"Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy" story

Peanut

"...Researchers have just published what could be the first hard evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support the central idea behind homoeopathy..."

Was in the Herald few days ago and also reported in the Independent online
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=552905

Seems like the trials themselves were done in 2001, but the revised paper is only being published now.
http://www.amhmg.org/Histamin2004.pdf

davros

[stunned silence ]

I wonder if there will be a rush of reputable labs to confirm this paper. It's a real risk to one's scientific career dabbling in this area.

ecksor

davros wrote:

I wonder if there will be a rush of reputable labs to confirm this paper. It's a real risk to one's scientific career dabbling in this area.

Really? If the research is properly conducted then I don't see why it should be. I was asking one doctor about alternative therapies before who put down the lack of useful information about them to the fact that you didn't have large pharmaceutical companies funding research into it as you do with conventional therapies.

sliabh

ecksor wrote:

I was asking one doctor about alternative therapies before who put down the lack of useful information about them to the fact that you didn't have large pharmaceutical companies funding research into it as you do with conventional therapies.

It may be a chicken and egg thing but the reason there has not been extensive research is that basic research shows these ideas are usually baseless.

If there was something to them then the likes of big phara companies who always are interested in making money would be falling over themselves to spend money on research. Even if they can't make money on basic homeopathy then the mechanism by which it works (if it did) could open up other areas of research and lead to new products.

I will get hung fo this one now but
for all it's other sins market based economies are very good at spotting and exploiting opportunities. "Follow the money" is usually a good way to see what is believed to have potential. And the money says this is bunk

ecksor

sliabh wrote:

If there was something to them then the likes of big phara companies who always are interested in making money would be falling over themselves to spend money on research. Even if they can't make money on basic homeopathy then the mechanism by which it works (if it did) could open up other areas of research and lead to new products.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to get into the homeopathy business, which can generate revenue without needing the sorts of trials and studies that someone like the FDA would require?

sliabh wrote:

for all it's other sins market based economies are very good at spotting and exploiting opportunities. "Follow the money" is usually a good way to see what is believed to have potential. And the money says this is bunk

That's not a conclusive argument though, it really just tries to explain the lack of information but you're implying that it implies what the information would be if we had it. I could probably swap the chicken and the egg around and make a case that those economists are reluctant to invest in something with no track record.

sliabh

ecksor wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense just to get into the homeopathy business, which can generate revenue without needing the sorts of trials and studies that someone like the FDA would require?

But not for the pharma companies. Homeopathy is about delivery. The one way in that it is believed to have placebo effectiveness is that the person administering it will sit with the "patient" and provide a sympathetic ear to their problems. It's generally felt that this personal touch is what leads most users of this approach feeling better. And that is not really what a pharma company want's to get into. Besides they can't patent the product or differentiate it from their competitors so they could never build or sustain a market for high priced distilled water

ecksor wrote:

That's not a conclusive argument though, it really just tries to explain the lack of information

I wouldn't say it is. But I am assuming everyone else will point out this is only the third time in 200 years some one has managed to publish a proper peer reviewed paper on this. And we have yet to see the research reproduced. Which in my book means this is bunk.

I was just providing a fresh way of looking at this.

ecksor wrote:

I could probably swap the chicken and the egg around and make a case that those economists are reluctant to invest in something with no track record.

Nah, there always are investors willing to sink money into new, unproven and risky technologies like steam engines, railways, the telegraph, metal ships, wireless, motor cars, powered flight, transistors, computers, the internet, biotechnology and lately nanotechnology.

ecksor

sliabh wrote:

But not for the pharma companies. Homeopathy is about delivery. The one way in that it is believed to have placebo effectiveness is that the person administering it will sit with the "patient" and provide a sympathetic ear to their problems. It's generally felt that this personal touch is what leads most users of this approach feeling better. And that is not really what a pharma company want's to get into. Besides they can't patent the product or differentiate it from their competitors so they could never build or sustain a market for high priced distilled water

Now you appear to be explaining quite well why pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be interested in getting into homeopathy at all for reasons totally apart from the suspected effectiveness of the product, which puts us back to square one.

sliabh wrote:

I was just providing a fresh way of looking at this.

That's cool, I'm just providing my reasons for thinking it doesn't make sense.

sliabh wrote:

Nah, there always are investors willint to sink money into new, unproven and risky technologies like steam engines, railways, the telegraph, metal ships, wireless, motor cars, powered flight, transistors, computers, the internet, biotechnology and lately nanotechnology.

My answer originally was under the assumption that you meant pharmaceutical investment only. In terms of general venture capital, as I said it makes sense just to get into the homeopathy business and make money than try to prove its effectiveness scientifically (especially when you run the risk of debunking it and killing your golden goose). Your point about not being able to patent the product would also appear to support that case.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

Really? If the research is properly conducted then I don't see why it should be.

Quite. But the history of the few papers that have been peer reviewed in the last few decades has been one of failure to replicate, not unlike claims about cold fusion. Let's wait and see if it is replicated. It's interesting but I feel the appropriate position is one of healthy skepticism.

davros

ecksor wrote:

Really? If the research is properly conducted then I don't see why it should be.

Because scientists are human? I presume it's quite normal for experiments to be published and quietly refuted by subsequent trials. But it's pretty brave for a scientist to stick her neck out and publish something that appears to justify homeopathy. It invites a flurry of media attention before the results are in, not to mention bitter attack from fellow scientists.

And when the experiments are not replicated, what do you do? Stand over your results and look like a fanatic or back down and look like a poor experimenter?

Proving the "wrong" result can really follow you around. Ask Benveniste or Fleischmann/Pons.

Poisonwood

'Scuse my bitchy dogmatism but I'll bet my daughter's latest fallen tooth that this is voodoo science. However, it has been published (which btw is neither a necessary nor sufficient criteria for good science) and should be taken seriously. What comes to mind is that when people do this science it hasn't been replicated under stringent conditions. Bienveniste and his team failed and Ennis and her team's results failed to be supported when Horizon repeated it. BTW, I don't agree at all with the idea in the article that the horizon programme was 'trial by media'. Good scientific methodology is good scientific methodology ... the horizon programme followed very exacting procedures that were very transparent. Top scientists were involved and it seemed to go above and beyond normal everyday procedures. Not all peer-reviewed, published material is good (or even adequate)- there are a host of examples ... and one paper is just that - one paper. Let's wait for the substantial number of replicated studies.

BTW, Happy Birthday to me .....

Peanut

When reading about the various homeopathic trials that have been done in the past, a lot of different methodologies have been used.

e.g. Some trials tried to match single homeopathic dilutions to specific diseases, others tried to treat a single complaint but prescribe different homeopathic dilutions based on the entirety of the patient/subject's symptoms (the traditional approach).

Some of these approachs may be more conducive to positive results than the others, certainly it was claimed in the past that trials which replicated the standard homeopathic prescribing model (i.e. patient interviews etc) fared better than the attempts of matching a specific substance to what seemed like a specific complaint.

