Homeopathy Awareness Week?

Ack!

I had forgotten about this. Believe it or not, I had made a note of it on my electronic calendar, so that I could do a post or two about it, but somehow when I did a spring cleaning of my computer address book and calendar a few weeks ago I must have deleted it.

Whenever I read of quackery like this, I'm horrified. You might as well do a rain dance, for all the effect it'll have.

I was going to celebrate after diluting my homeopathy awareness week to 30C, but I only had 6.048 x 10^-25 seconds left. Not even enough time for a sip of beer.

But if you drink homeopathic beer, you can become very, very drunk. It's a lot cheaper too....grab a Bud Light, and dilute serially...

I thought Bud Light was homeopathic beer.

Thanks for scaring the everloving crap out of me, Pal. I wonder how many people actually try this stuff, reaching for the Nux Vomica before they pull out their nitros?

Orac: That would explain the excessive carbonation, all that succussion...

(Sorry for the double post, couldn't help myself.)

Orac, I bow to your wisdom...Bud Light is, in fact homeopathic beer. I may have to find a way to incorporate that into a t shirt or something.

This has to be up there close to "burning stupid" as far as good sayings go.

What's their advice for Anthrax? Wait patiently until your insides liquefy?

Well, if it's HOMEOpathy, the cure would be... MORE ANTHRAX.

Orac! You owe me a new monitor!

*snort* Bud Light *IS* homeopathic beer! *chuckle*

Homeopathic or otherwise, I just take exception to calling bud lite beer.

Wait... If like cures like, then homeopathic beer should make you sober when you're really drunk, shouldn't it? This is confusing.

ancientTechie is confused. Being intoxicated is a desirable state at times, and homeopathy only cures dis-eases, which are a product of undesirable states of mind. Therefore, Bud Light gets you drunk when you want to get drunk and doesn't do jack otherwise.

(The quantities you have to drink might have something to do with this, since only the most persistent will find themselves intoxicated when consuming light beer.)

Nosodes are medicines prepared from products of diseases or diseased tissues of human beings, animals and plants. Sarcodes are medicines prepared from the secretions or healthy tissues including endocrine glands. Typically these are ground and diluted as per homeopathic procedures. The end result is a medication which has a very low concentration that can help activate body's defenses.

Several homeopathic preparations are useful for anthrax. The most important one is perhaps a remedy called anthracinum. Homeopathic practitioners claim that anthracinum can prevent anthrax from infecting human beings.

Anthracinum is prepared by triturating (grinding) the puss from anthrax. It is a very effective prophylactic against anthrax, according to homeopaths. This nosode has a long history. It was made & used during the days of Hahnemann, father of modern homeopathy, by a vet surgeon called Lux.
Homeopaths claim that "anthracinum works like magic. They claim that " if a person just takes a dose (of anthracinum) for two days in succession, he would be immune from anthrax for at least three months."

OK, res ipsa loquitor but please note how similar this appears to the 18 century practice of smallpox inoculation.

What I tell my friends here in Europe about USAian beers is "if you've ever heard of it, it's not beer."

The professor I am stuck TAing for, who believes in Homeopathy, compares drinking alcohol for a headache to homeopathy, maybe she's thinking of BudLight.

I'll have to tell my buddy that only drinks bud light that it's homeopathic beer....:)) I'll personally stick to Guinness and Bass....;)

Gotta love the patients who snobbily declare that they "must run any medication by their homeopathist before trying any medical treatment," and the ones who turn their noses up at medical care, yet come running back to us demanding answers and diagnoses, and are upset when their homeopathic yogurt concoction doesn't cure their rashes...I mean, of course we will still treat those patients, but it's a constant struggle with some of them...

If you "don't have access to a hospital", where the hell are you supposed to get Rhus tox, Arnica and Cactus mother tincture???

Isn't Arnica the real name of Luke's father in Star Wars?

What's a lay skeptic to do about the common and popular confusion between homeopathy and naturopathy? Alties with enough information to be dangerous will cite the similarity between the above homeopathic anthrax treatment and conventional medicine as proof of homeopathy's legitimacy.

As for the MI treatment, I wonder why the camphor to be inhaled from a cloth was not diluted to increase its potency. Also, I'm surprised the homeopathic heart attack treatment didn't include the recommendation to use magic water that has experienced an association with extract of willow bark. (One of the scariest altie suggestions I have seen starts with the conventional medical advice that aspirin should not be given to treat fever in children and teens due to the link with Reye's syndrome, and suggests that parents should use willow bark extract as a "safer" "natural" alternative. In that case, one can only hope that they *are* using a homeopathic preparation that has be diluted to the point where there are no molecules of active substance left.)

Rhus Tox and Arnica... let's see. If you have a journeyman alembic, I think you can combine them to make a good potion of restore mana.

Orac: I raise a dark, heavy glass of homebrew to you, and if I ever get around to making tee shirts with "Bud Light is homeopathic beer", I will find a way to get one to you.

Green Eagle: No, you need a mortar and pestle, but you can skip the alembic since it only reduces negative effects, and we all know that homeopathy cannot have negative effects. A calcinator and retort is essential though, since you want all the beneficial effects you can get from a homeopathic mana potion...</turbogeek>

I find it rather curious that supposedly scientifically minded people, skeptics if you will, periodically go on excursions of near hysteria to attack alternative medicines such as Homeopathy, ignoring research in numerous scientific journals by dedicated researchers AND ignoring the experiences and beneficial results obtained by genuine dedicated Homeopathists many of whom are also MDs.

