Homeopathy: the cover-up!

[Mojo]

Back in the 1930s, the German government commissioned a homoeopath called Fritz Donner to conduct rigorous research into homoeopathy. As mentioned by Edzard Ernst in 2007, and in one of Randi's commentaries in 2001, the results were entirely negative, and the report was never published. At last, a homoeopath has come up with an explanation for the negative results:

It is no wonder that the Nazis were desperate to uncover these amazing homeopathic secrets, and the only way to protect homeopathy and to protect innocent people was for Fritz Donner to find against his own profession.

How else could he keep homeopathy out of Nazi hands?

I'm sorry, but that gets the dog.

 

[Aepervius]

This is so dumb on so many level.... That this made me laugh loudly.

 

[Psiload]

Just imagine the devastation the Nazis could've unleased upon the world if they had gotten their hands on something as powerful as a 50C preparation of Zyklon B!

 

[fls]

I notice our good friend has shown up to make a comment.

However, I hate to say it, but I also find it suspicious that his results were reported as negative. If you follow the links in the article to Donner's prior work in homeopathic research, it is exactly the type of research that should be 'positive' - no controls, most outcomes are assumed to show effect, etc.

A clue may be in what Donner apparently wrote about his research for the Nazis:

"One cannot inform homeopaths about the real nature of homeopathy, nor can one publish it in a homeopathic journal. In the best homeopathic tradition, anyone can come up with the most glaring absurdities and they will be published; by contrast, the fundamentals of an important medicine against diphtheria will never be published and the researcher who works on these sources will be threatened with immediate dismissal.”

It may be that his earlier research reflected his recognition that he had to find positive results and that his latter research was performed more rigorously (he was working with a pharmacist and an internist - maybe he couldn't maintain the charade in front of them). Otherwise, I also find the results suspiciously unexpected.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

However, I hate to say it, but I also find it suspicious that his results were reported as negative. If you follow the links in the article to Donner's prior work in homeopathic research, it is exactly the type of research that should be 'positive' - no controls, most outcomes are assumed to show effect, etc.

A clue may be in what Donner apparently wrote about his research for the Nazis:

"One cannot inform homeopaths about the real nature of homeopathy, nor can one publish it in a homeopathic journal. In the best homeopathic tradition, anyone can come up with the most glaring absurdities and they will be published; by contrast, the fundamentals of an important medicine against diphtheria will never be published and the researcher who works on these sources will be threatened with immediate dismissal.”

It may be that his earlier research reflected his recognition that he had to find positive results and that his latter research was performed more rigorously (he was working with a pharmacist and an internist - maybe he couldn't maintain the charade in front of them). Otherwise, I also find the results suspiciously unexpected.

I've been trying to track down information about the report, but not found much. Ernst states (in the link above) that the report vanished after the war, but cites four articles by Donner. Unfortunately, these are not in a publication I have access to, and also appear to be in German. There's also a reference in the Randi commentary and in a book linked to by Ms. Young, to a translation written by Donner in 1966 being published in "a French journal" in 1969, and a reference to information in a book by Dr. Henri Broch. I haven't managed to track either of these down.

The comment by Donner that he "avoided to the maximum mentioning in my report anything that could have been too fatal to homeopathy" rather suggests that he wasn't trying to "find against his own profession".