere. There is no arguement that 1X,2X, 3X or even 4X are biologically active. This has nothing to do with Hahnemannian homeopathy that states only highly diluted remedie are effective.

You can find them yourself. I simply did a Google search for 'homeopathic ingredients 1X', etc, and replaced the 1X by 2X, etc.

Here is one, for example:
http://www.greatestherbsonearth.com/nsp/exercise_energy_vitality.htm [/B]

Ah, your reliance on google searches to gain fodder for arguement has failed you again. This is not homeopathy at all but a consumer product using homeopathic dilution terminology to sidestep FDA regulations! Classical homeopathy does not mix remedies, they only use single remedies at a time, and only highly diluted (which by their theories are high potency).

Here's a suggestion. Learn something about the topic you are promoting and maybe you'll be more successful in your arguements. You appear to have little knowledge about the homeopathy we are talking about here. Read the Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann. Talk to real homeopaths. Look up single remedy sales on the internet by reputable homepathy suppliers. You will not find any remedy lower than 6X. Or here's another suggestion. Go to the site below. Ask Hahnemannian - he is a Hahnemannian physician, or so he claims - on either thread about homeopathy. He's looney as can be, as would be expected from someone who really believes in this nonsense, but he does know about homeopathy. Ask him about the "remedy" you linked above. Ask him if this is classical Hahnemannian homeopathy.



sciforums

 

[Eos of the Eons]

My brother is pretty clueless about anything woo woo. He just lost a girlfriend because he insisted she try homeopathy salt remedy stuff for her gallstones instead of going for surgery.

He's very insistent that it works because his 'friends' say so. His girlfriend told him to stop calling her. That sucks because she's only the 2nd girlfriend he's had in his whole life. He's 32 next month.

I asked him for the name...some wacky name of this lady. Sure enough, I found her on quackwatch claiming that cancers (all them) were caused by ONE parasite.
http://www.lightparty.com/Health/PARASITE.html

All cancers are alike and all are caused by a single parasite (fasciolopsis buskii), the same parasite that also causes HIV and AIDS. If you kill the parasite, the cancer stops immediately and the tissues return to normal. You must have this parasite in order to get cancer or AIDS...

People with propyl alcohol in their body are unable to trap and kill the parasites when they enter the liver and other tissues. Consequently, the parasites multiply and the hatchlings start to make little balls inside themselves, called redia, and they start to reproduce themselves - 40 redia can each make 40 more redia - all from one egg...

If you eat the tiniest bit of benzene, it goes directly to your thymus; rub it on your skin and it will be in your thymus a half minute later. Though your white blood cells eat it up, no tissue can have benzene in it without being damaged - especially the center of your body's immune system

Once the liver or organ is polluted by propyl alcohol or benzene, it is difficult for the body to rid itself of the parasites which allows the parasite to produce millions of eggs right in the body, in the cervix or lungs or anywhere in which the tissue lets them in.

WHAT???

Ugh. I sent him the link on her on the quackery site and all the other ones I had on quackery.

When I had my daughter he was lecturing the nurse about how milk bad products were for the body. He even asked if she used them. She said yes. So he goes on about it again. I told him to shut up.

He's now against drugs of all kinds that are for non-woo woo medicine. He calls them poison. Sigh.

He really is a bit simple. I think his IQ tested around 80-90.

Just tells you how easy it is to convince people who are more simple and not educated in any type of science that homeopathy is the only way to go. I hope he's not mad at me. I've lost a friend because I dare to poison my kids with vaccines (I'm too stupid to be friends with because I'm brainwashed by mainstream medicine). If I lose a brother (even if he is forrest gump in real life) I will be pissed off even more.

I used to think homeopathy was like religion and not too harmful. Well, now I feel homeopathy is like the dark ages-when religion was very harmful.

These b@stards should not be able to use "Doctor" to refer to themselves. Why do they get to anyways? Every homeopath and quack I know calls themselve "Dr." so and so.


By Dr. Hulda Clark, Ph.D., N.D

My brother didn't know she was a homeopath. He assumed she was a medical doctor. I told him she wasn't, but I don't know if he believes me.

People think these whackos are medical doctors and use science in their methods to make sure they are safe and effective. Hmmph.

Generally, as a rule of thumb, you can assume that if parasite killing herbs make you feel better, then you had parasites. Dr. Hulda Clark, Ph.D., N.D., is the author of The Cure For All Cancers and The Cure For HIV and AIDS published by ProMotion Publishing. (800) 231-1776

So, what if you still have cancer after this two month herb therapy hey?? Then what?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Here's more from the web site that had Hulda's claims on it:

http://www.lightparty.com/Health/Health.html

and of course their anti-vaccine forum:

http://www.healthy.net/forums/search.asp?forumName=vaccinationquestion



all i can say is OMG!



