 |
[ login or create an account ]
|
|
[ login or create an account ]
|
The New Zealand Skeptics are inviting homeopaths to join their call for pharmacies to stop selling homeopathic products, as both groups are opposed to the practice, albeit for different reasons.
The New Zealand Council of Homeopaths and others in the trade have stated that their customers require lengthy personalised sessions to "match the energy of the potency of the remedy with the person". According to homeopath Mary Glaisyer, this involves matching symptoms with the huge range of materials on which homeopaths base their ultra- diluted preparations. For example, causticum, more mundanely known as potassium hydroxide, is said to manifest its homeopathic action in "paralytic affections" and "seems to choose preferable [sic] dark- complexioned and rigid-fibered persons".
Pharmacists who sell homeopathic products in the same way they sell deodorants and perfumed soaps are clearly not meeting basic homeopathic practice. When a number of pharmacies in Christchurch were checked by purchasers of these products, no pharmacy staff asked about symptoms; one simply asked "do you want vitamins with that?".
The New Zealand Skeptics have been calling for pharmacies to stop selling homeopathic products as they contend there are consumer rights issues involving informed consent and misleading labelling.
"Homeopathy involves diluting a material until there isnt anything left of it at all - the NZ Council of Homeopaths have admitted that. But we know 94% of homeopathic customers arent aware of this. They think their expensive bottle of drops actually contains the ingredients listed on the label- not water which once upon a time had some of that in it," says Skeptics Chair Vicki Hyde. "Stocking it next to genuine medical products gives homeopathic products credibility which they dont deserve."
Many people equate homeopathic products with herbal products, hence the belief that the products contain real substance. In addition, the products are commonly used for conditions which get better with time regardless of treatment, as well as exploiting the well-known placebo effect.
Hyde was disturbed to hear one pharmacist say that he didnt care if the industry was exploiting the placebo effect to claim results, he stocked the products because people would buy them.
"We dont think its a good idea for health practitioners to mislead people. They should tell them that they are selling water for $10 a teaspoon. And we think the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths should take an ethical stand by calling on their product manufacturers to stop supplying pharmacies."
Community pharmacists in Canada have recently been banned by their professional regulators from selling non-licensed herbal medicines and homeopathic remedies on the grounds of public safety. The National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities has stated that "pharmacists are obliged to hold the health and safety of the public or patient as their first and foremost consideration" and cites the need to ensure safety, efficacy and quality in products offered by pharmacists.
The call for the NZ Skeptics and homeopaths to join forces is not the first time such action has been considered. In 2002, when an Auckland pharmacy starting selling products labelled homeopathic "meningococcal vaccine" and homeopathic "hepatitis B vaccine", Hyde and then-president of the NZ Homeopathic Society, the late Bruce Barwell, discussed a joint release condemning this highly dangerous move. Hyde was concerned that relying on water as a vaccine would lead to unnecessary deaths - she already had notes from a Coroners Court where a baby being treated with homeopathic ear drops died of meningitis.
"Its bad enough when the product labelling misleads people into thinking they are buying something more than water - its far worse when they misuse a word like vaccine in such a life-threatening area."
The homeopaths were concerned then, as now, that their 200-year-old practices were being misrepresented by non-homeopaths keen to benefit from the multi-million-dollar industry.
"If the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths joins the New Zealand Skeptics in encouraging pharmacists to be ethical enough to stop stocking these products, then we both will have done something towards improving the health of New Zealanders."
Hyde has already had people contact her asking for a list of ethical pharmacists that they can support with their business. She says the NZ Skeptics are happy to hear from any pharmacy willing to take a stand on this issue, and will start to create a database for concerned members of the public.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
NZ Skeptics Homeopathy Campaign: http://skeptics.org.nz/SK:HOMEOPATHY
NZ Skeptics Homeopathy flyer: http://skeptics.org.nz/download/flyhomeop.pdf
1023: Homeopathy, theres nothing in it (UK-based campaign) http://www.1023.org.uk/
Popular competitions and giveaways from Gimme.co.nz: NZ's People Powered Guide to Free Stuff. Links will open on Gimme.
Health Tips, Recommended Movies, Recommended Books, Recommended Places.
Links will open on recommended.co.nz.
All articles and comments on Voxy.co.nz have been submitted by our community of users. Please notify us through our contact form if you believe an item on this site breaches our community guidelines.
Voxy: Your Voice - Uncensored
Got Something to Say But No One’s Listening?
Message to Spread? – Distribute News
Product to Promote? – Run a Promotion
We Can Help You Spread The Word.
Comments
TVNZ Closeup Wednesday
TVNZ
Closeup
Wednesday 7pm
Amongst several stories you had a Sceptics versus Homeopathy interview. Healthy debate is good, but unfortunately the Sceptic Assoc representative did not review the law. Chemist stores are legally entitled to dispense homeopathy under our Statute law.
Homeopathic History in brief.
Seafaring ships carried homeopathic kits since 1780's
The Royal Families have had a homoepathic physicans since 1800's.
That all apothecary/medical dispensors arrived in NZ with homeopathic kits as their portal medicine chest.
1855 The first medical journal was published in NZ as a monthly journal, it's editor was Dr C Fisher of 'Bells Homeopathic Pharmacy'
The magazine was called "The Homeopathic Eco'
1854 Dr Carl Fisher, a homeopath and doctor (apothecary) practised homeopathic medicine in Queen Street, Auckland.
He became the first superintendant of the first Auckland homeopathic hospital.
1870 first established chemist apothecary stores carried homeopathic remedies. before that they were sold in 'General Stores'.
1880 first Pharmacy Act included homeopaths as dispensors.
1889 Pharmacy Act entitling chemists to dispense homeopathic under the Act. (Statues book 1899)
That all chemists, pharmacists, druggists and homeopaths were registered together under the 1908 Pharmacy Act.
1970 Pharmacy Act removed the right of pharmacists, chemists and nurses to dispense herbal medicine.
Homeopathy remained on the statute books.
This is why chemists can legally sell homeopathy.
enjoy.
The NZ skeptics have done
The NZ skeptics have done nothing more than jump on the UK skeptics bandwagon in a rather puerile attempt to discredit homeopathic medicine. It is worth pointing out that the UK skeptics have links to a Pharmaceutical industry lobby group called "Sense about Science" which has tried to discredit homeopathy for years.
The skeptics are either totally ignorant of how homeopathy actually works or they are trying to mislead and misinform the public about the mechanism of action behind homeopathy. It has very little to do with molecular activity or lack of it and it also has little to do with a pure placebo effect. Ask any dairy farmer who treats cattle with homeopathic medicine.
Science is gradually catching up with how homeopathy works and just last year Nobel prizewinning scientist Prof Luc Montagnier detected an Electro-magnetic signal emitted by bacteria and viruses that remained long after these things had been progressively diluted out of existence.
http://lucmontagnierfoundation.org/montagnier/article-26-electromagnetic-signals-are-produced-by-aqueous-nanostructures-derived-from-bacterial-dna
This study adds weight to the theory that an electro-magnetic charge is created when the starting substance in a homeopathic preparation is shaken and diluted.... and even though no molecules are present at a certain dilution, the electro magnetic charge has been amplified to a much higher degree after increased shaking / agitation.