One interesting thing about this latest paper is that the method described does not seem to mention the sucession or shaking of the solution at each progressive stage of dilution, a pre-requisite for preparation of homeopathic dilutions, although it does appear that the dilutions were prepared using serial dilution with the same quantities of liquids at each step (another requirement in traditional homeopathic preparations).

ecksor

davros wrote:

Because scientists are human? I presume it's quite normal for experiments to be published and quietly refuted by subsequent trials. But it's pretty brave for a scientist to stick her neck out and publish something that appears to justify homeopathy. It invites a flurry of media attention before the results are in, not to mention bitter attack from fellow scientists.

So it's basically some sort of prejudice or snobbery?

davros wrote:

And when the experiments are not replicated, what do you do? Stand over your results and look like a fanatic or back down and look like a poor experimenter?

If such a scenario is quite normal, as you presume above, then you run the risk publishing any results.

davros wrote:

Proving the "wrong" result can really follow you around. Ask Benveniste or Fleischmann/Pons.

I'm not familiar with those I'm afraid, I'll look them up.

Gordon

A friend of a friend of mine is going out with a homeopathic vet. I thought that would only happen in LA.

Myksyk

Gordon wrote:

A friend of mine is going out with a homeopathic vet.

Does that mean he fought in the Thousand Dilutions War?

Peanut

Gordon wrote:

A friend of a friend of mine is going out with a homeopathic vet. I thought that would only happen in LA.

More likely to find one in the UK or Ireland...

davros

ecksor wrote:

So it's basically some sort of prejudice or snobbery?

Perhaps. But there is also competition for funding, the fear of contradiction, clash of personalities... The manner of presentation can be a factor. The late Thomas Gold often got people's backs up by seeming to claim to know more about a field than the experts in that field (obituary).

ecksor wrote:

If such a scenario is quite normal, as you presume above, then you run the risk publishing any results.

Not any results, just those challenging scientific orthodoxy. There is quite a heated debate going on in the letters page in New Scientist at the moment because some guy is claiming to be able to observe photons in wave and particle mode simultaneously and is thus guilty of extreme hubris, pitting himself against Bohr and other gods of quantum physics.

ecksor wrote:

I'm not familiar with those I'm afraid, I'll look them up.

Wired ran a good article on what happened to Pons and Fleischmann and the whole research topic of Cold Fusion after the hype died down.

sliabh

davros wrote:

Proving the "wrong" result can really follow you around. Ask Benveniste or Fleischmann/Pons.

Fleischmann and Pons were guilty of making extraordinary claims without the requisite extraordinary evidence. And they were real sloppy.

There was something interesting happening in their experiments but they went for the most high profile explanation possible "It's Cold Fusion!" even when the basic evidence suggested is wasn't really what was happening - i.e. there was no neutrino emissions.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong, but they got burned for their publicity seeking and bad approach to practicing science.

jawlie

I'm not sure what the form is here for rejuvenating old threads, but I stumbled across this one.

Any fule kno homoeopathy is nonsense and it doesn't take research to realise it. Homoeopaths believe that less is more, ie. what they call the 200th potency is, they claim, much stronger than, say, the more common 6th potency.

If they really believe this, why does it say "take two pills" on the bottle? Why not half a pill, or a tenth of a pill, or even get a friend to wave a pill in the far corner of the room?

Ask a GP how many people who attend his surgery will get well with no intervention from the GP.

Zillah

jawlie wrote:

I'm not sure what the form is here for rejuvenating old threads, but I stumbled across this one.

Holy pointless ressurection batman!

Any fule kno homoeopathy is nonsense and it doesn't take research to realise it. Homoeopaths believe that less is more, ie. what they call the 200th potency is, they claim, much stronger than, say, the more common 6th potency.

While I'd be suprised (stunned beyond belief) if you were wrong, simply declaring it false does not make it so.

If they really believe this, why does it say "take two pills" on the bottle? Why not half a pill, or a tenth of a pill, or even get a friend to wave a pill in the far corner of the room?

Perhaps some research in this area could reveal the answer if there is one to be had.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

...
If they really believe this, why does it say "take two pills" on the bottle? Why not half a pill, or a tenth of a pill, or even get a friend to wave a pill in the far corner of the room?
...

This is a common misconception.
It is not believed that the original substance is the "active ingredient".

If it was, then these arguments would be valid, but the idea is that the water and/or alcohol that is used to coat the pills becomes modified in someway so as to create a new drug, something like a shadow of the original drug.

This is why they indicate that you still need to take more than a tenth of a pill for example.

jawlie

So why , then, do they claim the 30th or 200th potency is much "stronger" than the 6th potency?

Peanut

Just because it has more dilution steps, not really because it has less of the original substance in it (although it will).

A substance having gone through more dilution steps is thought to have a different effect from one having gone through less.
(for what it's worth, the effect is not thought to be linear, but more of a wave type progression as dilutions progress, with peaks and troughs of 'effectiveness')

Simple dilution is not homeopathy. It has to be done in a step-wise manner, with the same volume of dilutant shaken at each step. There are variations on this, but that is the basic hard & fast rule.

(skeptic forum bait ahoy! -)
Because it is done this way, it could introduce a possibility of something happening, as long as there are additional memory or linkage-like properties of the water/alcohol that are not yet understood. If it wasn't done this way, then this would not be possible.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

(skeptic forum bait ahoy! -)
Because it is done this way, it could introduce a possibility of something happening, as long as there are additional memory or linkage-like properties of the water/alcohol that are not yet understood. If it wasn't done this way, then this would not be possible.

From this description, this sounds like a process perfectly suited to double-blind testing. Its curious, therefore, that double-blinded testing is apparently such an obstacle.

Peanut

Perfectly suited? Maybe, maybe not.
If you have the right test setup, then yes!

The awkward thing about repeatability is that you need to have the same working environment for all tests. But in the real world, this is not always possible, especially when you may be unaware of all the factors involved.

When you think you have the same test setup, same subjects, same drugs, same procedure etc., there maybe something different in the test environment that you are unaware of and/or unable to control. It should be clear that this is especially true when the subject is a living thing.

If we do not have a correct test setup for something, then we can't expect to get a definitive answer from such a test.
--

Of course, it's completely fair to say that there is not a good enough theoretical basis, in something like homeopathy, that would tell you how to construct a workable test.

The homeopaths will say that you need to "individualise" a remedy to a patient, that is, select a remedy based on that specific patient, and not just on a major symptom or group of symptoms that might be characteristic of a particular disease.

The problem then is that this process is bordering on artistry and gives little leeway for the rigorous examination of the cause & effect of administering a given remedy/drug.

Now, when a study is done that ignores the above and does not "individualise", the homeopaths will (rightly) say that it was not done according to their rules, and therefore the results are invalid.

So unless some way is found to make the ideas in homeopathy more "testable", any results either way (and there are lots of conflicting studies), should be taken with a grain of salt. (or is that a pill of sugar? )

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

The awkward thing about repeatability is that you need to have the same working environment for all tests.

