More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[SYLVESTER1592]

Sorry Gord_in_Toronto, I just quoted the message in the reply. I didn't notice it was your name that showed up in it. I think the original message by JamesGully was constructed like this...

BTW I think we broke our homeopath, then again, maybe he's just busy... but I see we got a new contender.

Welcome to the forum manioberoi, Namasté

Good luck presenting the evidence for your opinions. Please be precise, honest and unbiased in presenting your arguments and you'll be fine. I see Mojo, fls and JJM have already pointed out some problems here...

I agree with Mojo: No spamming please

SYL

 

[manioberoi]

When you ask a rhetorical question you should know the answer. The (formerly respected) Georgetown U Med School has been deeply infiltrated by quacks: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/not_so_stealthily_sneaking_cam_into_the_1.php
Today, it is decending into scientific obscurity.

At this point, you have had plenty of time to provide high-quality (human) clinical data, and I can only conclude you don't have it (i.e., it doesn't exist) for even one homeopathic treatment.

GUMC website's claim has not been challenged by Orac:

"With more than 1,100 physicians, Georgetown University Hospital is the Washington, DC area's most recognized academic teaching hospital, and our clinical services represent one of the largest, most geographically diverse and fully integrated healthcare delivery networks in the area. For 11 years in a row, Georgetown University Hospital has been ranked among the best in the nation by U.S. News and World Report in a number of specialty areas. "

Having been ranked among the best in the nation by U.S. News and World, the charge of quackery made against some in GUMC does not hold.

Would you still like to insist on insinuating that the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA have not been using actual drugs at times?

Orac admits "Another study published in JAMA in 1998 reports that 75 of the 117 participating U.S. medical schools offer CAM elective courses or include CAM topics in required courses. "

Some vote of confidence that for homeopathy and CAM.

The GUMC study published in Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72. PMID: 17101766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] found "This biologic effect was
(i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and
(ii)specific to human prostate cancer."

You might like to admit that there is a fairly high degree of possibility that homeopathy works some of the time.

Before we can go on to other proofs we must get this proof settled one way or the other- amicably.

Regards.

Sarvadaman

 

[JJM]

...

Still you provide no high-quality, definitive, clinical study showing efficacy for any homeopathic remedy, let alone all of their claims.

 

[Pipirr]

Of course not! I would be foolish to try Sabal serrulata alone for prostate cancer unless it is of venereal origin with soft core. Sabal serrulata helps in prostate problems. For cancer of the prostate individualization would lead to teatment with Conium maculatum and other remedies found to be more effective. The cured cases are published, however this forum refuses to accept homeopathic results (individualized) on account of CONTROLS problem!!! I would NOT take chemotherapy till such time as it is proved to be more effective ie in the region of 20 percent cure rate. I would at the present state of the art prefer homeopathy with the 15 to 30 percent cure rate at stages not too advanced, achieved by master homeopaths like Dr AU Ramakrishnan or Dr SK Banerjea.

Thanks, that's an interesting answer. Personally, I would prefer to put my life in the hands of conventional medicine, but you clearly take a different view.

Another question, if you don't mind. Out of interest, what is a 'master homeopath'? It's not a concept with which I am familiar.

If you mean that not all homeopaths are equal, then in what ways are they unequal? What makes one a 'master'?

 

[fls]

Would you be kind enough to quote 100 published research references that support your assertion that "Published research does not support your assertion."?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x

Linda

 

[fls]

Varying levels conceded. But we are talking of ZERO LEVELS in all 17 cases with prolonged conventional treatment - FOLLOWED BY over 50 percent improvement in 6 categories (for 40 to 85 percent of 17 cases) over 6 to 31 months with homeopathic treatment (some conventional teatment also given which had earlier failed to show any result.

What are you talking about?

Linda

 

[fls]

A study with CONTROLS at Georgetown University Medical Center found homeopathic Sabal serrulata to have biologic effect significantly stronger to controls AND specific to human prostate cancer.

"Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72.
Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.
MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was
(i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and
(ii)specific to human prostate cancer.