Professor Madeline Ennis from Queens University Belfast (once a skeptic herself) also found detectable effects from agitated dilutions of histamine. Her study was replicated in 3 other labs across Europe .http://www.springerlink.com/content/dmby16rmj02dhxat/
Homeopathy works and conclusive scientific proof is probably not very far away.
In response to Mike: The NZ
In response to Mike:
The NZ skeptics have done nothing more than jump on the UK skeptics bandwagon in a rather puerile attempt to discredit homeopathic medicine.
Agreed, except for the puerile part.
The Mersyside Skeptics (not the UK Skeptics) started this as a way of drawing public attention to the practices of a major chain that has the slogan "the health professional you see the most".
One minute with a search engine could have told you this.
It is worth pointing out that the UK skeptics have links to a Pharmaceutical industry lobby group called "Sense about Science" which has tried to discredit homeopathy for years.
Logical Fallacy: Strawman.
SaS is not a Pharmaceutical industry lobby group. They are a charitably trust that promotes good science and evidence in public debates.
One minute with a search engine could have told you this.
The skeptics are either totally ignorant of how homeopathy actually works or they are trying to mislead and misinform the public about the mechanism of action behind homeopathy. It has very little to do with molecular activity or lack of it and it also has little to do with a pure placebo effect. Ask any dairy farmer who treats cattle with homeopathic medicine.
Neither ignorant, misleading or misinformed. I'd say better educated.
You talk about the "mechanism of action behind homeopathy" when homeopaths don't even claim to know. The NZCoH is on record as having admitted that they don't know. Are you saying that you do know? I can point you at a site that will offer US$1,000,000 if you can just prove that it works. You don't even need to prove how it works. Just that it does. Google the JREF million dollar challenge for the details.
The fact that no one has managed to collect this prize, especially given that it's open to anyone and there are millions of quacks, sorry, homeopaths, out there, should tell you something.
If you're so confident you should go for the prize. I'm sure we could set up a local first round test to get you started.
Science is gradually catching up with how homeopathy works and just last year Nobel prizewinning scientist Prof Luc Montagnier detected an Electro-magnetic signal emitted by bacteria and viruses that remained long after these things had been progressively diluted out of existence.
http://lucmontagnierfoundation.org/montagnier/article-26-electromagnetic-signals-are-produced-by-aqueous-nanostructures-derived-from-bacterial-dna
This study adds weight to the theory that an electro-magnetic charge is created when the starting substance in a homeopathic preparation is shaken and diluted.... and even though no molecules are present at a certain dilution, the electro magnetic charge has been amplified to a much higher degree after increased shaking / agitation.
You haven't read that paper have you.
You're Nobel Prize winner is not taken seriously by the scientific community. In fact, he's been nominated for an iGNobel Prize, which is significant. If he wins he'll be the first person on the planet to have both a Nobel Prize and an iGNobel Prize
The story gets even more bizarre. The device that is used to make these measurements is currently at the center of a legal battle between Luc and the devices inventor. Both have patent claims on it although these are likely to be dismissed. The patent examiner seemed suitably entertained; The invention is based on phenomena which contradict the fundamental principle of physics and of chemistry, i.e. the existence of biological or effect without an active molecule and no explanation or theoretical basis makes it impossible at the current time to explain the results obtained.
So, yeah, science is not "gradually catching up". It's 200 years ahead.
Professor Madeline Ennis from Queens University Belfast (once a skeptic herself)
Citation needed.
Why do people think that "once a skeptic her/himself" is a good thing? This does nothing to raise the credibility of the person being referenced. Saying "once a skeptic" is like saying "is now gullible". Not a good phrase.
...also found detectable effects from agitated dilutions of histamine. Her study was replicated in 3 other labs across Europe . http://www.springerlink.com/content/dmby16rmj02dhxat/
I found very little to counter this article. I couldn't find anything regarding the work in the other labs. What I did find was reference to Ennis's skeptical nature (she didn't believe the results herself) prompting her to get other labs to repeat the experiment. This however, appears to be rumor.
Can you provide further links to back up this? I'm genuinely interested in reading up on them.
Homeopathy works and conclusive scientific proof is probably not very far away.
Homeopathy is yet to be proven to be anything more than a placebo effect. It would be fantastic if a mechanism could be found to explain it as we'd be then be able to use that to better target the effect. But at this point we would need to rewrite thousands of years of advancement in physics, chemistry and biology to do so.
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Homeopathy is bunk, and
Homeopathy is bunk, and there is no evidence for it. Homeopathy IS Big Pharma.
This is foolish talk. Lay
This is foolish talk. Lay persons are encouraged by the homeopathic community to learn how to treat non-serious acute conditions, such as colds, by learning to prescribe by using one of the homeopathic self-care books.
Homeopathic cure for colds?
Homeopathic cure for colds? How long does it take to work?
Also, what about homeopathic remedies for things like malaria, hep b, meningitis, HIV and AIDS?
These exist. Would you rely on them?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Let's stick to the point of
Let's stick to the point of my previous post. You are advocating policy on the sale of homeopathic remedies without knowing who is prescribing them, who is using them, and what conditions they are using them for. Even though you think homeopathy is bunk you should still have a basic understanding of how it is being used before you advocate a policy change. To do otherwise is to act out of ignorance, which contradicts your group's stated desire that actions be guided by reason. In order for reason to operate, it must be guided by knowledge.
Your call for homeopathic support, though obviously nothing more than a rhetorical ploy, is undercut by your ignorance of the subject. It's as embarrassing as the people who try to explain homeopathy by invoking quantum mechanics. Both you and they are arguing from a position of ignorance.
Let's stick to the point of
Let's stick to the point of my previous post.
Okay.
You are advocating policy on the sale of homeopathic remedies without knowing who is prescribing them, who is using them, and what conditions they are using them for.
Not quite. We're wanting to promote a situation where you can rely on who is prescribing them. I have personal experience that there is no consultation process in the three pharmacies I checked. On the day of the 10:23 OD we tested another one with extremely disappointing results also. While this is not an extensive study and no more than anecdotes we do have a 100% hit rate. I invite you to test it yourself.
Once consultations become a requirement your other two point should sort them out. The consulting homeopath should be able to know who is using them and the conditions they're used for.
Even though you think homeopathy is bunk you should still have a basic understanding of how it is being used before you advocate a policy change. To do otherwise is to act out of ignorance, which contradicts your group's stated desire that actions be guided by reason. In order for reason to operate, it must be guided by knowledge.
You raise a good point. I have an opinion on how it is being used that has been well stated.
What is your "basic understanding of how it is being used"?
Having addressed your points, I ask that you also answer mine.
Homeopathic cure for colds? How long does it take to work?
Also, what about homeopathic remedies for things like malaria, hep b, meningitis, HIV and AIDS?
These exist. Would you rely on them?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
You totally missed my point.
You totally missed my point. YOU are advocating a policy change. It is up to YOU to understand how homeopathy is being used or else you are acting from prejudice and not knowledge.
People prescribe homeopathic remedies for themselves, family, and friends. There's no reason that they can't do so knowledgeably, according to the same principles professionals use, and no reason to restrict the use of homeopathic remedies to professionals. Your argument otherwise is so silly it barely merits refuting.