Not really. Double-blinding is a technique which can be and is used to a stunning degree of accuracy with "conventional" medicine. There are well-established methods to remove the statistical uncertainties from the reality that the actual patients are the only uincontrollable factor not actually being tested.

If a solution should work when preparted one way, but not another, then you double-blind the two preparations and test. If no clear difference is repeatedly found after running across a reasonable population-sample in multiple tests, then there can be no other conclusion other than that the claim is bunk.

But in the real world, this is not always possible, especially when you may be unaware of all the factors involved.

If you're unaware of the factors involved, then its effectively impossible to claim that homeopathy is an effective counter to anything. The best you can say is that it might be effective but it might just be background noise.

When you think you have the same test setup, same subjects, same drugs, same procedure etc., there maybe something different in the test environment that you are unaware of and/or unable to control. It should be clear that this is especially true when the subject is a living thing.

I'm aware of that. The point is, however, that this is a common hurdle for all medical trials. I find it hard to credit that conventional medicine can overcume these difficulties and estabilsh its credentials time after time using double-blinding to great effect, but that when we move to homeopathy, all of a sudden the same techniques become massively more uncertain. Regardless of what is being tested, the uncertainty factors are comparable if not identical....and yet somehow we should believe that with coventional medicine we can get around this but with homeopathy its a different case?

If we do not have a correct test setup for something, then we can't expect to get a definitive answer from such a test.

And yet believers in homeopathy complain about there being some witch-hunt against their beliefs!!!

How does that work exactly?

"Oh...we can't reliably test our claims, and we can't show that it produces any better results than no treatment at all, but we're being victimised by not being treated like a real curative technique".

When homeopathy is treated like a real candidate to be a curative technique, it fails. It makes claims like "the solution only works when prepared in this way", but when it is prepared in that way, it can't be shown to be any more effective than a solution prepared the worng way, or indeed just straightforward unprepared water.

Of course, it's completely fair to say that there is not a good enough theoretical basis, in something like homeopathy, that would tell you how to construct a workable test.

If there is sufficient basis to claim that a technique works, then there is sufficient basis to test the claim that a technique works, unless by "works" we mean "has an effect indistinguishable from background noise"!

The homeopaths will say that you need to "individualise" a remedy to a patient, that is, select a remedy based on that specific patient, and not just on a major symptom or group of symptoms that might be characteristic of a particular disease.

And? Either their technique is distinguishable from randomi background noise, or its not. If the prescriber doesn't know whether he's giving his patient a "solution", a "misprepared-so-it-shouldn't-work solution", a "prepared-to-a-strengh-homeopaths-say-is-ineffective solution" or "plain water", then the same tecnique applied over multiple patients should produce clearly distinguishable results where there is a significant statistical difference in the recovert of patients treated correctly than those who were treated incorrectly.

The problem then is that this process is bordering on artistry

Meaning what? That whether or not the process works is pretty hit-and-miss...to the point that its success-rate is the same as backgrouind noise?

Either it makes a noticeable difference, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. If there is a noticeable difference, then said difference can be noticed.

Now, when a study is done that ignores the above and does not "individualise", the homeopaths will (rightly) say that it was not done according to their rules, and therefore the results are invalid.

And yet the homeopaths are incapable of running a properly double-blinded test themselves?

They can point out what's wrong with the tests, but can't actually run one themselves without those flaws??? Amazing.

<edit to add>
I read up some about the tests the article was originally on about. Interestingly, when the tests were checked, the double-blinding was faulted. New tests with differently-designed tests were run. The pro-homeopathy crew involved were asked if there were problems with the test-design before the tests were run. They could not point to any. The tests failed to show anything, at which point cries of it being a corrupt whitewash victimisation-of-homeopathy began.

How does that work? Why not point out the flaws in the testing scenario before the testing rather than say "no its ok" and then complain about them when the results come out?

More importantly, why not show why non-properly-double-blinded tests should be believed over and above these properly-double-blinded "corrupt" tests???
</edit>

So unless some way is found to make the ideas in homeopathy more "testable",

Make it so the homeopath is doing his job, noting his results, but is doubly-removed from the preparation of what he is prescribing so that he has no way of knowing if its what its claimed to be, a completely falsely-prepared solution, or just "unprepared" water.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

... There are well-established methods to remove the statistical uncertainties from the reality that the actual patients are the only uincontrollable factor not actually being tested.

The textbook 'reality' that the patients are the only variable, however, is not the practical reality.

Even if it were, it still remains by far the most complex changing factor in a given test. Every new person involved is effectively a new test setup. Just imagine that you were testing a drug that only worked on 5% of the population, and within that 5%, the drug would produce a range of effects depending on that particular subject. You would have a hard time producing a conclusive result unless you had a large enough sample size, and the expertise to distinguish the genuine drug effects from other background noise (effectively increasing the required sample size).

Now as to the other variables - There is often a consistent and flagrant disregard for the methodology of preparing the homeopathic drug. You would imagine that, even with a skeptical bias, you should try to adhere as closely as possible to the accepted procedure for the most basic function of all - manufacture. Now, if we are trying to test whether there is an effect that relies on the square power progression of a dilution, then we can comprehensively ruin any chance of seeing this by not ensuring that there's exactly the same quantity of dilutatant at each stage. And while we're at it, why not also ignore the succussion (agitation of solution) at each step, and replace it with centrifuging, or, well.. why not just stirring? After all, there's none of the original substance left, so what should it matter?

And last but by no means least - It's widely accepted amongst homeopaths that certain substances, especially coffee, will neutralise the effect of a homeopathic drug. What is surprising is that, even with such a specific contra-indication, this restriction is rarely if ever mentioned in reports of clinical trials (in the UK, 80% of the adult population drink coffee once a week). Again, if trials do not take major points of the system they are testing into account, then they can hardly have been said to be representative of the effectiveness or not, of such a system.

bonkey wrote:

Regardless of what is being tested, the uncertainty factors are comparable if not identical....and yet somehow we should believe that with coventional medicine we can get around this but with homeopathy its a different case?

The uncertainty factors are not comparable. As I have said above, many tests do not actually test homeopathy, due to failings of basic methodology. The second major flaw is that, most tests do not individualise to the patient.
A comparison would be testing a drug for a specific cancer on the general population. You might see a slight degree of effectiveness, but clearly it would be far less conclusive than testing it on a sample group diagnosed with the condition.

Fair enough, you might think... let the homeopaths prescribe according to individualisation.
Yet when a trial like this does show effectiveness, it is dismissed as either experimenter bias or faulty setup.
Who can win in such a situation? (of course it's to be expected that there will be a % of badly designed setups present in both positive and negative outcome trials)

The third flaw is not taking into account patient behaviour. Any one, or a combination of these three, is enough to
systematically fail a trial.

bonkey wrote:

"Oh...we can't reliably test our claims, and we can't show that it produces any better results than no treatment at all, but we're being victimised by not being treated like a real curative technique".