PMID: 17101766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Gosh. It turns out that if you make 38 separate comparisons, three of them differ at a level of p<0.05. Wow. There's only a 30% chance of finding at least 3 significant differences. Who'd have thunk that something that has a 30% chance of happening would actually happen?

So now if you wish to disprove "that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most (but not all areas of the field of medicine) MOSTLY WITHOUT THE KILLER SIDE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL DOSAGE DRUGS." you would have to prove that homeopathy does not work - as per the universally accepted laws of burden of proof. I do not say that homeopathy always works. Let he who says that homeopathy never works prove it.

I tell you that I have the ability to defy gravity at will using only the power of my mind. Whenever I try to demonstrate this to others, Randi points out how I cheated. I state that maybe this time it was a trick, but you can't prove that it was a trick every time and become quite petulant when you roll your eyes and walk away.

Linda

 

[fls]

"our detailed knowledge of physiology and pharmacology excludes the possibility that it can work" flies in the face of Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center study that " clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was
(i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and
(ii)specific to human prostate cancer." So the burden of proof that homeopathic treatment does not work is indeed on you ( rather Linda) for claiming "our detailed knowledge of physiology and pharmacology excludes the possibility that it can work" because it has been shown that it works - no one has disputed this study.

I dunno. Those results that were significantly different were inconsistent. And none of them would qualify if you adjust the significance levels for multiple comparisons. Plus, the lack of blinding allows bias to creep into the assessments. It's suspicious to me that the signficance testing was done by comparing the active treatments to untreated controls, rather than placebo-treated controls. Especially since the placebo-treated controls were also "significantly different" from the untreated controls.

And again, isolated results, even if accepted as real, do not serve as proof of the underlying idea of homeopathy any more than my demonstration that penicillin treats pneumonia is proof of alfabetopathy.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Gosh. It turns out that if you make 38 separate comparisons, three of them differ at a level of p<0.05. Wow. There's only a 30% chance of finding at least 3 significant differences. Who'd have thunk that something that has a 30% chance of happening would actually happen?

How'd you get 30%? I got 17.5% from 38C3 * 0.05^3 * 0.95^35

Am I missing something?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ahhh...it is so sweet that so many of you miss me.

Well, as I told you, literate homeopaths are rare guests. Unfortunately, homeopaths who make sense are even rarer.

Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty.

I can understand it. That and all the pesky question we ask, which you seem unable to answer.

You claim that the homeopathic doses are too small to have any effect, and yet, you ignore the various basic science and clinical studies that I have referenced, only critiquing a small number of them, and even these critiques are usually inadequate.

James, Dana, or whoever you are: You are referencing old studies that have been picked apart ages ago. I'm sorry, but I for one have better things to do with my time than reiterating all the criticism that have been levelled at those studies over the years.

Do you have any NEW research in favor of homeopathy?

I made reference to a NEW soon-to-be-published study (not theory) using spectoscopic analysis of homeopathic medicines that differentiate one from another and one potency from another (just what YOU requested),

DO forgive us if we wait to comment Roy's article till after it has been published.

... And do forgive us for not holding out breath in the meantime.

I encourage people to review the MANY studies he has done..

Encourage all you will, but this is a debate. We will study subjects as we please, but in a debate, you must provide your arguments and evidence. You cannot just refer people to do a lot of studying. If that is the way we are to "debate" I encourage you to study the multitide of physics, pharmacology, and pathology reports that show that homeopathy cannot work.

I will be the first to acknowledge that good research is very hard, especially on "frontier subjects" in science.

Excuse me: Your claim is that homeopathy can cure real diseases. How hard is it to conduct a clinical trial that confirms that? What is the use of spectography, basophil, rat ileum, etc. etc. studies? None of these provide any conclusive evidence, even in the most positive scenario, all they provide is indirect evidence. Take a group of patients, divide it into two, and make a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized trial, and publish the result. What is so difficult about that?

But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your God, Charles Darwin.

Darwin is nobody's god.