Why not investigate REAL HOMEOPATHY, instead of the nonsense outlined in the absurd article above and REAL RESEARCH concerning Homeopathy instead of indulging in ridicule and hysterical condemnation? Here, for example (see link below), is a video presentation by Dr. Iris Bell, M.D., Phd, a researcher at the University of Arizona which should prove of interest.
It was presented at a Homeopathy debate and you can see some good anti-Homeopathy presentations in this series too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M

"Pre-Clinical and clinical studies demonstrate that there ARE biological effects of Homeopathic remedies" (Dr. Iris Bell)

Now, if we use our feelings about how curious or unlikely or even how IMPOSSIBLE we feel some phenomena to be, then NO scientific progress is ever going to be made - not in medicine and not anywhere else. I am reminded of the travails of the discoverer of
H. Pylorii as a causative effect in some pyloric ulcers which flew in the face of "official" theory and which was resolute in opposition to his research... UNTIL, that is, he injected himself with the bacteria and then clearly demonstrated that he now had a pyloric ulcer and eventually proved his point.

Skepticism is good but UNREASONING skepticism in the face of the unknown will stop all progress. Science is NOT conducted in the media nor by James Randi and magicians, it is conducted by scientists in laboratories.

In a series of repeated experiments, Madame Ennis, a British pharmacological researcher and herself a homeopathy skeptic, obtained biological results from a substance which seemingly had no molecules of the original substance present to cause such an effect. The experiment was repeated in four other international laboratories with 3 of them getting the same results.

But all we hear, is the "refutation" of this experiment by BBC, by anonymous scientists who did not follow exactly her protocol and then got negative results.

I will say it one last time.
Science by ridicule and unreasoning hysteria will halt all progress. MANY of the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are completely counter intutive and go against our "common sense",
but they are proven and really do happen. Homeopathy awaits the research to either vindicate it or else illustrate the mechanisms of what is or is not happening.
I refer you to Dr. Bell's quote above.

James Pannozzi - thanks for that rousing defence of the scientific method. Unfortunately you have neglected to post a reference to the journal which published Ennis's ground breaking experiments. I would be grateful if you could do that so that we can all read about them.

So, if I understand correctly, quantum mechanics is counter intuitive but it works therefore homeopathy works. And my name is Napoleon Bonaparte!
And I do so like the idea that scientists publish their work on YouTube. So much more entertaining than PubMed.

Obviously James Pannozzi hasn't seen my request for proof of homeopathic efficacy. So once more, here goes:
Provide one incontrovertible example, with proper references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting disease or ailment.
Since every Tom, Dick and Harry Homeopath is making claims for such efficacy, providing that incontrovertible example shouldn't be too difficult.

Scientology helps people! ..i mean Homeopathy.. LOL!

Tools for ground breaking experiments!

Quantum mechanics did seem counterintuitive to the dogma of the day. It, however, holds up to experimentation. The fact that you are reading this on a computer demonstrates its power.

The key here is not whether something is counterintuitive. The key is whether an idea holds up to experimentation. This requires real experiments and real data that, once collected, can be examined by trained skeptics and reproduced.

It is really pretty simple.

James Panozzi - Marshall and Warren did indeed find it difficult at first to convince the medical establishment that H pylorii was the causative organism for gastric ulcers. However, they proceded with a rigourous series of scientific experiments and producted irrefutable evidence, later backed up by otehr observational studies.

Far from being reviled by medical establishment, they were awarded the Nobel Prize. Pretty conclusively showing that even if a theory sounds crazy, if you produce (and, most critically, reproduce) the experimental data, medical knowledge accepts and progresses.

Homeopathy has had over 200 years and still hasn't succeeded in producying anything like the evidence Warren & Marshall generated in a few years.

As the wise man said about American beer: "My God! They've finally found a way to dilute water!"

. . . unless Dr Hahnemann was doing it, in which case we could say that the aqueous properties of water are amplified by adding minute quantities of Oxygen Dihydride (preferably in dessicated form) and doing the mambo with it round the lab.

You know, doesn't the theory of evolution suggest that those who believe in homeopathy will eventually be weeded from the population? Unless...

... homeopathy is TRUE or evolution is FALSE!

OMG! What have I done?

Regarding my comments on Quantum Mechanics - NO, I did not infer that Homeopathy must work because Quantum Mechanics does, both being seemingly counter intuitive. That argument is specious and it was rather condescending to suggest it, if I may say so.

Regarding the person who asked for the cite of the Ennis experiment here it is:
"Inflammation Research"(vol 53, p181). Note that Ennis does not purport to say that this experiment proves Homeopathy or anything of the sort - all it seems to do is indicate biological activity of basophils from an ultra-dilute substance which no longer contains any molecules of the histamine stimulant. This is one of the areas of contention in the controversy over the mechanism of Homeopathy.

Again, I have never used Homeopathy and do not know that it works - all I DO know is that unreasoning hysteria and violations of your "common sense" are insufficient grounds to stop ALL research on an entire field of medicine.

In the case of other heavily criticized research, such as the case of the pyloric ulcer research, UNREASONING SKEPTICISM very nearly blocked funding and kept the discovery from happening.

I would suggest we ABANDON media campaigns against Homeopathy (the Lancet's "End of Homeopathy" (sic) issue comes to mind, along with Goldacre's ridicule of a woman with no medical training who dared to express a positive personal experience with a Homeopathic remedy) and start letting the REAL RESEARCHERS have a go at this.

You want crazy theories that go against common "sense" then I offer the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics. I however skeptical, am willing to wait and let the researchers validate or deny that one and I believe that is the proper course for Homeopathy. Homeopathic journals are filled with research from perfectly well qualified researchers - let us let them do their job and they themselves well admit if what they are doing presents positive or negative results.

Here is a link to the scientific articles referenced by Dr. Bell in her interesting talk:
Homeopathy Research Evidence Base: References

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173

Thanks
JP

Um, James? The researchers have looked into homeopathy. Guess what? It doesn't work. In trial after trial after trial, it does exactly what we would expect distilled water to do... absolutely nothing.

It is time to let it go, and spend our scarce research dollars on something that does have some promise.

Sorry, buddy, but you are just in the wrong century.