In your opinion.

bonkey wrote:

When homeopathy is treated like a real candidate to be a curative technique, it fails. It makes claims like "the solution only works when prepared in this way", but when it is prepared in that way, it can't be shown to be any more effective than a solution prepared the worng way, or indeed just straightforward unprepared water.

as above.
When successful results are dismissed out of hand, it can be easy to say "it has failed".

bonkey wrote:

And? Either their technique is distinguishable from randomi background noise, or its not. If the prescriber doesn't know whether he's giving his patient a "solution", a "misprepared-so-it-shouldn't-work solution", a "prepared-to-a-strengh-homeopaths-say-is-ineffective solution" or "plain water", then the same tecnique applied over multiple patients should produce clearly distinguishable results where there is a significant statistical difference in the recovert of patients treated correctly than those who were treated incorrectly.

Agreed, but again, if the test setup is wrong, the sample size is too small/inappropriate for the specific drug, and most of your samples are anti-doting their drugs, then you are absolutely guaranteed inconclusive results.

bonkey wrote:

<edit to add>
I read up some about the tests the article was originally on about. Interestingly, when the tests were checked, the double-blinding was faulted. New tests with differently-designed tests were run. The pro-homeopathy crew involved were asked if there were problems with the test-design before the tests were run. They could not point to any. The tests failed to show anything, at which point cries of it being a corrupt whitewash victimisation-of-homeopathy began.

How does that work? Why not point out the flaws in the testing scenario before the testing rather than say "no its ok" and then complain about them when the results come out?

The original experimenters were comprised of a mixed group. They were not all homeopaths.
And, for sure, they should have realised the criticality of using the correct preparation technique.

jawlie

One thing I have noticed about those who make claims for homoeopathy is that they are full of anecdote and suggestion as to its effectiveness. "You know", the say confidentially "the Queen mother was a great believer in homoeopathy and she live to be over a hundred" or "it works on animals too so it's not just something psychological" and so on and so on.

The fact is that there is appears no rational explanation for it beyond and anecdote, and those companies who make big profits from it choose not want to undertake any kind of double blind study with peer review for one reason only, and that is they are afraid that the results are likely to prove homoeopathy is of dubious benefit. And they know it.

Peanut

I don't think it's fair to say that the homeopathic manufacturers are not interested in research, google the Boiron Institute for example.

Regardless, it's generally not ideal that manufacturers should fund trials, as this leads to inevitable accusations of bias.

This should be the job of independent labs, either academic or clinical, with organisations like the British Homeopathic Association acting on behalf of the industry, disseminating research results (see the Research links on the left, especially the Clinical Research link).
(of course, in the UK, a lot of research is done by the five homeopathic hospitals)

It's up to you on who you choose to believe, but it's certainly not the case that research isn't being done.

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

it's generally not ideal that manufacturers should fund trials, as this leads to inevitable accusations of bias.

This should be the job of independent labs, either academic or clinical, with organisations like the British Homeopathic Association acting on behalf of the industry, disseminating research results (see the Research links on the left, especially the Clinical Research link).
(of course, in the UK, a lot of research is done by the five homeopathic hospitals)

The point about a proper independent clinical double blind trial is that it has to be funded from somewhere. If a company like, for example, brand leader Nelsons, were to have positive, independent, irrefutable proof that their products worked, they would make a fortune. And they have the ability to fund such a study, but choose not to. The reason they choose not to is that they are afraid the results might prove that the claims they do currently make for their products would actually be disproved.

And so they continue to spout their anecdote and pseudo science. This is a quote from their website ( http://www.nelsonshomoeopathy.co.uk/pages/whatis1.shtml ) : " Homeopathic medicines are prescribed individually by the study of the whole person, according to basic temperament and responses" . Yet elsewhere on their website ( http://www.nelsonshomoeopathy.co.uk/pages/products.shtml) they have a whole range of creams and pills, using exactly the same "remedies", which they claim work for anyone, without reference to basic temperament and response.

For example; "Nelsons Coldenza is a homeopathic remedy specifically designed to bring fast, effective relief for the symptoms of cold and flu. For best results take immediately at the onset of flu or the early stages of a cold; keep warm and drink plenty of fluids."

Think about this. They are claiming to have found a cure for the common cold and, apparantly, 'flu. If it were true, it would be worth a fortune and bring huge benefits to millions. Yet they make these claims and, curiously, choose not to fund an independent study to prove their validity, as mentioned above. A mystery!

Peanut wrote:

It's up to you on who you choose to believe, but it's certainly not the case that research isn't being done.

And you are right, it is up to us whether or not we "believe " in homoeopathy, rather like we can choose to believe in ghosts, or God, or the tooth fairy. No one chooses to "believe" that, for example, anti biotics work. We know they do.

Peanut

I think you are right to an extent that they may not get so much involved in research because of the contentious nature of the results.

I doubt that they would be able to prove or disprove anything, if they decided to go down this route. Because there have been numerous contradictory studies done already, it may not add much to the debate. They may have enough funding, but would prefer to use this on promoting their products.

It is also true that the homeopathic prescriptions are meant to be individualised to the patient. However, there are some exceptions to this, especially with something like Arnica, which was thought to have a general affinity for wound healing... So it's a guideline as opposed to a strict rule, but most people who study it would be against that type of non-individualised prescribing.

Re: the common cold, they are specificially not claiming a 'cure' - there are numerous other cold remedies on the market that make similar claims, yet they all provide mostly symptomatic relief, so I don't think there's any contradiction there.

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

Because there have been numerous contradictory studies done already, it may not add much to the debate. They may have enough funding, but would prefer to use this on promoting their products.

I'm sure we would agree that "studies" do not equal independent clinical double blind trials subject to peer review. I mean, either it works and can be measured and observed to work, or else it doesn't and can't.

Bar far the best way they could promote their products would be to have irrefutable proof, beyond doubt, that they actually do work.

Peanut wrote:

Re: the common cold, they are specificially not claiming a 'cure' - there are numerous other cold remedies on the market that make similar claims, yet they all provide mostly symptomatic relief, so I don't think there's any contradiction there.

Again, with the specific example of their remedy for a cold, they claim, on their website, that it ..."is a homeopathic remedy specifically designed to bring fast, effective relief for the symptoms of cold and flu." It may be splitting hairs, but that sounds to me as if they are claiming to cure the "symptoms" of a cold or 'flu, which sounds like a cure for a cold or 'flu. Is symptomatic relief not a cure?

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

I'm sure we would agree that "studies" do not equal independent clinical double blind trials subject to peer review. I mean, either it works and can be measured and observed to work, or else it doesn't and can't.

If only things were so easy
The fact is that there are many variables, a lot of them most likely unknown.

If you are trying to test something, anything, and you seem to have good solid methodologies, yet half of your tests say 'YES' and half say 'NO', I think it's a reasonable indication that you are missing something in the understanding of what you are trying to test. You are assuming that each test setup is invariant, when in reality, it may not be.

Now, people will argue that the 'YES' results are flawed blah blah., but really again that boils down to who you believe, and it's hard not to let a personal bias get in the way here (whether for or against).

jawlie wrote:

Bar far the best way they could promote their products would be to have irrefutable proof, beyond doubt, that they actually do work.