Sometimes study with an N=1 provide important substantiation.

No. Isolated, an N=1 study is meaningless. The situations where such a study can provide useful evidence is if we have an experience base with which to compare. For instance, until the 1920, no type 1 diabetes patient had ever been observed to recover. Thus, when one patient was given insulin, and subsequently recovered, this was significant evidence.

However, the case story you present with Darwin has no such base.

I take great pleasure to telling you a historical fact. Our greatly beloved Charles Darwin not only sought care from a highly respected homeopathic physician,

In Darwin's time, homeopathy had a certain advantage over contemporary mainstream medicine: It is harmless.

Darwin could not have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.

You have no proof of this claim. Darwin was ill, and he recovered. This is all the fact we have.

Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...

From 1837 onwards Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, trembling, and other symptoms

Yada, yada, yada...

Facts:
- Darwin was ill.
- Darwin received various kinds of treatment.
- Darwin recovered from his illness.

Since we have no diagnosis of his illness, we have no way of knowing what the chances were of a natural recovery.

Since we have no detailed account of which treatments he receoved, we can make no assessment of which of them could have influenced his recovery.

There is a word for this kind of accounts: Anecdotes.

And I bet that none of you know about the experiments that Darwin conducted using homeopathic doses.

Do enlighten us, but remember, Darwin is not a medical authority.

I encourage you to do some homework on homeopathy before you respond to this email. Read the research on homeopathy (not just the quackbusters' interpretations on it)

I have done my homework. Now provide your evidence.

and read medical history (one historical FACT: homeopathy gained its greatest popularity in the US and Europe due to the impressive successes that it experienced in the treatment of infectious disease epidemics of the 19th century...any good medical history book confirms this...and yes, a forthcoming writing of mine will provide all of the detailed references...but they are readily available to those who look.

I already explained why those results are not comparable with mainstream medicine of the time, but by all means, let's look at medical history:

Which great results have homeopathy achieved AFTER the 19th century? Which great advantages have been recorded for homeopathy AFTER conventional medicine became science based?

Finally...I cannot help but sense that many (not all) of the people on this list were nerds as kids who were beat-up and/or ridiculed by others.

Ad hominem. We can play that way, if you will: I can't help but sense that all homeopaths I have met are either completely lost in delusions or are rutless quacks who will stop at nothing to keep their lucrative scam alive.

.....Are you sure you wanna do it this way?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well...we're going to a predictably bad start.

Yes. It seems always to go this way with homeopaths. Sometimes you kind of miss the illiterate ones. At least those are FUN.

Once again, you are ignoring the evidence that I present and then choose to bring up other issues

No, we are dismissing your evidence. That's a different thing.

...but to answer those issues, I challenge anyone to read a homeopathic materia medica and compare the symptoms of a medicine with its presently known toxicology. You'll be impressed (or surprised). The only difference is that homeopathic text will provide even greater detail.

EHr, for silica (just to take an example)? But, yes, early homeopaths did indeed record the toxicology of a number of substances. So what? You ARE aware that the foundations of the MM was laid down in the early years of Hahnemann's studies, right? You know, back before he started diluting the substances. So yes, he got the toxiology right on a number of them. Heureka.

As to the question, will a homeopath be able to predict what medicine was used in a proving? Yes and no. If there are an adequate number of provers who give an adequate number of symptoms, a significant number of homeopaths will be able to determine which medicine was proven, except if a strange and rare medicine was used.

Yes? Prove it! There is a million bucks waiting for you. But more importantly, there is the question of your intellectual and scientific honour: Design a valid protocol, do the experiment, publish the results. We will all bow down.

Please stop avoiding the issues presented. Let's keep a focus. Your scientific training should come in handy for this, even though it seems that an unscientific attitudes seems to prevail here. Sad but true.

I'm really hoping that a real dialogue takes place here, not just posturing.

You can help that. Start by not dodging issues. Cut out the ad hominems, silly assertions ("your God Darwin" indeed ), actually answer questions, provide evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, several of us agree on something important: modern physicians are NOT scientists. This is an important point, and I'm glad that we have common ground here.