How come Avogadro Denialism gets a week while HIV Denialism only gets a day?

April 23rd is Rethinking AIDS Day

Response to LanceR:

You are correct that there are plenty of studies indicating Homeopathy negative results.
No problem there. There IS a problem, however, when people so infuriated by the ideas of Homeopathy place ALL emphasis on the negative results trials
and FORGET to mention, or even bother to look if there were any trials with POSITIVE results, including double blinded placebo ones (which may not even be appropriate for Homeopathy testing). There are many.

Shall we abandon all of modern pharmacology and give up pharmacological research because of some negative results? Could it all be a sham? I don't think so and I don't think you do either. Then please don't offer that same arguement towards Homeopathy.

In the famous 2005 Lancet "End" (sic) of Homeopathy issue, a major scientific journal of long standing repute was used as a tool of scientific research assassination, casting aspersions on Homeopathy by overemphasizing negative results and IGNORING positive results. The correct title of the ANONYMOUS editorial in Lancet should have been "The End of Scientific Research"?
because that is exactly what will happen if prejudice and violations of your perceived "common" sense are allowed precedence over scientific experimentation.

Ennis said it best when she remarked something to the effect that the results she obtained were unexplainable and she asked researchers to repeat and confirm her experiments, which are peripherally related to possible mechanisms of Homeopathy.

Meanwhile, in case you did not have an opportunity to check out Dr. Bell's research link,
I post a sampling of the papers here which include double blind randomized studies of Homeopathy with positive results. There are many more.

Homeopathy Research Evidence Base: References

Iris R. Bell, MD PhD
The University of Arizona College of Medicine

Aickin M. The end of biomedical journals: there is madness in their
methods. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2005; 11 (5):
755-7.

Aickin M. Participant-centered analysis in complementary and
alternative medicine comparative trials. J Alternative & Complementary
Medicine 2003; 9 (6):949-57.

Aickin M. Separation tests for early-phase CAM comparative trials.
Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine 2004; 1 (4):225-31.

Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn T.E.R., Ludtke, R., Willich, S.N. Quality
assessment of physical research in homeopathy. Journal of Alternative
& Complementary Medicine 2003; 9 (1):113-32.

Bell IR. All evidence is equal, but some evidence is more equal than
others: can logic prevail over emotion in the homeopathy debate? J
Altern Complement Med. 2005; 11 (5):763-9.

Bell IR. Evidence-based homeopathy: empirical questions and
methodological considerations for homeopathic clinical research.
American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine 2003; 96 (1):17-31.

Bell IR, Baldwin CM, Schwartz GE. Translating a nonlinear systems
theory model for homeopathy into empirical tests. Alternative
Therapies in Health & Medicine. 2002a; 8 (3):58-66.

Bell IR, Caspi O, Schwartz GE et al. Integrative medicine and systemic
outcomes research: issues in the emergence of a new model for primary
health care. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002b; 162 (2):133-40.

Bell IR, Koithan M. Models for the study of whole systems. Integrative
Cancer Therapies 2006; 5 (4):293-307.

Bell IR, Lewis DA, 2nd, Brooks AJ et al. Individual differences in
response to randomly assigned active individualized homeopathic and
placebo treatment in fibromyalgia: implications of a double-blinded
optional crossover design. Journal of Alternative & Complementary
Medicine 2004a; 10 (2):269-83.

Bell IR, Lewis DA, 2nd, Brooks AJ et al. Improved clinical status in
fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies
versus placebo. Rheumatology 2004b; 43 (5):577-82.

Bell IR, Lewis DA, 2nd, Lewis SE et al. EEG alpha sensitization in
individualized homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. International
Journal of Neuroscience 2004c; 114 (9):1195-220.

Bell IR, Lewis DAI, Schwartz GE et al. Electroencephalographic
cordance patterns distinguish exceptional clinical responders with
fibromyalgia to individualized homeopathic medicines. J Alternative &
Complementary Medicine 2004d; 10 (2):285-99.

Bell IR, Walsh, M., Russek, L.G.S., Schwartz, G.E.R. Proposed
applications of conventional research concepts and tools to
homeopathic clinical research. Journal of the American Institute of
Homeopathy 1999; 92 (3):111-28.

Bellavite P. Complexity science and homeopathy: a synthetic overview.
Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 2003; 92 (4):
203-12.
Bellavite P, Conforti A, Pontarollo F et al. Immunology and
homeopathy. 2. Cells of the immune system and inflammation. Evid Based
Complement Alternat Med 2006; 3 (1):13-24.

Bellavite P, Signorini, A. The Emerging Science of Homeopathy.
Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology. 2nd ed. Berkeley: North
Atlantic Books; 2002. 408 pp. p.

Bertani S, Lussignoli S, Andrioli G et al. Dual effects of a
homeopathic mineral complex on carrageenan-induced oedema in rats.
British Homoeopathic Journal 1999; 88 (3):101-5.

Betti L, Lazzarato L, Trebbi G et al. Effects of homeopathic arsenic
on tobacco plant resistance to tobacco mosaic virus. Theoretical
suggestions about system variability, based on a large experimental
data set. Homeopathy 2003; 92 (4):195-202.

Bikker AP, Mercer SW, Reilly D. A pilot prospective study on the
consultation and relational empathy, patient enablement, and health
changes over 12 months in patients going to the Glasgow Homoeopathic
Hospital. J Altern Complement Med. 2005; 11 (4):591-600.

Biswas SJ, Pathak S, Bhattacharjee N et al. Efficacy of the potentized
homeopathic drug, Carcinosin 200, fed alone and in combination with
another drug, Chelidonium 200, in amelioration of p-
dimethylaminoazobenzene-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. J Altern
Complement Med 2005; 11 (5):839-54.

Bootzin RR, Bailey ET. Understanding placebo, nocebo, and iatrogenic
treatment effects. J Clin Psychology 2005; 61 (7):871-80.