I'm certain it would be!

jawlie wrote:

Again, with the specific example of their remedy for a cold, they claim, on their website, that it ..."is a homeopathic remedy specifically designed to bring fast, effective relief for the symptoms of cold and flu." It may be splitting hairs, but that sounds to me as if they are claiming to cure the "symptoms" of a cold or 'flu, which sounds like a cure for a cold or 'flu. Is symptomatic relief not a cure?

Pretty sure it's not...

jawlie

Peanut wrote:

If only things were so easy
The fact is that there are many variables, a lot of them most likely unknown.

If you are trying to test something, anything, and you seem to have good solid methodologies, yet half of your tests say 'YES' and half say 'NO', I think it's a reasonable indication that you are missing something in the understanding of what you are trying to test. You are assuming that each test setup is invariant, when in reality, it may not be.

Now, people will argue that the 'YES' results are flawed blah blah., but really again that boils down to who you believe, and it's hard not to let a personal bias get in the way here (whether for or against).

I have read this and reread it and can't understand what it is saying, or what the relevance of it is.

The fact is that the homoeopathic industry make claims that their remedies cure disease. So do the makers of many drugs. The difference is that the homoeopathic industry choose not to put their claims to the test, and prefers instead to reply on anecdote and pseudo science.

It is no accident or oversight that they choose not to subject their claims to independent verification.

As we can see from the Nelsons website, they also make contradictory claims for their products. as described earlier, which is unexplained.

It may well be that, for some people. they choose to believe the unproven claims and support the industry's considerable profits, and that is their choice.

I'll leave the last work to James Randie who explains the four principles of homoeopathy on this youtube link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

Regardless, it's generally not ideal that manufacturers should fund trials, as this leads to inevitable accusations of bias.

In scientific circles, accusations of bias only hold up when bias can be shown.

While I would agree that its not ideal, I would also say that manufacturer-funded trials which stand up to scrutiny are vastly preferable to no trials at all. If someone really takes umbrage at the findings, they will fund independant trials.

It is also worth pointing out that manufacturer-funded trials are how erstablished medical science is primarily regulated. It may not be ideal, but its good enough for so-called "conventional" medicine. All thats being asked for homeopathy is that it meet the same standards.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

I have read this and reread it and can't understand what it is saying, or what the relevance of it is.

I'm pointing out that 'double blind trials subject to peer review' are not a type of silver bullet that will automatically resolve a difficult question, especially when the trials yield conflicting results.


I don't really see where this perception that they are afraid of conducting trials is coming from.

You can't compare an outfit like Nelsons with the big pharmaceutical companies, in terms of available funds. There is really no comparison, they are orders of magnitude smaller.

The biggest homeopathic manufacturer is Boiron, who DO fund research -
Their 2007 half-year report is here

"Research was a central issue in the merger between BOIRON and DOLISOS. More than 6 million euros was invested in 2006.
Between 2005 and 2008, investment quadrupled.
The results obtained in recent years provide evidence of the
pharmacological action, efficacy and public health benefits of an increasing
number of homeopathic medicines in a greater range of diseases."
(Page 12 onwards)

Similarly, as mentioned already, the Homeopathic hospitals in the UK also do their own studies.

jawlie wrote:

The fact is that the homoeopathic industry make claims that their remedies cure disease.

I don't think that's entirely correct, and is quite likely responsible for a lot of negative impressions of alternative medicine in general. I don't believe they claim a complete 'cure' so to speak, in fact very few medicines do, outside of things like antibiotics etc. Some companies make exaggerated claims about their products - this does not necessarily mean that their products are ineffective.

re: Randi - a guy approximately as scientific as Uri Geller -

Regardless, he deliberately misrepresents the contribution of Paracelsus for the purposes of his argument. In fact, the realisation of Parcelsus that "substances often considered toxic can be benign or beneficial in small doses" (wikipedia) is the polar opposite to Randi's attribution.

His '3rd rule' is plainly incorrect. A Homeopathically selected remedy may be in a high dilution, but it does not have to be. It can also be a 'macro' dose of a substance.

His entire argument is based upon the false assumption that the original substance is meant to be the 'active ingredient'. It is not.

bonkey wrote:

While I would agree that its not ideal, I would also say that manufacturer-funded trials which stand up to scrutiny are vastly preferable to no trials at all.

I agree with this, but again I can't see where this 'no trials at all' is coming from, it is clearly not the case.

jawlie

It seems that we just are not going to agree on this one.

Peanut wrote:

The biggest homeopathic manufacturer is Boiron, who DO fund research -
Their 2007 half-year report is here

Similarly, as mentioned already, the Homeopathic hospitals in the UK also do their own studies.

I am someone who is skeptical, and I need proof that something works. Merely that a private company, making profits out of homoeopathy, conducts its own "research" is not proof.

It is important to differentiate between proof and belief. Homoeopathy is not proven, although some people do choose to believe it works.

You say of homoeopathy claiming to be able to cure diseases that;

Peanut wrote:

I don't think that's entirely correct, and is quite likely responsible for a lot of negative impressions of alternative medicine in general. I don't believe they claim a complete 'cure' so to speak, in fact very few medicines do, outside of things like antibiotics etc.

If they are not claiming to be able to cure disease, what are they doing?

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

It seems that we just are not going to agree on this one.

Guess not

jawlie wrote:

I am someone who is skeptical, and I need proof that something works.

Me too, however how someone chooses to get that 'proof' depends on the person.

jawlie wrote:

Merely that a private company, making profits out of homoeopathy, conducts its own "research" is not proof.

Ok, well I argued all the relevant points about this. The reality is that there are a wide range of bodies that engage in this research, it's up to you how much you believe them, but I think it's pretty clear that there is research being done across the board. The idea that 'they don't do research because it would show them up as frauds' is bordering on conspiracy theory to be honest.

jawlie wrote:

It is important to differentiate between proof and belief. Homoeopathy is not proven, although some people do choose to believe it works.

No problem with that, many things are believed before they are 'proved', it's often the order of things.

Note that 'proved' is really not as concrete a term as you might think - for example relativity theory is still being tested to this day by satellite launches, it still has not been 'proved' in a strict sense.

jawlie wrote:

If they are not claiming to be able to sure disease, what are they doing?

I can't speak for Nelsons or anyone else as such, but I imagine they are claiming that their products may help with people suffering from some of the conditions/symptoms described.

jawlie

When Uri Geller, who you mentioned, was proved to be a fraud on the Johnny Carson Show, and subsequently elsewhere, there were still those who chose, and still choose, to believe that he had, as he claimed, psychic powers. It is interesting to speculate as to why.

I am open to you, or anyone, producing proof that homoeopathy works. Proof does not mean anecdote or "reports" produced by companies making millions of euros from the homoeopathy industry.

As a footnote, "relativity theory is still being tested to this day by satellite launches" for the simple reason that its the best thing we have come up with to date and, until someone comes up with a better idea, it is generally accepted that it is the best we have.

On the other hand, homoeopathy was founded at a time when conventional medicine applied leeches and drilled holes in the cranium to relieve headache. Conventional medicine has developed beyond comprehension since then, although homoeopathy doesn't seem to have developed its ideas at all.