I'm pushed for time. I'll
I'm pushed for time. I'll come back to this after I return from a friends.
In the mean time though I ask that you answer my questions. I am, at least, making an effort to answer yours. Please do the courtesy of returning the favour.
Homeopathic cure for colds? How long does it take to work?
Also, what about homeopathic remedies for things like malaria, hep b, meningitis, HIV and AIDS?
These exist. Would you rely on them?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
@Janice: "Chemist stores are
@Janice: "Chemist stores are legally entitled to dispense homeopathy under our Statute law."
This isn't the point. We're talking about the ethics behind selling water/sugar pills with no active ingredients while not informing the purchaser that this is the case.
"Seafaring ships carried homeopathic kits since 1780's"
Fortunately medical science has come a log way since then. homeopathy hasn't though as evidenced in the press release and inverview on Close Up.
"The Royal Families have had a homoepathic physicans since 1800's."
Logical Fallacy: Argument from authority
"That all apothecary/medical dispensors arrived in NZ with homeopathic kits as their portal medicine chest."
Citation needed.
"1855 The first medical journal was published in NZ as a monthly journal, it's editor was Dr C Fisher of 'Bells Homeopathic Pharmacy'
The magazine was called "The Homeopathic Eco'"
Logical Fallacy: Argument from authority
Fortunately medical science has come a log way since then, unlike homeopathy.
"1854 Dr Carl Fisher, a homeopath and doctor (apothecary) practised homeopathic medicine in Queen Street, Auckland.
He became the first superintendant of the first Auckland homeopathic hospital."
Fortunately we no longer have homeopathic hospitals here. As far as I can tell at least.
"1870 first established chemist apothecary stores carried homeopathic remedies. before that they were sold in 'General Stores'."
Not seeing a point here.
"1880 first Pharmacy Act included homeopaths as dispensors."
Failing to see the relevance.
"1889 Pharmacy Act entitling chemists to dispense homeopathic under the Act. (Statues book 1899)
That all chemists, pharmacists, druggists and homeopaths were registered together under the 1908 Pharmacy Act."
"1970 Pharmacy Act removed the right of pharmacists, chemists and nurses to dispense herbal medicine."
"Homeopathy remained on the statute books."
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 assimilated the 1970 Pharmacy Act. There is no reference to Homeopathy in the entire act. Searching all Acts, Bills and Regulations (including amendment legislation, original versions of legislation, and Bills that have been enacted) returns nothing too.
Despite this, you have completely missed the point which is made at the start of this post because I doubt you would read this far.
We're not disputing the legality of selling water at hidiously marked up prices. We're debating the ethics of it.
SaS is not a Pharmaceutical
SaS is not a Pharmaceutical industry lobby group. They are a charitably trust that promotes good science and evidence in public debates.
Really?
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_About_Science says:
For the fiscal year ending 5 April 2008, the trust received £145,902 in donations. Disclosed corporate donations comprised £88,000 with pharmaceutical company Astra Zeneca donating £35,000. Other contributing pharmaceutical companies include Dupont and Pfizer.
Private Eye reported that it had seen a draft of Sense About Science's Making Sense of GM guide that included Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs as an author.
Journalist George Monbiot has commented on the connections Tracey Brown, assistant director Ellen Raphael and others working with Sense About Science have with the former Revolutionary Communist Party and Living Marxism magazine.
Ten seconds searching Wikipedia could have told you this.
Let's get real here folks.
Big Science = Big Media = Big Politics = Big PR = Big Bucks
PR = Spin = the antithesis of Science
What's not to get about that?
Really? What's your point?
Really?
What's your point? With the incredibly public nature of what they do the source of their funding can't determine their mission statement. The fact that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in good science policy isn't a bad thing. Every company should support this sort of thing. Can you imagine any alt-med companies supporting good scientific policy though?
Let's get real here folks.
Big Science = Big Media = Big Politics = Big PR = Big Bucks
Ah! I get it now. You're a conspiracy theory nut. That's really quite sad.
Thanks for playing. Good bye.
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Conspiracy theorist or not,
Conspiracy theorist or not, it's shameful for you not to know about the close industry ties of group you are allied with and claim to be independent. Anyone who has watched the health care debate in the United States knows that it's not woolly headed conspiracy mongering to say that there are industry funded groups set up to influence government policy that try to give the illusion of independence,
The "close industry ties"
The "close industry ties" are blown out of proportion here.
The donations from the pharmaceutical industry do not dictate the mission statement of SaS which is what you are implying.
I do notice that you avoided the question I posed though. So;
The fact that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in good science policy isn't a bad thing. Every company should support this sort of thing. Can you imagine any alt-med companies supporting good scientific policy though?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Mission statements are
Mission statements are nothing more than empty verbiage and anyone who takes them seriously is a fool. This is the sort of thing Scott Adams mocked in Dilbert.
The pharmaceutical industry has shown its opinion of scientific integrity through its actions, such as suppressing research unfavorable to its products and intimidating researchers who have criticized them. You may believe their support of SaS is entirely altruistic. I believe it is all of a piece with their darker, criminal actions.
I don't know what you mean by "good scientific policy" Homeopathic manufacturers, especially Boiron, have paid for clinical trials of homeopathy. The reason why there has not been more support is that there are only a few researchers and institutions in the West willing and capable of doing the research.
Mission statements are
Mission statements are nothing more than empty verbiage and anyone who takes them seriously is a fool. This is the sort of thing Scott Adams mocked in Dilbert.
So you base your opinion of such things on a satirists comic strip. Good to know your source there.
Regardless, SaS are very open about what they do. Instead of focusing on where their funds come from, check out what they do with the money. Criticise that instead, if you can.
I don't know what you mean by "good scientific policy"
...and therein lies your problem. It's not what I mean, it's what SaS mean. It's about evidence based medicine, libel reform that prevents scientists from effectively being gagged in case what the research shows offends some other business interest (cf, Simon Singh Vs. BCA), etc.
Homeopathic manufacturers, especially Boiron, have paid for clinical trials of homeopathy. The reason why there has not been more support is that there are only a few researchers and institutions in the West willing and capable of doing the research.
"capable"? Double blind, random, placebo controlled tests are easy for anyone to do. To date, rigorous tests of homeopathy fail to work better than placebo. This is extensively tested.
I still notice that you avoided the question I posed though. So, read all of it (to give the question context) and just answer the question;
The fact that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in good science policy isn't a bad thing. Every company should support this sort of thing. Can you imagine any alt-med companies supporting good scientific policy though?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
I've enjoyed our discussion,
I've enjoyed our discussion, but it's a waste of time arguing with someone whose mind is already made up. So this will be my last comment. Double blind studies ARE hard to organize, conduct, and get published. I won't go into the details here. If you believe otherwise, why doesn't your group conduct a clinical trial of homeopathy instead of taking part in some silly stunt?
Some clinical trials of homeopathy are positive, others not. Such studies are rarely unanimous. The fact that Shang et al had to cook their statistical analysis, as Dana Ulman showed in his recent article
http://tinyurl.com/yacl3jn
shows that there's some value to the practice. You don't have to try to hide what isn't there.