No more vaccines...

Yes. There is no danger in stopping vaccines. In fact, severe adverse reactions to a vaccine often occur after the second, third, or fourth dose when previous injections have been well-tolerated. For example, a child may show no signs of reactions to the initial three doses of DTP, but then begin having seizures and develop epilepsy after the fourth dose. Or develop nerve damage after the measles booster at five years old or twelve years old when the first dose caused no apparent reaction. Stopping the vaccine before these events occur is a parent’s only guarantee that their child will not have these devastating reactions.

Questions from parents by Randall Neustaedter OMD, LAc on Wednesday, 30th October 1996

In the only Chapters bookstore in town the only book on vaccines was the one by neustaedter. Sick.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You know, T'ai.. the more you argue with BTox, the dumber you look. BTox really is destroying you, you should quit.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You know, T'ai.. the more you argue with BTox, the dumber you look. BTox really is destroying you, you should quit.

Glad you are being entertained Ken. That is my aim, afterall.

I fail to see how one can be 'destroyed' over opinions. He was talking about "classical" homeopathy, and I was talking about homeopathy in general.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You claim to be a statistician, ...

But I'm not at all familiar with the fancy details of those big medical terms. I'm not a MD you see. You claimed to have familiarity with them, yet we don't see any of your analyses.. You keep avoiding that, and try to turn it around on me. --but I asked you first since you claim the studies are flawed because they are 1. done by homeopaths (irrelevant), and 2. have poor design. So prove it already, sheesh.

1X, 2X, 3X and 4X dilutions are not used in classic homeopathy at all. If you are going to argue that this is homeopathy, you'll get nowhere.

Well, I mentioned "homeopathy" in general. You are the one who is specifically referring to "classical".

Ah, your reliance on google searches to gain fodder for arguement has failed you again. This is not homeopathy at all but a consumer product using homeopathic dilution terminology to sidestep FDA regulations! Classical homeopathy does not mix remedies, ...

See above.

Here's a suggestion. Learn something about the topic you are promoting and maybe you'll be more successful in your arguements. You appear to have little knowledge about the homeopathy we are talking about here.

See above.

Read the Organon of Medicine ...

I am only interested in the current scientific studies.

Ask him if this is classical Hahnemannian homeopathy.

Why don't you do it, then report back, mm'kaay? I'm not interesting in PM-ing your sparring mates on other boards, and I also never stated I was talking about "classical" or "Hahnemannian" homeopathy, now did I?

Thanks for the link though. Some of those forums look interesting.

 

[athon]

I personally don't use homeopathic medicine, and I also have a hard time seeing how it could work, however, the medicine is legal, so perhaps there are people that know more about it than I.

[/b]

Well, that might be all you've seen, but I think other people have seen some different things.



I am not a medical person, so I really don't know what grants something the status of a 'medicine' or a 'drug regiment'. I know that a lot of it has been approved by the FDA and other places, and that it is legal. [/B]

Well, I'm not sure what you need to be able to claim to be a 'medical person', but short of having a degree in medicine, as an ex medical scientist I guess I come close. And while I'm not overly familiar with the FDA's guidelines, I am familiar with Australia's TGA guidelines, which aren't overly strict. Basically, there is a clause that says if something has been used for more than three generations as a therapeutic good, it can be sold as one. To me, that's a mighty big loophole which does not grant anything the status of 'safe and effective drug'.

So I guess by your statement you are offering the 'better people than I have said this, so I will agree with them'. I'm not being condescending or anything - I can see your point. We're taught to believe men in white coats with clipboards since we were knee-high to a grasshopper. It's a common way to act.

But the point is this - as skeptics, we will admit we are wrong when an experiment can performed to the expectations of the hypothesis, and then be replicated by a different team. As believers, there is no 'admitting we're wrong'.

Athon

 

[Quasi]

In the USA, the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act and the 1994 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act esentially say a drug is something where you make a claim and put it on the bottle. Everything else is OK. Further, enforcement is way down. You can sell anything you want and can even attach a pamphlet that says it cures everything and thats OK. Further, many snake oil sellers have been performing marketing research, dress it up to look like scientific research and publish it in trade magazines that look like peer reviewed literature. If you actually read the articles they make ludicrous conclusions based on nonexistant evidence or worse- negative evidence of the phenomena. Even Childrens Hospital in Boston published a 2002 report on children and acupuncture. The criteria for whether it works? One was how many days of school the children missed- a metric determined entirely on the subjective mood of the parent and not the child. The list goes on and on. I have even received an email from the Chiropractic Licensing Board for the state of Massachusetts that said they do not investigate or prosecute individuals who practice Chiropractic Medicine without a license in the state. So go ahead, claim to be a chiropractor and sell sugar pills in a cancer clinic.