Anecdoatally, I find that some people believe in homoeopathy for various reasons, but invariable I have yet to see anyone relying on homoeopathy when they contract a serious life and potentially life threatening illness. A mystery.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

Proof does not mean anecdote or "reports" produced by companies making millions of euros from the homoeopathy industry.

To be fair, it could be the latter. What doesn't cut the mustard is companies saying "we've done tests to best practice and shown ...". What cuts the mustard is a full and accurate documentation of the test being made freely available, so that people can evaluate the validity of the claims and re-perform the same test should they so desire.

jawlie

bonkey wrote:

To be fair, it could be the latter. What doesn't cut the mustard is companies saying "we've done tests to best practice and shown ...". What cuts the mustard is a full and accurate documentation of the test being made freely available, so that people can evaluate the validity of the claims and re-perform the same test should they so desire.

Of course it could be, but could be doesn't cut the mustard as proof. While its all very well to have a "could be" to cure a cold or other minor illnesses which will get better if left to their own devices anyhow, imagine someone agreeing to an unproven "could be" for heart disease or for glaucoma, for example, when other treatments are available which have been tried and tested and proved to have a high chance of success.

Anyone must agree that to open any results to be re-performed under controlled conditions by others would be ideal.

Myksyk

Just a note ... science is not in the business of proof (this is a mathematical construct). Science works on probabilities and evidence is accumulated to the point where hunches become hypotheses become theories become accepted scientific 'fact'.

The evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy above and beyond non-specific effects like placebo is esentially non-existent. Even Dr. Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative medicine, says this. It has never been demonstrated to be effective beyond placebo.

The validity of the various theories behind it (all the wishful 'could-be' quantum woo-wooing about water memory somehow initiated through ritual succussion etc) are completely without credibility and amount at best to flights of pseudoscientific fancy. There is not a shred of evidence to support the theoretical claims or even suggest why they might be feasible ... apart from the fact that they needed to come up with some sort of theoretical base for the outrageous chemical and physical claims being made.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

...imagine someone agreeing to an unproven "could be" for heart disease or for glaucoma, for example, when other treatments are available which have been tried and tested and proved to have a high chance of success.

I'm sorry, but when was the last time you saw homeopathy recommended for heart disease?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's hardly the norm.

bonkey wrote:

What cuts the mustard is a full and accurate documentation of the test being made freely available, so that people can evaluate the validity of the claims and re-perform the same test should they so desire.

And these are available. As an example, if you had the funding and expertise, you could do the trial mentioned at the start of this thread yourself, if you so wished.

Myksyk wrote:

The evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy above and beyond non-specific effects like placebo is esentially non-existent.
...It has never been demonstrated to be effective beyond placebo.

I'm sure you're aware of it, but your definition of 'essentially' is where your viewpoint (and mine) comes into effect.

Certain individual trials HAVE demonstrated effectiveness beyond placebo.

Certain meta-analyses of trials HAVE demostrated an effect beyond placebo.

Others HAVEN'T. To state that it has 'never been demonstrated' is a non-neutral viewpoint, as I hardly think that you can invalidate all successful trials without knowing the details about them.

Myksyk wrote:

Even Dr. Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative medicine, says this.

Not a particularly unbiased observer - he is involved in other aspects of complementary medicine and competes directly for funding with homeopaths.

Myksyk wrote:

.. There is not a shred of evidence to support the theoretical claims or even suggest why they might be feasible ... apart from the fact that they needed to come up with some sort of theoretical base for the outrageous chemical and physical claims being made.

The 'outrageousness' of the claims is largely irrelevant if there are well-run studies that show positive results.

I also fail to see what is particularly outrageous about a memory effect, especially since types of physical non-local 'memory effects' have been known about for a long time (Yes, quantum entanglement/teleportation is an example. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities.)

Of course a lot of proposed theories may be wishy-washy, and may have lost credibility through over-enthuasiastic comparisons with established non-local effects.

On the other hand, many critics will indignantly claim that for it to be effective would require "a complete rewrite of the laws of physics" etc.
This is complete rubbish, and is usually due to a lack of understanding that assumes that the original substance is meant to be materially present in the end result.

No doubt IF some theoretical basis was found and verified to an extent, it would represent a large shift in understanding, but my money is that the 'laws of physics' would not have to be completely re-written. They might need to be updated a bit, though.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

Certain individual trials HAVE demonstrated effectiveness beyond placebo.

Certain meta-analyses of trials HAVE demostrated an effect beyond placebo.

Please reference these trials so we can review their quality and reliability.

Not a particularly unbiased observer - he is involved in other aspects of complementary medicine and competes directly for funding with homeopaths.

He's well respected on both sides of the debate. He has assessed the evidence and said there is no evidence of effectiveness.

The 'outrageousness' of the claims is largely irrelevant if there are well-run studies that show positive results.

There aren't. Show me one study which demonstrates that quantum mechanics are at work in homeopathy. Just one will do.

I also fail to see what is particularly outrageous about a memory effect, especially since types of physical non-local 'memory effects' have been known about for a long time (Yes, quantum entanglement/teleportation is an example. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities.)

Please explain how what we know about quantum mechanics translates to the specific claims of homeopathy. We'll have Professor Vic Stenger over in September at the ECSO congress to show how they categorically have no relation. Please feel free to come and tackle him on it.

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

Please reference these trials so we can review their quality and reliability.

The relevant information can be found with a bit of Googling, however I will post references for the sake of argument.

Myksyk wrote:

He's well respected on both sides of the debate. He has assessed the evidence and said there is no evidence of effectiveness.

Perhaps, yet,
This, this and this

indicate that he may not be universally acclaimed.

Myksyk wrote:

There aren't. Show me one study which demonstrates that quantum mechanics are at work in homeopathy. Just one will do.

Funny... I don't remember saying that there was such a thing?
Maybe you've seen one?

Myksyk wrote:

Please explain how what we know about quantum mechanics translates to the specific claims of homeopathy.

I made no such claim, I merely provided it as an example of an action that could be viewed as 'memory-like'.

There are many other systems that display memory like properties, that do not require quantum mechanics. Either way, I am not making a judgement on whether any particular interpretation is correct.

It is clear that if there is a homeopathic effect, then there currently exists no easily testable theoretical outline for it. This does not mean that such a theory may not exist in the future.

Myksyk wrote:

We'll have Professor Vic Stenger over in September at the ECSO congress to show how they categorically have no relation. Please feel free to come and tackle him on it.

Great.

Myksyk

Can I clarify your position for myself ... basically, you believe that when something is diluted out of solution and no longer exists in that solution (a scientific fact) that "somehow" the "memory" of it is maintained and has the ability to effect other physical systems. Is this correct?

You also admit that there is no coherent theory for why this extraordinary claim might be true but "there might be one in the future".
Can you also clarify that this was not Hahnemann's original position. He or his followers had to be told that he was positing an impossible claim (because it contravened a basic law of chemistry) - there could be no infitessimal amount left in the solution ... it was then that the homeopaths rewrote the book to include the whole "water memory" thing.

jawlie

Myksyk, It appears there are two different kinds of people.