"Evidence based practice" is the slogan that gets pulled out when one wants to argue, but it's not followed in practice. Show me the double blind trials supporting water fluoridation, or antibiotics for otitis media, or tonsillectomy for chronic and recurring colds.
I've enjoyed our discussion,
I've enjoyed our discussion, but it's a waste of time arguing with someone whose mind is already made up.
My mind isn't made up. I'm a Skeptic. If you can prove that homeopathy works I will become it's biggest defender. We all would. That's what it means to be a Skeptic. But the evidence isn't there. The better, more rigorous a study is the closer the results are to a placebo effect.
So this will be my last comment.
So you're going to drop out of the conversation instead of answering the question you've been avoiding? Figures...
Just in case you missed it though;
The fact that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in good science policy isn't a bad thing. Every company should support this sort of thing. Can you imagine any alt-med companies supporting good scientific policy though?
If you believe otherwise, why doesn't your group conduct a clinical trial of homeopathy instead of taking part in some silly stunt?
We don't need to believe otherwise. The evidence points to it. No belief required. It's homeopaths that have "belief" in their magic water. They freely admit they don't know how it works, they just "know" that it works (despite the overwhelming evidence against it).
The reason we don't need to conduct a clinical trial of homeopathy is because it's been done many times before by people better skilled and better equipped than I. It's these trials, and the lack of rigour in trials that show positive results, that lead to the conclusions Skeptics have reached.
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Gold, I will try to deal
Gold, I will try to deal with as many of your points as time allows.
I stand by the "puerile" description of the skeptics overdose stunt and I should have added in "tasteless" considering how serious suicide is in NZ.
"SaS is not a Pharmaceutical industry lobby group. They are a charitably trust that promotes good science and evidence in public debates. One minute with a search engine could have told you this".
I know that you would wish to have us believe otherwise but "SaS" are very definitely a Pharma lobby group. One minute with a search engine would have showed you this :http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/dec/09/highereducation.uk2
As for the "mechanism of action" of homeopathy, The theory in homeopathy has been for some time that the effects are due to an electromagnetic charge. As I have already mentioned Prof Luc Montagniers study gives some support to this theory. As for the veracity of his work the only analyses I have seen have been from anti homeopathy skeptics such as Novella or Quackometer where pettiness reigns supreme. Hardly impartial evaluation.
"It's not related to homeopathy at all. Read the conclusion" Sorry but when a substance has been shaken and diluted past Avogadro's constant that is very definitely homeopathy.
Re : Prof Madeline Ennis :
"Why do people think that "once a skeptic her/himself" is a good thing? This does nothing to raise the credibility of the person being referenced. Saying "once a skeptic" is like saying "is now gullible". Not a good phrase"
And you accuse me of building a strawman ??
You can read about the other labs in the basophil degranulation study here : http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/mar/15/technology2
I will correct my earlier post when I said replicated in 4 labs. This should be 3 labs showing a statistically significant result and 1 almost showing stastical significance.
Some interesting news regarding homeopathy amongst other modalities being successful in a trial commissioned by the Northern Ireland Dept of Health :
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4121906
And this study just published in the International Journal of Oncology which shows cytotoxic (cell killing) effects from Homeopathic medicines on breast cancer cells. :
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/36/2/395
And yes the remedies in questions were above avogadro's constant. No molecules does NOT mean no effect.
You also may be interested in this excellent blog which gives an account of events from the homeopathy standpoint. Cheers.
http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/
Sorry Gold, forgot to
Sorry Gold, forgot to mention The great Randi's million dollar prize. Professor George Vithoulkas has applied for this already after going to great lengths to set up an experiment at an Athens hospital and when crunch time came Randi got cold feet and baled, not once but twice. This was really embarrassing for him so he appeared to try to lie his way out of it. You can read all about it on Vithoulkas' website.
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/
Just to let you know, I'm
Just to let you know, I'm not ignoring this. There's just quite a bit of reading involved and the work week can be quite busy too.
But what I've found so far tends to lead me to thing that Vithoulkas was an arrogant schmuck and Randi didn't put up with his attitude so forced hime to go through the proper process.
Vithoulkas also implied that Randi was faking his illness to get out of it. Randi had cancer. Vithoulkas's response to that was heartless and leaves me with the impression that he's a bit of a callous... Is there a profanity filter on this site?
Big Homeo is a massively
Big Homeo is a massively self-interested, fraudulent racket. $millions to $billions annually for water and sugar pills, no matter how you spin it.
On Sense about Science being
On Sense about Science being a lobby group, aside from being funded by large donations from a number of healthcare companies, BP, and pharmaceutical companies what evidence is there that they actually lobby on behalf of pharmaceutical companies?
Uniflex /Gold, "But what
Uniflex /Gold,
"But what I've found so far tends to lead me to thing that Vithoulkas was an arrogant schmuck and Randi didn't put up with his attitude so forced hime to go through the proper process."
Are you serious ?? Read the account properly and you will see that the Goalposts were moved and then lies were told about the homeopathic team withdrawing from the experiment when they had not !!
The JREF Million dollar challenge is bull**** because it looks like no one will ever be given a fair chance of winning it. What a crock !
Sean, You want to know if Sense about Science is a lobby group. For your pleasure :
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=151
Are you serious ?? Yes. Read
Are you serious ??
Yes.
Read the account properly and you will see that the Goalposts were moved and then lies were told about the homeopathic team withdrawing from the experiment when they had not !!
Like I said, there's a lot of stuff to read on this and I'm working through it. I started with the account as portrayed by Vithoulkas and my impression is based mostly on that.
The more I read though, the more convinced I am that Vithoulkas is the one that has the less reliable, more irrationally and ill considered report.
You may consider it a crock. But I suspect that that's only because your particular brand (yes, Brand(tm)) can't get past the preliminary tests.
Regards,
Gold
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Sean, You want to know if
Sean, You want to know if Sense about Science is a lobby group. For your pleasure :
[link removed to prevent triggering the spam filter] :/
I checked that link. From the tone of the author they are politically aligned against GM foods. This seems to be the biggest problem they have. SaS are likely reporting on the science and lobbying based on that, where as the author sees;
GM == bad == SaS is evil.
Hardly an unbiased source. Try again. This time find someone that has evidence instead of opinion. If you find any evidence, we'd join you. But it's gotta be good evidence.
Regards,
Gold
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
One might expect something
One might expect something named lobbywatch.org to be an altruistic monitor of lobbying groups. It ain't. It's a lobby group all on its own, with a specific axe to grind. Imputing that any group named on lobbywatch.org is a lobbying group is somewhere between disingenuous and bullshit.
As much as skeptics find it
As much as skeptics find it hard to hear anything negative about their grand wizard certain facts have to be addressed. Randi is a retired stage magician who made his living from deception and showmanship. Vithoulkas on the other hand is a recipient of the "Right livelihood award" http://www.rightlivelihood.org/ which recognizes his contribution and work for the good of humanity and his credentials speak for themselves.
"But I suspect that that's only because your particular brand (yes, Brand(tm)) can't get past the preliminary tests."
Very creative. Please get the facts straight before posting...The preliminary tests were waived due to the quality of the application.