 

[Rolfe]

Homoeopathy is marketing.

It got its knees under the table of medicine before science was far enough advanced for the lunacy to be refuted quite as well as it can be today. So we have a bunch of medical believers who recruit other believers and run education courses and brainwash even more believers...

In the UK there is even a Faculty of Homoeopathy which is constituted by Acy of Parliament. The Royal Family think it's all just wonderful, 'cause grandmamma (Good Queen Vicky) swore by it and none of them has had an original thoguht since about 1885 anyway.

It's big money, and the ones with the more expensive suits are making a great deal of it. Even the also rans are doing quite well, what with the need for very long consultations (at a price) and the very very cheap "drugs".

The biggest problem is the bulk of the medical establishment who accede to this. Instead of coming clean and declaring that homoeopaths are a bunch of fraudulent quacks who disgrace the profession and all that water will cure is a thirst, their natural professional politeness intervenes. Medics are brought up to default to a position of supporting a colleague, and generally believing what they say. When you have a bunch of crackpot colleagues backed by said Faculty and Prince Charles to boot, all declaring that the striking effects of this moonshine are just so obvious to them in their clinical experience, its' so much easier to mutter something about keeping an open mind and needing more research.

Let's hear it for evidence based medicine, and the sooner NICE can be persuaded to spend a little time of seeing whether this stuff is worth spending money on (as they do for REAL medicine), the better.

Rolfe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why don't you do it, then report back, mm'kaay? I'm not interesting in PM-ing your sparring mates on other boards, and I also never stated I was talking about "classical" or "Hahnemannian" homeopathy, now did I?

LOL. Now you are changing your definition of homeopathy to include low doses of real medicine. What's next, are you going to include surgery as part of therapeutic touch? What you are doing is dishonest, you should stop. Let's talk about homeopathy if we are talking about homeopathy.

 

[tracer]

You can sell anything you want and can even attach a pamphlet that says it cures everything and thats OK.

Well ... not quite. In the U.S., if your attached pamphlet actually says that it cures something that's a real disease, you can run afoul of the FDA or (more likely) get sued. Instead, you have to couch your claims in indirect language like "Gives you more energy" or "Used in cancer wards nationwide" and include the following disclaimer somewhere in small type:

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

 

[BTox]

But I'm not at all familiar with the fancy details of those big medical terms. I'm not a MD you see. You claimed to have familiarity with them, yet we don't see any of your analyses.. You keep avoiding that, and try to turn it around on me. --but I asked you first since you claim the studies are flawed because they are 1. done by homeopaths (irrelevant), and 2. have poor design. So prove it already, sheesh. [/B]

I claimed to be an MD? Where did I say that? I'm a research chemist, and have stated as such. I'd be glad to post my analysis of homeopathy theory for you. And I never said the studies were flawed because homeopaths conducted them. I was only pointing out that the vast majority of real scientists know there is nothing to homeopathy and ignore it. It's the homeopaths that are desperate to prove it has any value. I wonder why? Regarding poor design, you provided a link to published articles by Jacobs, that btw, are the keystone of homeopathy efficacy evidence as espoused by homeopaths and major manufacturers (like Boiron, who, guess what, sponsored those studies). As rebuttal, I posted several references to letters and a research paper published in the same journal that detail the many flaws in that research. Whether you read them or not is up to you.

Well, I mentioned "homeopathy" in general. You are the one who is specifically referring to "classical".

Why don't you do it, then report back, mm'kaay? I'm not interesting in PM-ing your sparring mates on other boards, and I also never stated I was talking about "classical" or "Hahnemannian" homeopathy, now did I?

Thanks for the link though. Some of those forums look interesting. [/B]

Oops, sorry, can't change the target mid-stream. Classical homeopathy has always been the topic, your ignorance of it is no excuse. Only 6X and greater dilution (higher potency) are considered homeopathic. Nice try, though!

 

[BTox]

I am not a medical person, so I really don't know what grants something the status of a 'medicine' or a 'drug regiment'. I know that a lot of it has been approved by the FDA and other places, and that it is legal. [/B]

Uh oh. Wrong again. Do you really know anything about homeopathy or are you just arguing for it for arguement's sake? I'm thinking it's the latter. Homeopathy is tolerated by FDA due to it's inclusion in the 1938 Food Drug and Cosmetic act. FDA considers homeopathic remedies inocuous and therefor safe, however none have passed the requirements to be approved as therapeutic drugs. Nor are homeopaths subject to licensing, except for a few states. Otherwise, anyone can stick a shingle on their porch, order remedies on the internet and open shop. Scary, huh?