Firstly, there are those who want to believe in homoeopathy, and do not need any evidence beyond anecdote and pseudo science to sustain their belief. Indeed, as with many who want to believe, they will often talk up what they view as the successes and ignore the failings which may, inconviently, contradict them. Anecdote and pseudo science are their friends and rigorous questioning and the search for truth are their foes.

Secondly, there are those who think that this is not enough, and want proof that it actually works. Proof beyond anecdote and pseudo science.

It is interesting that many who support homoeopathy ( I am not saying it is true or not true, and I am open to be persuaded with evidence) spend such a lot of time trying to prove how it works, rather than trying to prove if it works.

If you read some of this thread, you will see that it appears Peanut has decided that homoeopathy works, and at the same time seems to resist any attempts to examine or scrutinise this belief. I would have thought if one believed something, one would welcome an opportunity to examine it many times over to prove it to others, and would strive to do that.

Edward de Bono calls this the Intelligence Trap, and says this;

"Unfortunately, many people with a high intelligence actually turn out to be poor thinkers. They get caught in the ‘intelligence trap’, of which there are many aspects. For example, a highly intelligent person may take up a view on a subject and then defend that view (through choice of premises and perception) very ably. The better someone is able to defend a view, the less inclined is that person actually to explore the subject. So the highly intelligent person can get trapped by intelligence, together with our usual sense of logic that you cannot be more right than right, into one point of view. The less intelligent person is less sure of his or her rightness and therefore more free to explore the subject and other points of view.

There is a link here to a more full description of the Intelligence Trap www.thinkingmanagers.com/blog/2005/12/05/edward-de-bono-intelligence-trap.

We all have to decide for ourselves whether it is possible to have a logical or rational discussion with someone stuck in the Intelligence Trap until they decide to get out of it.

Myksyk

I tend to agree Jawlie. There is so little evidence for the theory and practice of homeopathy that you would think the only reasonable position is one of healthy scepticism. We're open to being convinced but at the moment there's absolutely no reason to be so. Certainly the conviction with which some people defend the practice is hard to understand given the entirely flimsy evidence base and the absence of a coherent theory behind it. There are so many questions to which they can only answer "we don't know but maybe one day we will" that I just can't see why they are so convinced.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

..you will see that it appears Peanut has decided that homoeopathy works, and at the same time seems to resist any attempts to examine or scrutinise this belief.

Hi Jawlie, I think if I felt like that, I wouldn't be posting in a Skeptics forum!
You can equally very easily attribute your Intelligence trap to the hardcore skeptical viewpoint.

Myksyk wrote:

Can I clarify your position for myself ... basically, you believe that when something is diluted out of solution and no longer exists in that solution (a scientific fact) that "somehow" the "memory" of it is maintained and has the ability to effect other physical systems. Is this correct?

Yes, my personal opinion is that I am open to that possibility.

Myksyk wrote:

You also admit that there is no coherent theory for why this extraordinary claim might be true but "there might be one in the future".
Can you also clarify that this was not Hahnemann's original position. He or his followers had to be told that he was positing an impossible claim (because it contravened a basic law of chemistry) - there could be no infitessimal amount left in the solution ... it was then that the homeopaths rewrote the book to include the whole "water memory" thing.

I can't give you a reference right now, but I would be fairly sure that Hahnemann was well aware that the dilutions he had started using were well beyond the material dose of the substance. I believe the use of the term 'infinitesimals' to describe these, had started early on in the development of his theories, indicating knowledge of the levels of dilution.

Peanut

I respect people's pursuit of Skepticism as a valid and important part of scientific inquiry - however equally so, the over-application of a Skeptical viewpoint can lead to the very type of blind faith it seeks to overturn.

For example, there have been many claims here along the lines that there is 'no evidence whatsoever of Homeopathy being effective'.

This is quite a more absolutist claim to make than that of uncertainty.

I am not arguing that current research has 'proved' Homeopathy.
Rather, I believe it clearly shows that it remains an open question.

Some meta-analysis results, more to follow:


[*]Kleijnen J., Knipschild P., Riet G., Clinical trials of homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991
"In 1991, a meta-analysis was published which involved the meticulous study of 107 trials. As regards
methods used for the clinical evaluation, the conclusion was clear: "it is wrong to say that homeopathy has
not been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled trials". Among these clinical trials, a
large majority (81 to be exact) has had positive results concerning the efficacy of homeopathic
treatment."



[*]Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al.
Lancet 1997;350:834-43.

"186 clinical studies on homeopathic therapeutics were examined. Among these, they
analyzed 89 trials centered on the study of what they
call "classical homeopathy". This covers trials in
which the prescribing of one or several medicines is
done while remaining as close as possible to the
actual criteria of the therapeutics.

The results "were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo".

The authors point out that the overall quality of their
analyzed trials is very much comparable to the overall
quality of any series of clinical tests concerning a disease
or therapeutic method. They also note that if the
studied trials are segmented by level of quality, this
does not modify the positive outcome of the observed
results in any group."


[*]Report to the European Commission directorate
general XII: science, research and development. Vol 1 (short version). Brussels: European Commission,
1996:16-7.
Report of the Homeopathic Medicine Research Group

"The HMRG report contains an overview of clinical research in homeopathy, and identified 184 controlled clinical trials. They selected the highest quality randomized control trials, which included a total of 2617 patients for a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis resulted in a p-value of 0.000036 indicating that homeopathy is more effective than placebo. The researchers concluded that the "hypothesis that homeopathy has no effect can be rejected with certainty""



[*]Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M., & Boissel, J. P. 2000, "Evidence of clinical efficacy of
homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory
Group", Eur.J.Clin.Pharmacol., vol.. 56, no. 1, pp. 27-33.

"The authors analyzed the 20 trials which all had the
following characteristics: correct randomization, definition
of a specific main criterion, curative interventions.
After eliminating trials where there was not
sufficient data for all of the author-planned statistical
analyses, 17 comparisons were retained for analysis,
corresponding to 15 different publications and 2,001
patients.

Their conclusion - "The number of significant results is probably not due to chance alone.""



[*]Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. British Medical Journal.
1991b;302:316-23.

"It is wrong to say that homeopathy hasnot been evaluated according to the modern method of controlled
trials"

and

"The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a
surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible."



[*]Boiron -
"Our review of 119 randomised peer-reviewed clinical trials (RCTs) of homeopathy to the end of 2005 shows
that 49% show positive results for homeopathy. Only 3% were negative. The remaining 48% were inconclusive, which does not mean negative - it means that we need more research."



[*]The evidence base for homeopathy in the treatment and management of allergic conditions
Faculty of Homeopathy, 2006

"5.1 Thirteen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the peer-reviewed
literature have studied the effect of homeopathy in allergic conditions.
Clinical areas of investigation have been limited to seasonal allergic rhinitis
(11 RCTs) and allergic asthma (two RCTs); 12 of them were placebocontrolled
studies, the other was an equivalence trial.