Re Sense about Science. Anyone with an ounce of common can see what they are about. Here's some more fun facts : http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/268982/sense_about_science.html
The director Tracy Brown and her deputy both worked in PR for some of the biggest Pharma and GM companies on the planet. SaS writes negative press about homeopathy to try to influence public opinion away from it. Could this be that too many people use homeopathy instead of pharmaceuticals? Perish the thought
And weez, lobbywatch is a lobby group. That's a corker.
Getting back on topic, please enjoy reading about the cytotoxic effects of high potency homeopathic medicines in the international journal of oncology (link in previous post) and the highly successful NI dept of health CAM pilot in "Pulse"
Cheers.
As much as skeptics find it
As much as skeptics find it hard to hear anything negative about their grand wizard certain facts have to be addressed. Randi is a retired stage magician who made his living from deception and showmanship.
Correct. But he is upfront about this and is upfront about it even when performing. It's not like he was claiming to have psychic powers or magic. His lies are honest.
If you're going to hold against him his chosen profession for a period of his life (entertainment) then you have a weak case.
Vithoulkas on the other hand is a recipient of the "Right livelihood award" http://www.rightlivelihood.org/ which recognizes his contribution and work for the good of humanity and his credentials speak for themselves.
If you want to play the point scoring game, Randi has received the following awards;
WooHoo! Randi wins! :)
I'd like to add that I've even heard of most of these, unlike the Right Livelihood award.
"But I suspect that that's only because your particular brand (yes, Brand(tm)) can't get past the preliminary tests."
Very creative. Please get the facts straight before posting...The preliminary tests were waived due to the quality of the application.
I was being generic and talking to you, as opposed to addressing the Vithoulkas case specifically. That is why I used the word "your" in the statement you misinterpreted. If I'd meant Vithoulkas I would have mentioned him, or his case, by name.
My opinion stands though. You've not swayed it yet.
Re Sense about Science. Anyone with an ounce of common can see what they are about. Here's some more fun facts : http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/268982/sense_about_science.html
The director Tracy Brown and her deputy both worked in PR for some of the biggest Pharma and GM companies on the planet.
You keep coming back to this. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully given the sources you cite) to dump on SaS as a group or besmirching the people involved by dragging up historical associations, why don't you try and bring up one instance where what they are actually doing is bad?
SaS writes negative press about homeopathy to try to influence public opinion away from it. Could this be that too many people use homeopathy instead of pharmaceuticals? Perish the thought
What you see as negative press others see as accurate science reporting. For an industry that openly admits that they have no idea how their remedy works, I wouldn't expect it's proponents to be able to recognise accurate science reporting though.
And weez, lobbywatch is a lobby group. That's a corker.
Yes, target the throwaway statement and avoid the uncomfortable one.
I'll agree with weez on this point; might expect something named lobbywatch.org to be an altruistic monitor of lobbying groups. It ain't.
Getting back on topic, please enjoy reading about the cytotoxic effects of high potency homeopathic medicines in the international journal of oncology (link in previous post) and the highly successful NI dept of health CAM pilot in "Pulse"
Yeah... That has already been ripped to shreds. Dr Racheal Dunlop (yes, a self confessed skeptic, but that does nothing to lessen her qualifications) is a PhD from Sydney University Medical School and works full time in heart disease research. She's checked over the paper you provided (it's been doing the rounds) and was amazed that it was actually accepted for publication at all.
If you're able to, feel free to dispute her points;
http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/
You'll note that she does pay particular attention to the science.
Regards,
Gold
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
'high potency homeopathic
'high potency homeopathic product' is an oxymoron.
Now that's a corker. :D
When you buy snake oil, you expect to get at least some snake.
"But I suspect that that's
"But I suspect that that's only because your particular brand (yes, Brand(tm)) can't get past the preliminary tests."
"I was being generic and talking to you, as opposed to addressing the Vithoulkas case specifically. That is why I used the word "your" in the statement you misinterpreted. If I'd meant Vithoulkas I would have mentioned him, or his case, by name"
As you have read the Vithoulkas / Randi exchange where it says " In 17.8.2006, we received a signed agreement from Mr. Randi in which he stated that he was satisfied with the suggested protocol and he waived the claim of a preliminary test". just what preliminary test were you referring to if it wasn't this?
Please enlighten me and give me an example of where homeopaths have failed to get through preliminary tests if you were not referring to Vithoulkas.
Re : Sense about Science , "You keep coming back to this. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully given the sources you cite) to dump on SaS as a group or besmirching the people involved by dragging up historical associations, why don't you try and bring up one instance where what they are actually doing is bad?"
Historical associations are important in that they give you some clue as to what to expect regarding future behaviour. I have already posted a link to the Monbiot piece "Invasion of the Entryists" If you had bothered to read this you would find references to subversive viewpoints and tactics from the people involved in LM (Living Marxism) before they formed SaS.
Monbiot writes about LM and the people involved with it "It campaigned against gun control, against banning tobacco advertising and child pornography, and in favour of global warming, human cloning and freedom for corporations. It defended the Tory MP Neil Hamilton and the Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansers" Bad enough for you ?
Shame your skepticism doesn't extend to organizations with highly questionable morals.
Re homeopathy cytotoxic study "Yeah... That has already been ripped to shreds. Dr Racheal Dunlop (yes, a self confessed skeptic, but that does nothing to lessen her qualifications) is a PhD from Sydney University Medical School and works full time in heart disease research. She's checked over the paper you provided (it's been doing the rounds) and was amazed that it was actually accepted for publication at all".
Depends who is doing the ripping here doesn't it. I'm sorry but I can't take this too seriously. The woman is not just a skeptic but a rabid skeptic. From what I have seen she has made her mind up about homeopathy a long time ago and this is grist for the mill. What struck me was how disrespectful her blog was and how she egotistically feels that she has more scientific intelligence than Frenkel et al plus all of the peer reviewers who OK'd this study for a respected medical journal.
Actually why don't you flick this study across the skeptic telegraph over to Dr Dunlop so she can give it a lash. http://www.labhomeopatico.com/articulo1ing.pdf
It's from the International journal of Oncology (2003) and shows how Ruta 6ch induces cell death in certain brain tumors (glioma).
.
Please enlighten me and give
Please enlighten me and give me an example of where homeopaths have failed to get through preliminary tests if you were not referring to Vithoulkas.
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=278215
From the look of this; 2 failed to get to preliminary testing, 1 is still open and 1 appears to be in limbo.
I also notice that there's very little mention anywhere of Vithoulkas over the entire forum. The one thread where he seems to be the main topic also does nothing to bolster my confidence in the guy(Vithoulkas).
"You keep coming back to this. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully given the sources you cite) to dump on SaS as a group or besmirching the people involved by dragging up historical associations, why don't you try and bring up one instance where what they are actually doing is bad?"
Historical associations are important in that they give you some clue as to what to expect regarding future behaviour. [...snip...] Bad enough for you?
So you can never forgive past actions? You must be a very lonely person or everyone around you must be perfect. Astounding.
However, you still haven't answered the question; Why don't you try and bring up one instance where what SaS are actually doing is bad? Today. Not in the past, not in the future. Today, in the here and now.