If you think about it, how many conventional drugs have stood the test of time?

I can think of quite a few.
However, we are discussing homeopathy here. You have just gone into yet another typical fallacy of homeopaths: When you can't defend your own system, attack conventional meds.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the virtues and vices of conventional medicine, but that is NOT the subject of this thread.

As for Mr. Monkey...it seems that you disbelieve in Darwinian thinking because you have not yet evolved and are still asking the same tired and innane questions.

Well, you could quickly put an end to that. Just answer the questions. I mean, how hard is that?

Hans

 

[fls]

How'd you get 30%? I got 17.5% from 38C3 * 0.05^3 * 0.95^35

Am I missing something?

Admittedly, I'm not at home, so I had to use an online calculator and I'm too lazy (or not willing to commit the time to the poster I was replying to) to do it by hand, so I didn't doublecheck the accuracy....

I got 17+% for exactly 3 and 29+% for 3 or more. You will note that I said "at least 3".

Linda

 

[manioberoi]

Thanks, that's an interesting answer. Personally, I would prefer to put my life in the hands of conventional medicine, but you clearly take a different view.

Another question, if you don't mind. Out of interest, what is a 'master homeopath'? It's not a concept with which I am familiar.

If you mean that not all homeopaths are equal, then in what ways are they unequal? What makes one a 'master'?

Some master homeopaths, historical and contemporary are:
Adolph Lippe
Bara Waters
Blair Lewis
Clemens M. F. von Boenninghausen
Constantine Hering
David Little
Douglas Falkner
Farokh J. Master
Frans Vermeulen
George Heinrich Gottlieb Jahr
George Vithoulkas
James Tyler Kent
John Epps, one of Britain's earliest and most well known homeopaths. As an allopath, he had been a frequent contributor to The Lancet. In 1843 his homeopathically treated case of haematemesis was published in the Lancet provoking "an avalanche of letters" which led to the rejection of further homeopathic cases.
Luc De Schepper
Louis Klein
Marion Rood
Massimo Mangialavori
Samuel Hahnemann
Vega Rozenberg



U.S.
Many homeopaths have different initials after their names. These are usually titles awarded by different homeopathic boards and schools. Because homeopathic education and certification in the US have not been standardized yet there are several groups certifying their members. Any certification, of course, speaks only of the particular homeopath's ability to satisfy the particular board's minimum competency requirements and may not reflect the practitioner's true level of mastery.

CTHom
(Certified Trained Homeopath): This is a first level diploma given by ESSH School of Homeopathy in Flagstaff, AZ, to students demonstrating a certain degree of mastery in classical homeopathy.

MHom
(Master Homeopath): second and highest level diploma from the ESSH School of Homeopathy.



U.K.
MFHom
(Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy): Given by the Faculty of Homeopathy, the British equivalent of the AIH, to doctors passing their exam. This title is recognized by medical authorities throughout European Community and other countries having historical ties to the United Kingdom. The Faculty runs a fairly intensive educational program attracting doctors from all over the world.

FFHom
(Fellow of the Faculty of Homeopathy): Awarded to doctors holding the title of MFHom and showing certain extra achievement, particularly in the area of homeopathic education.



India
B.H.M.S.
Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine & Surgery

M.D. (Hom.)
Doctor of Medicine in Homeopathy (Organon of Medicine, Homoeopathic Materia Medica, Repertory, Homoeopathic Pharmacy, Practice of Medicine, Paediatrics and Psychiatry.)

The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973

No. 59 OF 1973

An Act to provide for the constitution of a Central Council of Homoeopathy and maintenance of a Central Register of Homoeopathy and for matters connected therewith.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: -

Preliminary

1.(1)This Act may be called the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, l973.

(2)it extends to the whole of India.