Brizzi M, Lazzarato L, Nani D et al. A biostatistical insight into the
As(2)O(3) high dilution effects on the rate and variability of wheat
seedling growth. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005; 12 (5):
277-83.

Caspi O, Bell IR. One size does not fit all: aptitude-treatment
interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for outcome research. Part
I. What is ATI research? Journal of Alternative & Complementary
Medicine 2004a; 10 (3):580-6.

Caspi O, Bell IR. One size does not fit all: aptitude-treatment
interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for outcome research. Part
II. Research designs and their application. . Journal of Alternative
and Complementary Medicine. 2004b; 10 (4):698-705.

Caulfield T, DeBow S. A systematic review of how homeopathy is
represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals. BMC
Complement Altern Med. 2005; 5 (1):12.

Chaplin MF. The Memory of Water: an overview. Homeopathy. 2007; 96 (3):
143-50

Chapman EH, Weintraub RJ, Milburn MA et al. Homeopathic treatment of
mild traumatic brain injury: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled clinical trial. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1999;
14 (6):521-42.

Coffey DS. Self-organization, complexity, and chaos: the new biology
for medicine. Nature Medicine. 1998; 4 (8):882-5.

Conforti A, Bellavite P, Bertani S et al. Rat models of acute
inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of
homeopathic remedies. BMC Complement Altern Med 2007; 7:1.

Dean ME, Coulter MK, Fisher P et al. Reporting data on homeopathic
treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT. J Altern Complement Med
2007; 13 (1):19-23.

Eizayaga FX, Aguejouf O, Belon P et al. Platelet aggregation in portal
hypertension and its modification by ultra-low doses of aspirin.
Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2005; 34 (1):29-34.

Eizayaga FX, Aguejouf O, Desplat V et al. Modifications produced by
indomethacin and L-NAME in the effect of ultralow-dose aspirin on
platelet activity in portal hypertension. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb
2006; 35 (5):357-63.

Elia V, Napoli E, Germano R. The 'Memory of Water': an almost
deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous
solutions. Homeopathy. 2007; 96 (3):163-9.

Elia V, Niccoli, M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely
diluted aqueous solutions. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
2004; 75:815-36.

Elia V, Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous
solutions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999; 879:241-8.

Endler PC, Pongratz W, Kastberger G et al. The effect of highly
diluted agitated thyroxine on the climbing activity of frogs. Vet Hum
Toxicol 1994; 36 (1):56-9.

Endler PC, Pongratz W, Smith CW et al. Non-molecular information
transfer from thyroxine to frogs with regard to homeopathic
toxicology. Veterinary & Human Toxicology. 1995; 37 (3):259-60.

Endler PC, Pongratz, W., van Wijk, R., Wiegant, F.A.C., Waltl, K.,
Gehrer, M., Hilgers, H. A zoological example on ultra high dilution
research. Energetic coupling between the dilution and the organism in
a model of amphibia. In: PC Endler, Schulte, J., editor, translator
and editor Ultra High Dilution. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1994; p. 39-68.

Fisher P. Homeopathy and The Lancet. Evid Based Complement Alternat
Med 2006; 3 (1):145-7.

Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K et al. Randomised controlled trials of
homeopathy in hyperactive children: treatment procedure leads to an
unconventional study design Experience with open-label homeopathic
treatment preceding the Swiss ADHD placebo controlled, randomised,
double-blind, cross-over trial. Homeopathy 2007; 96 (1):35-41.

Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF,
Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A.
Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover
trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005; 164 (12):758-67.

Frei H, Thurneysen A, von Ammon K. Methodological difficulties in
homeopathic treatment of children with ADD/ADHD. J Altern Complement
Med 2006a; 12 (2):104; author reply

Frei H, Thurneysen A. Treatment for hyperactive children: homeopathy
and methylphenidate compared in a family setting. British Homoeopathic
Journal 2001; 90 (4):183-8.

James,

Pay attention. Double blinded placebo studies are the ONLY evidence that is acceptable. This is how science works.

A list of homeopathic journals, and one professor repeated does not evidence make. There is nothing so idiotic that I cannot find a dozen websites and magazines devoted to it.

An "anonymous" editorial is not anonymous. It is the editor(s) of the paper/magazine/journal speaking editorially on behalf of the paper as a whole.

Again, homeopathy has been tested. It has failed. Repeatedly. That you cannot accept that places you firmly in the denialist camp. It is time to stop wasting money with distilled water and start studying actual science.

James Panozzi, you posted 44 references.

Out of those I found 5 placebo controlled trials:

Bell et al, J Altern Complement Med. 2004 Apr;10(2):269-83
Bell et al, Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004 May;43(5):577-82
Bell et al, Int J Neurosci. 2004 Sep;114(9):1195-220
Bell et al, J Altern Complement Med. April 1, 2004, 10(2): 285-299.
Chapman et al, J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1999 Dec;14(6):521-42

Five out of a list of 44,

They showed small sample sizes, small effects and marginal statistical significance. Most of them had all three.

I completely fail to understand why you should post that list. The only thing it shows is that homeopaths haven't been able to produce any definitive evidence of their remedies curing anything.

I can only assume that you haven't bothered to read the papers that you cite.

If you, or other homeopaths, want other people to take you seriously then please read and understand the papers you advocate. Otherwise you will continue to reinforce the impression that you rely upon faith rather than evidence.

LanceR - I slightly disagree with you. A DBRCT in its self doesn#t tell us much. We need to define the type and standard of the trial. The problem is that if you do enough methodologically weak trials with small sample sizes you are going to get a p value of circa 0.05 sooner or later, just by random chance abetted by poor experimental design.

I suggest that the DBPCTs need to to be large n, have impressive statistical significance and effects and above all be independently replicated. This is of course the standard that applies to any other medicinal drug (no one is going to license a new pharmaceutical treatment after one trial of 30 people with a p value of 0.04), I don't see why homeopathy should have a lower bar.