Shame your skepticism doesn't extend to organizations with highly questionable morals.
It does. You've failed to prove any in the case of SaS though. You talk about SaS as if it's a single entity. Organisations are made up of people. People come and go. However, a few have a connection to something you consider undesirable so you paint the entire organisation with that same brush. Very rational. << spot the sarcasm there?
Depends who is doing the ripping here doesn't it. I'm sorry but I can't take this too seriously. The woman is not just a skeptic but a rabid skeptic. From what I have seen she has made her mind up about homeopathy a long time ago and this is grist for the mill. What struck me was how disrespectful her blog was and how she egotistically feels that she has more scientific intelligence than Frenkel et al plus all of the peer reviewers who OK'd this study for a respected medical journal.
Of course you can't take it too seriously. You have no ability to debate from a logical point of view. You have just made a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. You have attacked the person instead of the point.
So, instead of attacking the author(Dr Dunlop), can you dispute any of the points that she's made regarding the quality of the paper? Hell, just disagree with one point. Convince me why it's invalid.
Actually why don't you flick this study across the skeptic telegraph over to Dr Dunlop so she can give it a lash. http://www.labhomeopatico.com/articulo1ing.pdf
It's from the International journal of Oncology (2003) and shows how Ruta 6ch induces cell death in certain brain tumors (glioma).
I've passed it on. Given this things age, hopefully she can just point at references about it.
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
An opinion It would be
An opinion
It would be fantastically exciting if homeopathy could be shown to work. A breakthrough similar to the development of quantum physics.
But if it worked to a useful degree, this should be EASY to prove, in randomised double-blind trials. This can be with individualised remedies.
Or indeed if there was repeatable experimental evidence of ANY difference between homeopathically ‘potentised’ water and similarly treated water which did not contain the added ingredient in the first sample, that would be proof enough that there’s something in it, which it would then be up to science to explain, and again, very exciting.
The fact that homeopaths have not made any such demonstration and cannot prove the effectiveness of even one remedy to the satisfaction of the medical and scientific world convinces me that sadly there’s nothing in it.
A suggestion for homeopaths.
Come up with any 'remedy' at say C30 which causes a measurable physical effect on the body, like pupil dilation, causing a skin rash, speeding the pulse, or another effect of your choice. Feel free to select your own test subjects based on your own testing of whether this 'remedy' has an effect on them. Eliciting a response in a person who is well is exactly the method of a homeopathic 'proving'.
Add any other conditions which you think might help you to demonstrate that it works with the greatest statistical significance.
Now prove that this 'remedy' has this effect in double-blind randomised controlled trials.
Easy to do? You'll have proven the basic case for homeopathy and be in line for a Nobel prize. As a skeptic I would LOVE this to happen and to be proved wrong.
A very interesting thread; I
A very interesting thread; I enjoyed reading both sides of the discussion, thank you.
"People prescribe homeopathic remedies for themselves, family, and friends. There's no reason that they can't do so knowledgeably, according to the same principles professionals use, and no reason to restrict the use of homeopathic remedies to professionals. Your argument otherwise is so silly it barely merits refuting."
This is the bit that frightens me. For 'homeopathic remedies' I read 'decoy drugs' prescribed for family and friends, rather then their seeking medical attention.
Some maladies such as meningitis need quick proper treatment, not a delay waiting to see if a homeopathic remedy works.
http://forums.randi.org/searc
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=278215
"From the look of this; 2 failed to get to preliminary testing, 1 is still open and 1 appears to be in limbo". Can't open the page so can't comment.
Re Dunlop. I have no problem with her skepticism at all. The issue I have is that she could have clicked the little envelope, contacted Frenkel to ask questions about the methodology before posting off a very disrespectful rant. This would have been the polite thing to do.
Looks like she made her mind up before actually analyzing the entire paper. What a surprise.
"I’m going to stop there. I won’t even bother dealing with the discussion and conclusions, because by my analysis, they are based on flawed data". .
Re Dunlop again, sigh...."Of course you can't take it too seriously. You have no ability to debate from a logical point of view. You have just made a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. You have attacked the person instead of the point".
Ah the logical fallacy rears it's head yet again. So that means it's a little bit like what you did with Vithoulkas ""But what I've found so far tends to lead me to thing that Vithoulkas was an arrogant schmuck and Randi didn't put up with his attitude so forced hime to go through the proper process."
Dunlop wants take the emphasis away from the methodology practised in the study by bringing in an "in vivo" comparison. This was not an in vivo study and never claimed to be so why bring it up ?
"Cells bathing in a bath of homeopathy is very different to the processes which occur in vivo, for example the treatment must survive the low pH of the stomach, cross the gut, escape metabolism in the liver and get to the site of the cancer then do it’s job. This is a very complex process and very difficult to control. Studies in cell culture can provide data about the mechanism of action of a compound, but rarely do they relate to the processes in a human.
Never extrapolate results from a culture dish to a whole animal. You will undoubtedly be wrong and look like a fool".
They didn't try to do this in the first place. The study shows a cytotoxic effect of ultradiluted Carcinosin and Phytolacca on cancer cells, not walking talking humans.
Nick Day, You make some interesting points and I would love to comment on them tomorrow.
Cheers.
Dunlop wants take the
Dunlop wants take the emphasis away from the methodology practised in the study by bringing in an "in vivo" comparison. This was not an in vivo study and never claimed to be so why bring it up ?
"Cells bathing in a bath of homeopathy is very different to the processes which occur in vivo, for example the treatment must survive the low pH of the stomach, cross the gut, escape metabolism in the liver and get to the site of the cancer then do it’s job. This is a very complex process and very difficult to control. Studies in cell culture can provide data about the mechanism of action of a compound, but rarely do they relate to the processes in a human.
Never extrapolate results from a culture dish to a whole animal. You will undoubtedly be wrong and look like a fool".
They didn't try to do this in the first place. The study shows a cytotoxic effect of ultradiluted Carcinosin and Phytolacca on cancer cells, not walking talking humans.
Mike, did you actually read the blog post? Here's what Homeopathy Plus! claimed with their newsletter based on this study; "Homeopathy as good as chemotherapy for breast cancer and nontoxic." So they are making the jump from cells in a culture dish to humans, not me. The study did not look at in vivo models either, so it is wrong for homeopathy plus to make this claim.
Re Dunlop. I have no problem with her skepticism at all. The issue I have is that she could have clicked the little envelope, contacted Frenkel to ask questions about the methodology before posting off a very disrespectful rant. This would have been the polite thing to do.
As for your objection that I should write to the authors and ask them to explain themselves before criticising their paper, this is not how science works. Once you have published something, it is out there for everyone to see and criticise. There is nothing polite about the scientific process, the peer review process is one of the most critical I have ever experienced. But it is based on evidence and criticism of bad methodology, not ad hominem attacks. There is a good reason for this, to ensure that bad science gets binned. Obviously this did not happen here.
Looks like she made her mind up before actually analyzing the entire paper. What a surprise. "I’m going to stop there. I won’t even bother dealing with the discussion and conclusions, because by my analysis, they are based on flawed data". .
The discussion and conclusions are just that - a discussion and conclusion based on the results. If the results are fatally flawed, and I outlined all my reasons why this is, then this section will also be flawed.