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

14. (1) The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in the Third Schedule shall be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

(2)(a) the Central Council may enter into negotiations with the authority in any State or country outside India, which by the law of such State or country is entrusted with the maintenance of a Register of practitioners of Homoeopathy for settling of a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical qualifications in Homoeopathy, and in pursuance of any such scheme, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Third Schedule so as to include therein any medical qualification which the Central Council has decided should be recognized and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the Third Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be recognized medical qualification only when granted after a specified date.

(b) Where the Council has refused to recommend any medical qualification which has been proposed for recognition by any authority referred to in clause (a) and that authority applies to the Central Government in this behalf, the Central Government, after considering such application and after obtaining from the Council a report, if any, as to the reasons for any such refusal, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that such qualification shall be a recognized medical qualification and the provisions of clause(a) shall apply accordingly.



Homeopaths in Three Major Conventional Hospitals at New Delhi, India.



1. Dr. Suman Niranjan,

Homoeopathic Physician and Consultant.

Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre.

1, Tughlakabad Institutional Area,

Mehrauli Badarpur Road,

New Delhi-110062

E-Mail: info@batrahospitaldelhi.org

+911129958747

+911129958747



2. Dr Rachna Khanna Singh

Homoeopathic Consultant & Lifestyle Management Expert

Escorts Heart Institute & Research Center

New Delhi, India

E-Mail: rachnaksingh@hotmail.com



3. Dr. M. Shahid

BHMS

Hony. Consultant

Department of Homeopathy

SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL

Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060, INDIA

Email: dr_shahid67@hotmail.com

Tel: +911125735205, +911125861463

Fax: +911125861002

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not a proponent of homeopathy but a proponent of better science for better health.

Yes, you are a proponent of homeopathy.

I do believe that if cure is achieved without killer side effects, more horrific than the cure sought for, the cause of scientific cure would be advanced and not retarded.

So do we all.

Can anyone prove that homeopathy does not work?

Basically, you can't prove a negative. The claimant must provide the evidence.

I also cannot prove how homeopathy works. However I can demonstrate that homeopathy works about as often as any other system of medicine in most

This is a self-contradiction. Which is it, can you demonstrate that homeopathy works, or not?

Hans

 

[manioberoi]

Still you provide no high-quality, definitive, clinical study showing efficacy for any homeopathic remedy, let alone all of their claims.

What high quality are you referring to? I do hope not one of these:
"Suit Says Company Promoted Drug in Exam Rooms
By MELODY PETERSEN, New York Times, May 15, 2002

Warner-Lambert also hired two marketing firms to write articles about the unapproved uses of Neurontin and find doctors willing to sign their names to them as authors. According to an invoice from one of the marketing firms, Warner-Lambert agreed to pay the firm $12,000 to write each article and $1,000 to each doctor willing to serve as author.

Other drug companies also use marketing firms to help them ''ghost write'' medical studies, a practice that angers editors of the leading medical journals.

''It is a form of marketing, although it is disguised not to look like marketing,'' said Dr. Frank Davidoff, the former editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine. ''Authors should be authors and should not be signing on to work by someone else, particularly not for money.''
The case details marketing practices that experts say have become standard practice for many pharmaceutical companies as they spend billions of dollars trying to persuade physicians to prescribe their drugs.

It is illegal for a drug company to promote a medicine for uses not approved by the government, though it is not illegal for doctors to prescribe medicines for so-called off-label uses.

One internal memo listed doctors the company considered to be ''movers and shakers,'' including some at prestigious medical schools such as Harvard, Cornell and Columbia. "

 

[manioberoi]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x

Linda

These are both highly controversial studies with no controls / trials and have been adequately countered in various fora.

See the riposte in "Open letter to the editor of The Lancet from the Swiss Association of Homoeopathic Physicians (SVHA)" in Homeopathy. 2006 Jan;95(1):61-2.

 

[manioberoi]

What are you talking about?

Linda

The proper reference is:
"Homeopathy can be an efficient treatment for intractable atopic dermatitis.
Itamura R, Hosoya R. Homeopathic treatment of Japanese patients with intractable atopic dermatitis.
Homeopathy 92 (2): 108-114, Apr 2003.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of intractable atopic dermatitis.