Gentlemen:

I understand your skepticism and fully appreciate your comments regarding the paucity of double blind Homeopathy tests with positive results.

Please note, I am NOT a Homeopathist, and am only currently reading about it to learn more because my main interest is the utilization of Herbs, particularly Chinese Herbology. I have never tried a high dilution Homeopathic dose and do not know if works.

The intent of my comments was to protest what was, in my opinion, unreasoning hysteria against Homeopathy, ridicule and innuendo which emphasized its obvious failures but failed to address its numerous successes.

You are free to search the Homeopathy journals for the results, positive and negative and to draw conclusions from what you find. I need not name them or provide links, they are well known and easily found. Attacking the researchers, the vast majority of which are fully qualified and who are probably risking their careers to even do the research will NOT impress me.

I have taken up enough space with my humble opinions and have raised my hand symbolically to remind everyone that science must proceed by the most dedicated, careful and astute observations, experimentations and repetitions carried out openly, without a spirit of malice, by cooperating dedicated researchers across the globe.

To forget this, even if Homeopathy turns out to be the chimera some of you claim, is to doom all of science to well organized media campaigns and abolition of research because of political incorrectness or because some malcontents in a related discipline resent the incursion of "upstarts".

Thanks for hearing my opinion.
JP

Okay, James... I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now I KNOW you're just a liar.

We've gone over this a thousand times with a thousand dimwits. Homeopathy is bunk. It is distilled water with "magic properties". Anyone with a brain can see that.

The lie that this is somehow shutting off future research is not only false, but is getting very old. Funneling money into thousand-year-old bullsh*t like homeopathy harms other research. Idiots like you harm other research. Dropping useless lines of inquiry and investing scarce resources into TRULY new lines of research is GOOD for science.

For pete's sake, crack a freaking book before you expose your ignorance again.

To echo what Lance said, despite the physical impossibility and ridiculous premise of homeopathy, it has been studied and invalidated. Any further research is foolishness at this point.

Let's put it this way---homeopathy is simply something some guy in the 19th century made up. It's that simple. There is no more reason to think it makes effective medicine than if I said my nose hair clippings are magical and can cure gallstones.

LanceR and PalMD:

Gentlemen: You are welcome to STRONG opposition of Homeopathy. I feel about the same with regards to the "Many Worlds" theory of Quantum Mechanics. But there is one BIG difference between our respective oppositions. I DO NOT run around ridiculing physicists who espouse the "many worlds" theory and do not scream that all research related to it should end because it is obvious nonsense. I well know that I am unqualified to to make such a determination both in physics AND, you have forced me to reiterate, in Homeopathy.

Neither do I find it necessary, my dear LanceR, to call them liars no matter how absurd I find this crazy theory. So MORE research is required, JUST as in Homeopathy.

Again and again I hear unreasoning attacks on Homeopathy and other alternative medicine. Those among you that are physicians and MD's will be confronted with patients who will not respond to conventional treatment but will to some or other alternative modality. How YOU respond to the unknown, embrace it, accept it and utilize it... or REJECT it and allow your patient to suffer is YOUR choice.

I conclude with mention of an excellent book I am reading, "The Science of Homeopathy" by Dr. George Vithoulkas who believes that Homeopathy IS a science and who is opposed to the "water memory" theory.

Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion...
you can go ahead and call me a liar again LanceR, I will not respond.

JP

You may want to see http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
and
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
before you go any further, James. Lies do not become truth simply because you want them to be true.

James great work. Well written and well argued.
You wrote:
Science by ridicule and unreasoning hysteria will halt all progress.
Well said.
The guys on this blog are an "all things unproven are wrong" mind set. They have plenty of ridicule and plenty of unreasoning hysteria. You provide articles and of course they don't give a shit. They hate the idea to begin with, so any article is like a blank piece of paper. Look at the first bullet response to your first comment.

You wrote:
MANY of the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are completely counter intutive and go against our "common sense", but they are proven and really do happen. Homeopathy awaits the research to either vindicate it or else illustrate the mechanisms of what is or is not happening.

One of the first responses was
So, if I understand correctly, quantum mechanics is counter intuitive but it works therefore homeopathy works. And my name is Napoleon Bonaparte!
Of course this wasn't what you were saying, but it doesn't matter because their right and you are wrong. I find this blog site to be a joy to read. It's like reading a couple guy's opinions about science and medicine after they just got out of med school and thinking their shit rules balls.

Denialist thinking is terrible. The above heart attack shit is fucking hilarious. But I completely agree with you James "science by ridicule and unreasoning hysteria will halt all progress."

Most of these blogs are filled with denialism. The bloggers here only find articles supporting any idea they want to express. For instance this homeopathic recipe is ridiculous, it says everything PalMD wants to express. Of course I had to read your comment to learn their maybe be something positive regarding homeopathy. I dunno, it's not like it's my job to find out about homeopathy. After reading Pal's rant I'm left with a one sided silly opinion that apparently sums up all homeopathic medicine.

PalMD once wrote "Remember this---denialists offer no solutions, only conflict"
That's funny, James you offer a rational solution and every response is in complete conflict with your suggestion. Who is the denialist on this god damned blog? These are anti denialist denialists.

Do cranks con people? Yes. Are all Homeopaths cranks? I dunno. According to PalMD and friends they are. According to the articles you provided there may be some benefit to homeopathic medicine. Who's right? I doubt PalMD has done any laboratory tests on the subject. But no worries James, PalMD and friends read better articles than you on the subject so their opinions should be entirely trusted.

Lance wrote:
You may want to see http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
and http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
before you go any further, James. Lies do not become truth simply because you want them to be true.

Oh, cool Lance referring this site itself as proof, as something we should read to understand the truth. You guys really are on your way to becoming denialists. Let me know when the cult begins.