As for your claim that “The study shows a cytotoxic effect of ultradiluted Carcinosin and Phytolacca on cancer cells..” no it doesn’t. There is no statistical analysis, so you cannot make this claim. Seeing a slight increase in cell death with your eyes, is not evidence.
Re Dunlop. I have no problem
Re Dunlop. I have no problem with her skepticism at all.
Yes, you do. I can't see anyone saying "The woman is not just a skeptic but a rabid skeptic." because they like the person, or are even neutral.
The issue I have is that she could have clicked the little envelope, contacted Frenkel to ask questions about the methodology before posting off a very disrespectful rant. This would have been the polite thing to do.
Ah, no. That's what the peer-review stage is. Once you publish a paper it's a battleground. The reputation of the publishers, reviewers and journal is on the line and if anyone has issues with the paper, _any_ part of the paper, it will be ripped to shreds. This does open the attacker up to counter attack as others in the scientific community check over the claims made by the attacker, and if needed, counter attack pointing out what is wrong with the initial attack. The process continues with sides attacking/conceding points until a natural conclusion is reached. At which point the paper either stands or not. As does the reputation of those involved with the battle.
Given that reputations are on the line when publishing and when critiquing, those involved don't tend to wade in unless they are very confident in their view. However, the view of any side can be modified based on new information presented.
Looks like she made her mind up before actually analyzing the entire paper. What a surprise.
"I’m going to stop there. I won’t even bother dealing with the discussion and conclusions, because by my analysis, they are based on flawed data". .
Here's another scenario; You take your car in for a WoF. The service guy sees that the engine is trashed and the car should be scrapped, but changes 3 tires, replaces the wipers and replaces a solenoid to get the indicators working and presents you with the bill and the number of a guy that can scrap your car for you.
You'd expect him to stop when he discovered the state of the engine wouldn't you?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/
Rachel, Thanks for your
Rachel, Thanks for your reasoned response.
"Mike, did you actually read the blog post? Here's what Homeopathy Plus! claimed with their newsletter based on this study; "Homeopathy as good as chemotherapy for breast cancer and nontoxic." So they are making the jump from cells in a culture dish to humans, not me. The study did not look at in vivo models either, so it is wrong for homeopathy plus to make this claim".
OK Fair enough, On a point of pedantry then they should have added the word "cells" in after cancer.
"As for your objection that I should write to the authors and ask them to explain themselves before criticising their paper, this is not how science works. Once you have published something, it is out there for everyone to see and criticise. There is nothing polite about the scientific process, the peer review process is one of the most critical I have ever experienced. But it is based on evidence and criticism of bad methodology, not ad hominem attacks. There is a good reason for this, to ensure that bad science gets binned. Obviously this did not happen here".
The peer reviewers for the Frenkel study obviously did not share your objections otherwise it never would have made it to publication through a very "critical" process as you put it. Clearly there is a snowballs chance in Hades that they could all be asleep at the wheel and your points could have some validity, but as there are undoubtedly many more of them than you and their experience would be commensurate with the protocols and/or subject matter they are reviewing, this seems unlikely.
The good thing about the peer review process is the impartiality and lack of bias by those doing the reviewing. Presumably if a minor technical inaccuracy is spotted but they see the science is kosher, it may get through. Surely there is some discretion applied. Your obvious bias against homeopathy would no doubt put you much higher up the nitpicking scale. And that's not meant to be "ad hominem". It's an opinion....much like yours.
I see that you mention you do "flow cytometry" almost every day. Have you seen Prof Madeline Ennis' work on ultradiluted and shaken histamine (past Avogadro) and how it still had a biological effect on basophils. This is very well respected work and was replicated as part of a multi centre trial and published in "Inflammation Research" (2004)
Nick Day :
"But if it worked to a useful degree, this should be EASY to prove, in randomised double-blind trials. This can be with individualised remedies.
Or indeed if there was repeatable experimental evidence of ANY difference between homeopathically ‘potentised’ water and similarly treated water which did not contain the added ingredient in the first sample, that would be proof enough that there’s something in it, which it would then be up to science to explain, and again, very exciting.
The fact that homeopaths have not made any such demonstration and cannot prove the effectiveness of even one remedy to the satisfaction of the medical and scientific world convinces me that sadly there’s nothing in it".
To the best of my knowledge there have not been too many double blind "individualized" homeopathy studies carried out. One that springs to mind though was this one where homeopathy was shown to be successful in treating children diagnosed with ADHD.
( Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. July 27 2005;164:758–767).
There will hopefully be more studies like this in the future as homeopathy can then be tested in the way it is practised in a classical individualized framework.
You mention a definitive test for homeopathy being an in vivo experiment on people where differences pre and post homeopathic medicine are measured. Ironically this was exactly the type of test that Prof George Vithoulkas set up with a team of doctors in an Athens hospital to claim the James Randi $1000,000 challenge. As Randi pulled out of this experiment at the last minute we have been left guessing as to what might have been. Vithoulkas is keen to set it up again presumably without Randi's involvement.
"Now prove that this 'remedy' has this effect in double-blind randomised controlled trials.
Easy to do? You'll have proven the basic case for homeopathy and be in line for a Nobel prize. As a skeptic I would LOVE this to happen and to be proved wrong".
That's a nice way to finish your post. I think you have some good intentions there. Hopefully what you say will happen some day. Although scientific validity is helpful for many reasons it is not essential to have this for people to benefit from homeopathy. Conditions where conventional medicine has few answers are often the ones helped by homeopathy. Here's a couple of examples for you :
Researchers in India have devised an apparently successful homeopathic protocol in treating brain tumors. http://www.pbhrfindia.org/(possibly some research on their website too) and doctors at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital have been having a lot of success treating children on the autistic spectrum. http://www.savingalostgeneration.com/. It will be good if these get backed up by published trials. Then more people can get doctor referrals and benefit.
Cheers.
Hi Mick, Apologies for
Hi Mick,
Apologies for calling you Mike in my last post.
----
Rach(a)el, Thanks for your reasoned response.
"Mike, did you actually read the blog post? Here's what Homeopathy Plus! claimed with their newsletter based on this study; "Homeopathy as good as chemotherapy for breast cancer and nontoxic." So they are making the jump from cells in a culture dish to humans, not me. The study did not look at in vivo models either, so it is wrong for homeopathy plus to make this claim".
OK Fair enough, On a point of pedantry then they should have added the word "cells" in after cancer.
-----
This is not about pedantry. This is about Homeopathy Plus! publishing a misleading statement that will potentially lead scientifically illiterate people to think they can use homeopathy in place of chemotherapy for breast cancer. Moreover, the paper does not use chemotherapy agents as a comparison to homeopathy, so where they gleaned this fact from is beyond me.
Further, when you receive chemotherapy, your cells are not removed and treated in culture then put back. This was my point about the dangers of extrapolating from cell culture to whole animals. As I said, cell culture experiments are great for determining the mechanism of action of a compound, but once you bring in organs, tissues, blood proteins, metabolism etc (which are largely not present in cell culture) you have a totally different ball game.