5.2 Nine of these trials reported statistical analyses in favour of homeopathy,1.9
one found homeopathy to be inferior to placebo,10 and three observed no
significant differences between patient groups.11.13 This overall positive
conclusion from RCTs of homeopathy in allergy has support in the findings of
six systematic reviews.6, 14.18 Summary details of the nine RCTs with positive findings are listed below:

1 Aabel S, Laerum E,Dolvik S,Djupesland P (2000)
Verum group had fewer and less serious symptoms during a certain period of
the birch pollen season. Single-day P values ranged from 0.41 to 0.02, i.e. for
some days the differences between verum and placebo were statistically
significant.

2 Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, et al. (2005)
Significant positive changes from baseline to 4 weeks in the verum group
compared with the placebo group (P = 0.032 for rhino-conjunctivitis symptoms,
P = 0.031 for activity impairment, P = 0.04 for reported health transition).

3 Reilly DT, Taylor MA (1985)
Maximum clinical improvement in verum group in weeks 3 and 4, with
maximum statistical significance in week 3 (P = 0.002). Substantial reduction in average consumption of antihistamine tablets in verum group compared with placebo at that time.

4 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T (1986)
Mean change of VAS scores was .17.2 in verum group and .2.6 mm in placebo
group (P = 0.02). Doctor-assessed scores showed similar reduction: .27.7 in
verum group vs. .12.2 in placebo group (P = 0.05). Use of antihistamines
lower in the verum group than in controls: total 11.2 cf. 19.7 tablets (P = 0.03).

5 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, et al. (1994)
Difference in visual analogue score in favour of homoeopathic immunotherapy
appeared within one week of starting treatment and persisted for up to 8 weeks (P = 0.003). Similar trends in respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests.

6 Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. (2000)
Homeopathy group had significant objective improvement in nasal airflow
compared with placebo group (mean difference 19.8 l/min, 95% CI 10.4 to 29.1
(P = 0.0001).

7 Wiesenauer M, Häussler S, Gaus W (1983)
After observation time of 17 days, Galphimia was more effective than placebo
(P = 0.01). Significant benefit in 34 of 41 (83%) patients in verum group and in 21 of 45 (47%) patients in placebo group; 3 weeks later in 30 of 37 (81%)
patients in verum group, in 20 of 35 (57%) patients in placebo group.

8 Wiesenauer M, Gaus W, Haussler S (1990)
After 5 weeks of treatment, significant improvement of ocular symptoms in 75
of 98 (77%) patients in verum group and 52 of 103 (51%) patients in placebo
group (P < 0.01). Improvement of nasal symptoms: 75 of 98 (77%) patients in
verum group and 48 of 103 (46%) in placebo group (P < 0.01).

9 Weiser M, Gegenheimer LH, Klein P (1999)
Rhino-conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score changed significantly
in the course of treatment. VAS scores increased by 24% in verum group and by 29%. in controls. Global assessments of therapeutic efficacy did not markedly differ with respect to treatments or the rating person. Therapeutic noninferiority of homeopathic vs. cromolyn sodium treatment was demonstrated.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

I believe the use of the term 'infinitesimals' to describe these, had started early on in the development of his theories, indicating knowledge of the levels of dilution.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the difference here, but I always believed that the term (infinitessimal) arose because they were sugegstnig there was a trace amount remaining.

In factm, however, with the amount of dilution which had been done, statistically there shouldn't be even a single molecule left. It was only when this was pointed out (by skeptics) that the discussion went in the direction of quantum effects.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that timeline, even if it is what happened. You can be on the right trail with the wrong assumptions...whats important is that when teh assumptions are shown to be wrong, they are discarded. I would have had more of a problem if the "infinitessimal" argument persisted in somehow suggesting that statistical breakdown was wrong and there would always be a molecule or two remaining.

The problem with quantum-effect arguments for me, however, springs from a different source. The effect of the drugs being used in traditional medicine is biochemical in nature. They work at a molecular level. Quantum effects just don't come into play at those sales.

The idea that when all molecules of the substance have been removed through the appropriate molecular-level process, there is still some molecular-level effect is, simply put, exceptional.

It suggests that not only is there a quantum effect at the molecular level in terms of the efficacy, but that there is also a quantum effect at an even larger scale in terms of how the preparation is prepared.

Alternately, it suggests that molecular biology as we understand it is fundamentally wrong - that what we understand to be the way things work is either completely wrong, or (at the least) that it is one layer too far removed from what's really happening.

Simply put, such exceptional claims should require exceptional evidence before being given credence. THe skeptic's position should be that it is not impossible for these claims to be correct, but until such exceptional evidence is produced, they should not be considered to be "truth".

Peanut wrote:

You can equally very easily attribute your Intelligence trap to the hardcore skeptical viewpoint.

Not so.

The hardcore skeptical viewpoint is that until such times as evidence of sufficient credibility supports a claim, then the claim is not supported.

It is only when you go beyond that to the realms of "I won't believe it even if they do produce the evidence" that you are falling into the Intelligence Trap....but at that point you've already abandoned Skepticism for dogma anyway.

Myksyk

Yes, my personal opinion is that I am open to that possibility.

Even if a 'memory' existed, how would it effect other macro biological systems? What properties are still 'in effect'? Are all properties still remembered? Does the water and sugar also have all the properties of the original substance?

I can't give you a reference right now, but I would be fairly sure that Hahnemann was well aware that the dilutions he had started using were well beyond the material dose of the substance. I believe the use of the term 'infinitesimals' to describe these, had started early on in the development of his theories, indicating knowledge of the levels of dilution.

I don't think this is accurate. Avogadro's work was not common currency until about 20 years after Hanemann's death. I think it is clear from his writing that he assumed there was some level of substance remaining and that he could continue diluting and (in his strange philosophy of things) strenghtening the supposed effect. The motivation to dilute was simply the fact that his 'like cures like' idea was causing toxic effects in people. He found his diluted compounds still had impact (some of which were obviously placebo) and so he went with this. He never tried to assess (and in fairness was probably unaware of) the impacts of the multitude of psychological, perceptual, social and physical factors which we're aware today will impact a good percentage of people in any clinincal setting. He was therefore very open to making errors in assuming causal connections where none existed.

The water memory theory is much more recent, stemming I think from Bienveniste in 1988. He went on to claim that these memories could be transferred thru the internet ... how? well like most of his theories he had no idea.

I think the bottom line here Peanut is that, as Jawlie says, you believe homeopathy works ... probably from personal experience or experience of people you know using it and reporting positive effects. You are unconvinced by the scientific view that it is not possible on the basis of our knowledge of chemistry and physics and no feasible theory to even approach explaining how it could have an effect.

Furthermore you are not convinced by people drawing your attention to the many factors we already know about which can have exactly the effects reported by people who take homeopathic substances and which could explain both the anecdotal and research evidence reported by supporters of the practice. Instead of this you opt favour the future possibility of an extraordinary new theory of chemistry to explain these simple effects.