Look, you all are focusing on useless details---a word here, an ad hom there...none of that is important.

The take home point is that there is no scientific or clinical basis for homeopathy. The literature clearly refutes it (despite a few cherry-picked studies). No amount of back and forth can change that.

The burden of proof falls on those making extraordinary claims---if you want to argue that gravity doesn't exist, you better be able to prove it, rather than saying "Well, prove that it DOES").

"if you want to argue that gravity doesn't exist, you better be able to prove it, rather than saying "Well, prove that it DOES"
That actually happened on Shalini's blog, with a geocentrist troll.

The guys on this blog are an "all things unproven are wrong" mind set.

Bullshit. All things unproven are unproven. Homeopathy isn't merely unproven, it's got negative evidence.

Nate, James, and any other trolls:

There is a world of difference between "unproven" and "disproven". Unproven means that nobody has really investigated the claim. Disproven means that the claim has been investigated, and found to be false.

False. As in contrary to reality. As in a lie. Homeopathy is distilled water.

Also, if you were capable of reading for comprehension, the links I cited were to show the nature and intent of this blog. We are not here to discuss the merits of homeopathy, chiropractic, or any other woo. This blog is to discuss the common thread in all denialist tripe. The tactics of denial are simple, plain, and obvious in your ranting. "No, you're the denialist!" is not an argument once you get out of the third grade.

Get a grip, get a clue, and get an education.

I don't know shit about homeopathic therapy, so I'm glad you brought up Chiropractic therapy.

While at wrestling practice I strained my neck. The pain wasn't very extreme, akin to a morning kink in the neck. The problem was the morning kink 'feeling' persisted for days and days. After 2 weeks I had enough, the constant strain had to be dealt with. I went to a 'kooky' chiropractor. And holy shit the pain went away.

Being that chiropractic treatment is 'disproven' I guess it actually didn't happen. The pain went away on it's own. It was merely coincidense that the pain went away the day I went to a chiropractor.

What's great about this site is my story didn't happen because you guys are blindly convinced that such a thing can't work. Denialism.

Lance leading people to read what you fellas have written up on 'how to deal with a denialist' is equally as kooky as a Scientologist telling me to read LRH on 'how to deal with SPs.' Citing your work as the rules of play. Welcome to the world of kook.

James and I are definitely not trolling. In my case, reading such one sided rants by people that believe everything they say is the truth begs an alternative perspective. After reading the 'what is a denialist' I'm convinced you guys are not to be taken seriously. It reads like a dogmatic manifesto.

5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.
Oh really. This is the almighty truth; 5 general tactics. We'll I'll use this kick ass rule of thumb on this blog

Conspiracy: This site believes any unproven method of cure is 'out to get' the the world. As though this 'crank' was born to destroy the world of medicine and science. Every bone in his crazy body is trying to hurt the world.

Selectivity: Every blog I've read here suffers from cherry picking. Find the wackiest guy's article based on a 'crank' therapy and post it with PalMD commentary. Since this wacky guy represents everyone in this line of work be assure the entire line of practice is 'out to get you.'

Impossible Expectations: I remember in a debate I was in I jumped through every hoop PalMD wanted me to. Provided articles and solutions again the expectations where never met. Same thing is happening here with James. He can't jump through enough hoops.

General fallacies of logic: Believing all alternative medicine can't work and believing only 'crazy guys' practice it and are all 'out to get ya' is fallacy of logic.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. "You're the denialist, not me!" is childish. You are a troll, and apparently an idiot.

All alternative medicine needs to become accepted as "real" is to provide real data. To date homeopathy and chiropractic have both failed to do so.

Get a clue. Get a grip. Get an education.

I don't see why you need to be so angry, let's discuss what we're talking about here Nate.

I don't know shit about homeopathic therapy, so I'm glad you brought up Chiropractic therapy.

While at wrestling practice I strained my neck. The pain wasn't very extreme, akin to a morning kink in the neck. The problem was the morning kink 'feeling' persisted for days and days. After 2 weeks I had enough, the constant strain had to be dealt with. I went to a 'kooky' chiropractor. And holy shit the pain went away.

Excellent example of anecdotal evidence, and the plural of anecdote is .... anecdotes! Not data. But we'll forgive this for now as chiropractic isn't necessarily a bad thing for musculoskeletal pain.

Being that chiropractic treatment is 'disproven' I guess it actually didn't happen. The pain went away on it's own. It was merely coincidense that the pain went away the day I went to a chiropractor.

Chiropractic doesn't have zero utility, we wouldn't claim that, rather it has utility about equivalent to therapeutic massage. What we object to is the practice of some chiropractors to make extraordinary claims about what it can accomplish, far beyond what objective evidence shows. Further, the thoery behind chiropractic that was the basis for the practice has been thoroughly debunked. One's bones are not out of alignment, this has been proven. Bone misalignments (not existing) are not the basis of all disease, as chiropractic's founder claimed.

What's great about this site is my story didn't happen because you guys are blindly convinced that such a thing can't work. Denialism.

Not blindly convinced at all. I openly acknowledge a chiropractor can have utility for treating musculoskeletal pain. But that's about all and no more effective than massage therapy as the intellectual underpinning of the practice is hokum.

Lance leading people to read what you fellas have written up on 'how to deal with a denialist' is equally as kooky as a Scientologist telling me to read LRH on 'how to deal with SPs.' Citing your work as the rules of play. Welcome to the world of kook.

Standards for scientific evidence and presentation of beliefs is not kooky. If you object to one of these tactics than please explain why our standards are inappropriate.

James and I are definitely not trolling. In my case, reading such one sided rants by people that believe everything they say is the truth begs an alternative perspective. After reading the 'what is a denialist' I'm convinced you guys are not to be taken seriously. It reads like a dogmatic manifesto.