17 patients with this condition were given individualized homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional dermatological therapy for a period varying from 6 months to 31 months. All of the patients had previously been treated with conventional medicine and various psychological interventions but had shown no signs of improvement.

The treatment was evaluated by objective assessments of skin condition and by patients' own perception of their skin, using a 9 point scale.
Over 50% improvement was reported in the following categories: in overall impression and overall skin condition by all patients; in itchiness by 15 patients; in sleep disturbance by 10 patients; in satisfaction with daily life by 9 patients; in fulfilment at work by 7 patients; and in satisfaction with human relations by 10 patients.

Two detailed case studies are reported in this paper."

 

[manioberoi]

Gosh. It turns out that if you make 38 separate comparisons, three of them differ at a level of p<0.05. Wow. There's only a 30% chance of finding at least 3 significant differences. Who'd have thunk that something that has a 30% chance of happening would actually happen?



I tell you that I have the ability to defy gravity at will using only the power of my mind. Whenever I try to demonstrate this to others, Randi points out how I cheated. I state that maybe this time it was a trick, but you can't prove that it was a trick every time and become quite petulant when you roll your eyes and walk away.

Linda

This from the Mayo Clinic is even more confusing - what with drug companies touting the latest 100000 dollars chemotherapy EXTENDING LIFE BY ALL OF 3 MONTHS and making the person so ill that she feels more like a zombie than a thinking person:

"Cancer survival rate A tool to understand your prognosis

Mayo Clinic Last Updated: 05/27/2005


What can't cancer survival rates tell you?
Cancer survival statistics can be frustrating because they can't give specifics about you. ... This can be frustrating and for that reason, some people choose to ignore cancer survival rate statistics.

Survival rates have other limitations. For instance, they can't:
• Give you information about the latest treatments. People used in the latest cancer statistics were diagnosed more than five years ago. The effects of any recent treatment discoveries won't impact survival statistics for at least five years.
• Tell you what treatments to choose. .. For some people, the treatment with the greatest chance for remission is the one they'll choose. But many people figure other factors, such as side effects and the treatment schedule, into their decision.


You might choose to ignore cancer survival rates
It's entirely up to you whether you want to know the survival rates associated with your type and stage of cancer. Because survival rates can't tell you about your situation specifically, you might find the statistics are impersonal and not very helpful.

If you have a very localized cancer and you are using statistics that include many people with a more widespread cancer, then that data may not apply to you.

Tell your doctor if you'd prefer not to pay attention to the numbers. "

Homeopathy is individualized to the case and gentle as well as curative; for life, not just 3 months. All cases of cancer cannot achieve cure with homeopathy; can they with any other system of medicine.?

 

[Mojo]

What high quality are you referring to? I do hope not one of these:
"Suit Says Company Promoted Drug in Exam Rooms
By MELODY PETERSEN, New York Times, May 15, 2002

Warner-Lambert also hired two marketing firms to write articles about the unapproved uses of Neurontin and find doctors willing to sign their names to them as authors. According to an invoice from one of the marketing firms, Warner-Lambert agreed to pay the firm $12,000 to write each article and $1,000 to each doctor willing to serve as author.

Other drug companies also use marketing firms to help them ''ghost write'' medical studies, a practice that angers editors of the leading medical journals.

''It is a form of marketing, although it is disguised not to look like marketing,'' said Dr. Frank Davidoff, the former editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine. ''Authors should be authors and should not be signing on to work by someone else, particularly not for money.''
The case details marketing practices that experts say have become standard practice for many pharmaceutical companies as they spend billions of dollars trying to persuade physicians to prescribe their drugs.

It is illegal for a drug company to promote a medicine for uses not approved by the government, though it is not illegal for doctors to prescribe medicines for so-called off-label uses.

One internal memo listed doctors the company considered to be ''movers and shakers,'' including some at prestigious medical schools such as Harvard, Cornell and Columbia. "

Totally irrelevant to the question of whether homoeopathy works.