 

[SteveGrenard]

BoTox: I claimed to be an MD? Where did I say that? I'm a research chemist, and have stated as such.

ANS: Truth please. TaiChi did NOT say you were an MD, he said you claim familiarity with them. From your quoted knowledge of pharmacotherapy and drug testing I would have to agree with his assessment.

This is an example of the way the words are changed or manipulated to suit the agency of the rebuttal. Poor form.


BoTox: I'd be glad to post my analysis of homeopathy theory for you. And I never said the studies were flawed because homeopaths conducted them.

ANS: Good.

BoTox: I was only pointing out that the vast majority of real scientists know there is nothing to homeopathy and ignore it.

ANS: Define "real scientist." Is it like "a real man?" or?


BoTox: It's the homeopaths that are desperate to prove it has any value. I wonder why?

ANS: Why? How do you know this? And if so, why shouldn't they be inetersted in proving the worth of a field they espouse? Common sense it seems to me and can be true of anything. Don't you think a surgeon who performs a certain procedure doesn't live each day interested in proving that his procedure works?
Or refining it or finding flaws to correct?



BoTox: Regarding poor design, you provided a link to published articles by Jacobs, that btw, are the keystone of homeopathy efficacy evidence as espoused by homeopaths and major manufacturers (like Boiron, who, guess what, sponsored those studies).


ANS: This is the best of all. Guess who sponsors and spends hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars testing, er, new drugs and new uses for old drugs? The companies who make them. If anyone should do this it should be those who stand to gain. We have heard the counter argument right here that the public purse should not pay for this research and I sort of agree. So now you also criticize that the manufacturer of a product is somehow biased or tainted because they are footing the bill. A double double standard. Its okay for a Roche or Eli Lilly or Schering-Plough to do this and be biased in favor of their product that they spent millions of dollars in R&D, animal studies and human studies but somehow you IMPLY it is not okay for a homeopathic drug company to behave likewise. Why is that BoTox? If we take this specious argument and apply it to allopathic drugs we could find plenty of problems with them as well.


BoTox: As rebuttal, I posted several references to letters and a research paper published in the same journal that detail the many flaws in that research. Whether you read them or not is up
to you.


ANS: Thank you. If there were flaws in a research study then this is reason to identify those flaws, which was done, and then order up more research while plugging those flaws. Sort of
countermands the argument of some that we should fold our tents and go home, there is nothing more to learn.

 

[BTox]

I said that there exist some journal articles out there that have showed statistical significance when testing homeopathy. That is in no way an extraordinary claim.

[/B]

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were claiming that there are well-controlled, randomized clinicals that show a significant and clinically relevant effect with homeopathy. Which, btw, is the standard to which all FDA approved drugs must adhere to. As we know, there are such well-controlled studies on homeopathy, yet they all show nothing more than placebo effect.

So if your only claim is the above, I agree 100%. End of discussion!

 

[BTox]

This is an example of the way the words are changed or manipulated to suit the agency of the rebuttal. Poor form.

Thanks for the critique Steve. I disagree, but nonetheless..

ANS: Why? How do you know this? And if so, why shoudn't they be inetersted in proving the worth of a field they espouse? Common sense it seems to me and can be true of anything. Don't you think a surgeon who performs a certain procedure doesn't live each day interested in proving that his procedure works?

That's the point. They have to prove the worth of their field because everyone else who has tested it finds nothing but the placebo effect.

ANS: This is the best of all. Guess who sponsors and spends hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars testing, er, new drugs and new uses for old drugs? The companies who make them. If anyone should do this it should be those who standf to gain. We have heard the counter argument that the public purse should not pay for this research and I sort of agree. So now you also criticise that the manufacturer of a product is somehow biased or tainted because they are footing the bill. A double double standard. Its okay fir Pfizer or Eli Lilly or Schering-Plough to do this and be biased in favor of their product that they spent millions of dollars in R7D, animal studies and human studies but
somehow you say it is not okay for a homeopathic drug company to behave likewise. Why is that BoTox?

Where did I say the results would be biased or tainted? The difference here is the ethical drug companies adhere to specific clinical testing protocols as required by FDA. They take many years, encompass several years at a cost of millions of dollars. Why should homeopathic companies be able to sponsor shoddily conducted preliminary trials and then use the results as "proof" homeopathy works? Run the same studies as Pfizer and Lily, show real efficacy, and then they have something. Otherwise, they've got nothing.

ANS: Thank you. If there were flaws in a research study then this is reason to identify those flaws, which was done, and then order up more research while plugging those flaws. Sort of
countermands the argument of some that we should fold our tents and go home, there is nothing more to learn.

Nope, the properly conducted studies have been done. Doesn't work any better than placebo.