I would disagree that you are a troll. The copy-paste troller above though is certainly a troll. As far as dogmatism this is not so. Explain which of our standards for conduct is inappropriate and why we'll consider altering them. The 5 tactics are based on observations of behaviors unique to pseudoscience, if you have more, or a reason for why we should allow cherry-picking of data, fake experts etc., please let us know. I doubt you do, but there it is.

Conspiracy: This site believes any unproven method of cure is 'out to get' the the world. As though this 'crank' was born to destroy the world of medicine and science. Every bone in his crazy body is trying to hurt the world.

Actually conspiracies can exist and do exist, for instance the mafia exists, criminal conspiracies are regularly demonstrated in the courts etc. The difference, if you read the entry, is that denialist conspiracies are non-parsimonius. That is they do not answer more questions than they create. In this instance Pal is describing a very simple, parsimonious and believable conspiracy to do harm. It goes like this. You tell a lie people want to believe and they'll send you money. You do this, it works, and you get money. No more questions are created by this explanation than are answered. We have a motive, evidence of the behavior, and an explanation for why the fraud is successful.

Selectivity: Every blog I've read here suffers from cherry picking. Find the wackiest guy's article based on a 'crank' therapy and post it with PalMD commentary. Since this wacky guy represents everyone in this line of work be assure the entire line of practice is 'out to get you.'

This is not cherry picking, it's providing examples that accurately describes the population. Sampling != cherry picking. PalMD is discussing how wacky beliefs can do harm, he provides examples of bad, bad, bad advice being given by alties. Show us some examples of alties who use nothing but evidence-based practices and maybe we'd believe we're missing the true mean.

Impossible Expectations: I remember in a debate I was in I jumped through every hoop PalMD wanted me to. Provided articles and solutions again the expectations where never met. Same thing is happening here with James. He can't jump through enough hoops.

It's a very low hoop. High-quality data showing efficacy of intervention in RCTs. Evidence based medicine does it, why can't alties? Because when they do, those trials fail to show efficacy. If they do show efficacy, it stops being alternative and becomes mainstream. Alternative medicine selects for therapies that do nothing.

General fallacies of logic: Believing all alternative medicine can't work and believing only 'crazy guys' practice it and are all 'out to get ya' is fallacy of logic.

We don't believe it can't work, we believe it is unproven and is based upon flawed understandings of biology, physiology, chemistry, math and physics. If it does work - like acupuncture for some kinds of pain management - it turns out not to be for the reasons the practitioners think - like redirecting qi. As sham experiments showed in that instance, the act of placing needles is the vital intervention. The practice of placing them in specific locations to redirect an unmeasurable, undetectable form of energy is the hokum.

I think we're done.

Mark beat me to a response, but of course I'll throw in my pennies as well.

Some of us get pretty cranky when encountering the usual denialist arguments about vaccines, HIV, homeopathy---whatever. A lot of that come from the frustration of dealing with denialists. Some of it comes from trying really hard to help people, only to find that the latest quack has sold them a phoney cure that interferes with real therapy.

One of our commenters was put off by our tone. I think it important to address his/her points, so that the content is not lost in a hail of snarky retorts.

I don't know shit about homeopathic therapy, so I'm glad you brought up Chiropractic therapy.
While at wrestling practice I strained my neck. The pain wasn't very extreme, akin to a morning kink in the neck. The problem was the morning kink 'feeling' persisted for days and days. After 2 weeks I had enough, the constant strain had to be dealt with. I went to a 'kooky' chiropractor. And holy shit the pain went away.

This is an nice anecdote, but does not provide useful evidence for or against any practice.

Being that chiropractic treatment is 'disproven' I guess it actually didn't happen. The pain went away on it's own. It was merely coincidense that the pain went away the day I went to a chiropractor.

No one here would deny your experience. The point is that a single story does not prove a modality's efficacy. The practice of chiropractic has been studied, and in one area (low back pain) has been found to be as good as traditional therapy. Chiropractic has been very well studied, and it's foundation and practice has not held up well to scrutiny. The fact that one person (or 10 or whatever) felt better after their personal experience doesn't change this. For example, neck and back pain are usually self-limited problems, and no matter what you do, they get better, making it easy to confound various effects with their cause.

What's great about this site is my story didn't happen because you guys are blindly convinced that such a thing can't work. Denialism.

Lance leading people to read what you fellas have written up on 'how to deal with a denialist' is equally as kooky as a Scientologist telling me to read LRH on 'how to deal with SPs.' Citing your work as the rules of play. Welcome to the world of kook.

James and I are definitely not trolling. In my case, reading such one sided rants by people that believe everything they say is the truth begs an alternative perspective. After reading the 'what is a denialist' I'm convinced you guys are not to be taken seriously. It reads like a dogmatic manifesto.

As far as it goes, that's not a completely unfair criticism. Sometimes we sound dogmatic and cranky. It could be argued that we aren't the best "framers" of our ideas (although I would disagree).

5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.
Oh really. This is the almighty truth; 5 general tactics. We'll I'll use this kick ass rule of thumb on this blog

Conspiracy: This site believes any unproven method of cure is 'out to get' the the world. As though this 'crank' was born to destroy the world of medicine and science. Every bone in his crazy body is trying to hurt the world.

Not really. Those who go with the evidence and feel that the kooks are dangerous aren't conspiracy theorists---they are realists. The important thing about conspiracy theorists is that they believe in conspiracies that aren't really there. If people are actually being deceptive, as denialists are, then being disdainful isn't paranoia, it's reality.

Selectivity: Every blog I've read here suffers from cherry picking. Find the wackiest guy's article based on a 'crank' therapy and post it with PalMD commentary. Since this wacky guy represents everyone in this line of work be assure the entire line of practice is 'out to get you.'

