The Truth About Homeopathy
scienceofhomeopathy.com Double Blind Trial Homeoapthy vs. Prozac ecam.oxfordjournals.org Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?–Results from a long term observational study. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. . www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov HARVARD: The silica hypothesis www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Theoretical and Physical-Chemical Models for Dynamized Systems: Validation Criteria www.springerlink.com Electrical impedance and HV plasma images of high dilutions of sodium chloride. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Water Structure and Science Memory of Water www.lsbu.ac.uk www.lsbu.ac.uk The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy hpathy.com WEBCAST: Preview www.txoptions.com Audio www.txoptions.com Ultradilute Ag-aquasols with extraordinary bactericidal properties: role of the system AgOH2O docserver.ingentaconnect.com PROTECTION OF MICE FROM TULAREMIA INFECTION WITH ULTRA LOW SERIAL AGITATED DILUTIONS PREPARED FROM FRANCISELLA TULAREMIA INFECTED TISSUE www.homeopathy.org CUBA: HOMEOPATHY STOPS EPIDEMIC www.hpathy.com and homeopathyresource.wordpress.com Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood …
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
@Ignat What you suggest has already been done, countless times. That’s how we know it works. You’re arguing the “rationalist” point of view, right? Certainly not the empirical one. No of of course not, you’ve not even considered the difference. How much do YOU remember? Is there some kind of “mechanism” for your memories? Is there a structural change in your brain for them? No, of course not. Time erases all. Even photographs fade. UV destroys clathrates. That is the key. Google it.
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic solution of a fatal poison and give it to an organism, if it dies is that proof? By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don’t see that being addressed at all.
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic solution of a fatal poison and give it to an organism, if it dies is that proof? By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don’t see that being addressed at all.
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic of a fatal poison and give it to an organism. By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don’t see that being addressed at all.
Even John will appreciate this simple fact:
A delusion is impervious to logical argument!
BTW
Why have you disabled the ratings for your video?
Please Google:
Your Friday Dose of Woo: The physics of homeopathy and …
Enjoy!
I am so pleased to see you talking about homeopathy.
You reinforce nicely the case against homeopathy.
I am further encouraged to see that the UK is now leading the way in ridding the world of this ultimate of SCAMS.
Please keep up the good work.
It would be far more convincing if:
1. They used dilutions beyond D23, rather than D3, which contains the “active ingredient” at relatively high levels. More herbalism than homeopathy!
2. They measured actual objective tests, rather than subjective scores. For example, a balance test for vertigo with measurements in seconds.
3. True double blinding were employed.
4. Animal models subjected to the same treatment and quantitative tests perform similar to humans.
@Bandershot
“containing ambra grisea D6, anamirta cocculus D4, conium maculatum D3, and petroleum rectificatum D8.”
These are low dilutions! D3 is 3X, or 1:1,000 dilutions. That’s a millimolar concentration of poison hemlock, containing potent alkaloids!
I also find it funny that you are opposed in a comment below to “petrochemical drugs”. Want to know what petroleum rectificatum is? Refined oil!
Study flaws: No placebo, small population, no quantification, open label.
@C0nc0rdance
I’ve also read the other related papers by this group. They are doing an open-label screening prior to randomization. So, they go through and find people who are responding, then put them in the treatment group. That seems to be very poor design. Can you really call it randomized at that point?
Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):35-41.
“…randomisation at the start of treatment in … ADHD children has a high risk of failure to demonstrate a specific treatment effect…”
Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67.
“At entry to the crossover trial, cognitive performance such as visual global perception, impulsivity and divided attention, had improved significantly under open label treatment (P<0.0001). During the crossover trial, CGI parent-ratings were significantly lower under verum (average 1.67 points) than under placebo (P =0.0479).”
I find this baffling. Are they saying that the placebo outperformed verum?
@Bandershot
“Compared to what?” It can be deeply flawed on its own merits.
We don’t have to choose between two evils, Big Pharma ($640B global) and Big AltMed ($84B global). We can make educated choices about our health. Not all drugs are advisable, and not all alt med is advisable.
How to decide? How about systematic, rigorous evidence of effectiveness? Do you have any third party reviews of homeopathy that demonstrate its clinical effectiveness in rigorous studies?
@C0nc0rdance Now take a look at this: This is a clinical study done pub’d in an AMA journal. Let’s see how you pick this one apart: Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study Weiser et al Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
“therapeutic equivalence between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance.”
@C0nc0rdance The fact that they post what the flaws in their own study could be demonstrates their objectivity. You’re the one that’s making assumptions ad hominem as to what their motives were. And when it comes to science to support your side, you don’t have a thing. What, Shang? A joke! Ernst? He reviews his own crap in meta analysis!
@C0nc0rdance Deeply flawed? Compared to what? Pfizer rec’d the largest fine in history for bribing docts & mktg. untested drugs that have murderous side effects, & you’re trying to tell me that the evidence doesn’t support a medical practice that uses FDA reg’d substances in use for 100 years & is now supported by Nobel laureate scientists & heads of material sciences at top universities? This is making you look foolish, isn’t it?
@Bandershot
Interesting study, but deeply flawed for anything other than marketing purposes. They were honest about it:
“The mean change of the severity ratings after 8 years was large. This may be partly explained by placebo and/or regression to the mean effects that our study was not designed to control. We thus cannot rule out overestimation of the treatment effect.”
The primary problem was heterogeneity. Too many conditions, too many treatments, too diverse a population. No controls
@exposefraud Read rule 11 in the JREF challenge. Randi is the manager of the award. He does it THROUGH JREF. No one else is named as an arbitrator of it. By these rules not even the board of directors of JREF has any say in it. Show me differently, show me where I’m wrong. SHow me where it says who else manages the award.
@C0nc0rdance Read BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413 “How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?–Results from a long term observational study.” Witt CM. CONCLUSION: “PATIENTS WHO SEEK HOMEOPATHIC TREAtMENT ARE LIKELY TO IMPROVE CONSIDERABLY. THESE EFFECTS PERSIST FOR AS LONG AS EIGHT YEARS.
@afielsch Actually just the opposite is true. Meds that make use of synthesized petro chemical compounds can be very toxic . . & profitable. Pfizer recently rec’d the biggest gov’t fine in history because of its illegal acitvities and the deaths that have ensued. But this is a small threat to Pfizer compared to what homeopathy poses to it, because it is inexpensive, safe AND MORE EFFECTIVE. Homeopathy is real medicine and they don’t want you to know it.
@doggyjones You’re repeating exactly what the big money pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. What they don’t want you to know is that homeopathics are not molecular compounds, they’re molecular complexes, hydrates, clathrates, aqueous polymers. So no, you’d don’t find compounds in them, but you do find complexes. See my videos The Homeopathic Molecule and The Mechanism for more explanations and references.
@vlaydros You’re repeating exactly what the big money pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. What they don’t want you to know is that homeopathics are not molecular compounds, they’re molecular complexes, hydrates, clathrates, aqueous polymers. So no, you’d don’t find compounds in them, but you do find complexes. See my videos The Homeopathic Molecule and The Mechanism for more explanations and references.
Spare us just take the money!
“He is the judge jury and executioner of that award”.
How sad that you can’t even get that basic point correct.
BMC Public Health. 2005; 5: 115.
Table 3: Interestingly, p<0.001 for weak belief in homeopathy. Am I reading that correctly that homeopathy only worked for those people with a strong belief in homeopathy? Odd, don’t you think?