Not really. Sure, it's fun to quote extreme examples of woo, but the point is that the extreme cases differ from the "non-extreme" ones only in tone, not in substance. A chiropractor who claims to be able to cure allergies sounds kooky, but his claim is no more or less wrong than the chiropractor who claims to treat "subluxations"---neither is supported by the vast preponderance of evidence.

Impossible Expectations: I remember in a debate I was in I jumped through every hoop PalMD wanted me to. Provided articles and solutions again the expectations where never met. Same thing is happening here with James. He can't jump through enough hoops.

Science isn't a cookbook. Providing a few references is wonderful, but the quality and quantity of the evidence is important. If you read the part on expectations and selectivity, you'd see that what matters isn't that you can find one or two poorly done studies from fringe journals...science cares what the preponderance of the evidence says.

General fallacies of logic: Believing all alternative medicine can't work and believing only 'crazy guys' practice it and are all 'out to get ya' is fallacy of logic.

That really depends on how you define "alternative". None of us would argue that a practice that is proven to work is truly alternative.

I, for one, welcome readers and commenters who don't agree with me. But if your reasoning is weak, don't complain when others tear it up. It isn't personal...it's just truth.

Nate wrote "Being that chiropractic treatment is 'disproven' I guess it actually didn't happen."

Neck manipulation is not "chiropractic," it is also done by massagers, and by health professionals (e.g., PTs, D.O.s). "Chiro" is the "adjustment" of imaginary "subluxations." However, when chiros manipulate your neck they are more likely to kill you compared to the others. Watch this video http://ph-ms.ouhsc.edu/ah/rehab/kinsinger.wmv If you have a stiff neck, a chiro is a poor choice if you do not want to die.

Your experience is not counter to anything we say; and you are lucky that you were not harmed. To be honest, the strokes they cause are rare; but, why take the chance when safer (and equally effective) therapies are available.

You guys are entertaining. I'll give you that. The funny part is how you never adhere to your own rules of the game. I could cut and paste every example but what's the point. I'll keep it simple. You did give me great examples of exactly what I was talking about.

Conspiracy:
You tell a lie people want to believe and they'll send you money. You do this, it works, and you get money. No more questions are created by this explanation than are answered. We have a motive, evidence of the behavior, and an explanation for why the fraud is successful.
Cool now I know how it all works. They're all 'out to get' me. Thanks guys.

Selectivity:
This is not cherry picking, it's providing examples that accurately describes the population.
You say tomato I say tahmato.

Impossible Expectations:
The 5 tactics are based on observations of behaviors unique to pseudoscience, if you have more, or a reason for why we should allow cherry-picking of data, fake experts etc., please let us know.
Cool now I'm somehow involved in the broken game rules and have to come up with a better piece of bullshit.

General fallacies of logic:
I, for one, welcome readers and commenters who don't agree with me. But if your reasoning is weak, don't complain when others tear it up. It isn't personal...it's just truth.
Thanks god.

I forgot to mention fake experts. This site seems chock full of experts of every kind. Everyone knows everything. None of which I suspect have done more than cherry picked the topic their wholeheartedly an expert of. Granted everyone has studied a field of some sort, but the blogs suggest nothing more than a disdain towards ideas I'm pretty certain the writers are not experts of.

Here's a kick ass fake expert line
If you read the part on expectations and selectivity, you'd see that what matters isn't that you can find one or two poorly done studies from fringe journals...
Thanks for letting me read more your blog to find out the "truth."

Now that we agree that some parts of chiropractic treatment work and Mark also mentioned acupuncture. My solution (since the site demands it.)
Solution:
Chill out. Not every single part of every alternative medicine and therapy is 'out to get you.' Their are benefits found in some of these avenues. To completely destroy a practice because others are fucking it up is... (I'll quote james) "Science by ridicule and unreasoning hysteria" and this " will halt all progress."

Mark, Pal you two are hilarious. You have a faithful reader.

Remember what I said about reading for comprehension? You're doing it wrong. Try reading what MarkH and PalMD actually said, not the strawman you've built in your own head.

Science, it works.

Thanks for the vid Joe.
Cool this 'expert' starts out telling me every answer that 'the vast majority' of us will answer. I love it when 'experts' claims that another idea is a 'cult' (conspiracy). None of this represents the chiropractor I went to, but it doesn't matter because videos of doctors talking are true. He even admits he's not an expert on muscular or skeletal therapy (fake expert) but whatever. If a guy has an M.D. or P.H.D. after his name what ever spills from there mouth is right.

This guy has 'evolved and and changed' all Chiropracticors have not.

This vid is cherry picking terrible instances of the entire history of a practice. Apply the same tactics to any field even in medicine and science you'll find crazy theories, ideas on therapies that don't pan out (has a doctor suggested a new diet or pill lately, the food pyramid is always charming), death, and failure.

I ask you to read the Denialist Creed Joe, it talks about how articles (and vids I suppose) are wonderful but
If you read the part on expectations and selectivity, you'd see that what matters isn't that you can find one or two poorly done studies from fringe journals...
This guys study is based on going to hundreds of chiroprators by himself for treatment.

The video again concentrates on the dark history and practices (anyone can provide negatives of any subject), but even this dude says he's met well intentioned Chiropractors, but that doesn't matter he doesn't get into that. This is one guys opinion of the 'truth.'

Also heaping spoonfuls of fear mongering. If I go to a chiroprator i'll die. (conspiracy)

Lance, never said science didn't work.

Then, again, you're doing it wrong. Try reading for comprehension. Maybe after a nice hot cup of tea... or a cold beer if that's your preference. You really aren't getting this. Scare quotes don't "bother" any of us.

I think we may have a classic case of projection here. Just a hypothesis.

What am I doing wrong? Read it got it. Somehow this this denialist blog is suppose to work? The five general tactics of a denialist creed is not science.

Nate wrote "What am I doing wrong?", it's the beer goggles. You've gotta lose the beer goggles and return to high school. They have "special" classes for you.

Lance, never said science didn't work.