------
"As for your objection that I should write to the authors and ask them to explain themselves before criticising their paper, this is not how science works. Once you have published something, it is out there for everyone to see and criticise. There is nothing polite about the scientific process, the peer review process is one of the most critical I have ever experienced. But it is based on evidence and criticism of bad methodology, not ad hominem attacks. There is a good reason for this, to ensure that bad science gets binned. Obviously this did not happen here".
---
The peer reviewers for the Frenkel study obviously did not share your objections otherwise it never would have made it to publication through a very "critical" process as you put it.
---
I know they didn’t, this is precisely my point!
----
Clearly there is a snowballs chance in Hades that they could all be asleep at the wheel and your points could have some validity, but as there are undoubtedly many more of them than you and their experience would be commensurate with the protocols and/or subject matter they are reviewing, this seems unlikely.
-----
I have to disagree with you here. I am very experienced in all but one of the protocols used here (FISH) so I am quite qualified to comment on whether they were undertaken to an acceptable standard.
The reason I quipped that they were asleep or drunk is because I am amazed that they missed some very obvious, and major flaws in this study and these errors do not require a specialised knowledge of each protocol.
If there are more than me, (and there are usually 2 or 3) then their mistakes are even more embarrassing. As the saying goes, two heads are better than one - clearly not in this case. If they both get it wrong it doesn’t make it right.
----
The good thing about the peer review process is the impartiality and lack of bias by those doing the reviewing. Presumably if a minor technical inaccuracy is spotted but they see the science is kosher, it may get through. Surely there is some discretion applied. Your obvious bias against homeopathy would no doubt put you much higher up the nitpicking scale. And that's not meant to be "ad hominem". It's an opinion....much like yours.
------
I think you may have missed the point of my critique of this paper. I did not object to the treatment per se, what I objected to was the poor methodology.
The “control” vehicle (87% alcohol) also appeared (no stats) to kill the cells. This is a major flaw in this study. As I said in my post, there is no way to tell if cell death from the control was significant, meaning a “real effect” because there was no statistical analysis done to determine this. Likewise, there is also no way to know if the “treatment” had any real effect either, since a) there are no stats and b) if the vehicle is making the cells sick, and the cells appear to get sicker when the treatment is present, it may just be that there is more vehicle present in the wells. This is what is known in science as an artifact. That is, we cannot tell if the effect is “real” from the "control".
I can see no plausible reason why these authors did not show stats - they show error bars, meaning they have enough samples to do stats - except that they are trying to conceal something about what the stats say.
To a trained eye, the effect of 1.25 µL/mL vehicle in Figure 1a for HMLE and MCF-7 looks like it is significant to me (since the error bars do not cross each other). Thus, the control is causing death itself, making any effect from the treatment not measurable.
This is not my opinion, these are the rules of science and statistics. There is nothing minor about the errors in this paper, and my emphasis of the peer review process being highly critical means that no discretion is applied. The peer review process is not perfect and this is a very good example of how it can fail.
I do not have a bias against homeopathy. I simply have not seen any evidence from well performed, statistically sound, reproducible studies. Like all scientists, I will happily change my mind, when and if I see it. This paper is no such time.
----
I see that you mention you do "flow cytometry" almost every day. Have you seen Prof Madeline Ennis' work on ultradiluted and shaken histamine (past Avogadro) and how it still had a biological effect on basophils. This is very well respected work and was replicated as part of a multi centre trial and published in "Inflammation Research" (2004)
----
I have not seen this study, this is not in my area of research at the current time. And unless it is a methods paper, then it likely has little relevance to my current work. Nevertheless, can you send me a more detailed reference? It will take me too long to trawl through PubMed with the information you have provided.
And with that, Dr Dunlop has
And with that, Dr Dunlop has explained it to a level such that anyone who WANTS to understand WILL understand. The problem with homeopathetics is that they're absolutely dying to see their absurd pseudoscience about water, alcohol and sugar with memories do something aside from rehydrate, intoxicate and sweeten, which is doesn't, can't and won't EVER do.
The last word? Homeopathy is bullshit. Don't like it? So what? You can't fly to the moon with a propeller beanie, either.
Rachael, I think that you
Rachael,
I think that you make your points really well. It will be interesting to see if the paper generates any further reviews.
"I do not have a bias against homeopathy. I simply have not seen any evidence from well performed, statistically sound, reproducible studies. Like all scientists, I will happily change my mind, when and if I see it. This paper is no such time".
Are you sure that you are not biased ? Homeopathy seems to be quite a source of vitriol on your website. I'll be quite happy to flick you some of the high quality studies showing an effect for homeopathy over placebo if you like.
Here's a link to the Ennis study :http://www.springerlink.com/content/dmby16rmj02dhxat/
I would be interested to hear what you think and if it changes your mind....just a little.
Cheers.
Hi Mike, Google Scholar
Hi Mike,
Google Scholar finds 96 papers citing the Ennis study :http://www.springerlink.com/content/dmby16rmj02dhxat/ that you find so compelling.
This is my selection of five from page one of the search results http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=2067878452956471967&hl=en&as_sdt=2000. I admit I've only cherry-picked, but I haven't yet seen universal enthusiasm for Ennis's work. If you can do better, please reply here, but please don't waste everyone's time unless you have something good to offer.
1) Adrian G. Guggisberg, Stephan M. Baumgartner, Cornelia M. Tschopp and Peter Heusse. Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro. Complementary Therapies in Medicine Volume 13, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 91-100
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCS-4GGWG98-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=64f67abfdd5b36538aeadfcd7d6517e3
The summary states:
"Background: Various investigators have observed significant effects of highly diluted histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro, compared to corresponding water controls. However, active and inactive dilution levels differed in most studies.
Objective: We aimed to reproduce former studies with flow-cytometry using rigorously controlled experimental conditions to minimise confounding factors.
Methods: In seven independent experiments, basophils of the same human donor were incubated with diluted histamine (up to 10−34 M) or water controls and activated with anti-IgE antibodies. Basophil activation was determined by using bi-colour flow-cytometry. Experiments were blinded and performed with a randomised arrangement of the solutions on microtiter-plates.
Results: Histamine at the dilutions 10−2 M and 10−22 M was associated with a significant inhibition of basophil degranulation (p = 0.018, Wilcoxon signed rank test) of 23.1% and 5.7%, respectively, if compared to “diluted” water treated in an identical manner. However, if all controls were pooled, only histamine 10−2 M had a significant effect. Significant effects were seen for row numbers of the microtiter plates.
Conclusion: We were not able to confirm the previously reported large effects of homeopathic histamine dilutions on basophil function of the examined donor. Seemingly, minor variables of the experimental set up can lead to significant differences of the results if not properly controlled."
2) Paolo Bellavite, Anita Conforti, Francesco Pontarollo and Riccardo Ortolani. Immunology and Homeopathy. 2. Cells of the Immune System and Inflammation. Evidence-based Compl. and Alt. Medicine, Volume 3, Number 1. Pp. 13-24
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/1/13
Rather inconclusive paper that states:
"Regarding the interpretation of data in view of the simile principle, we observe that there are different levels of similarity and that the laboratory data give support to this principle, but have not yet yielded the ultimate answer to the action mechanism of homeopathy. Evidence of the biological activity in vitro of highly diluted-dynamized solutions is slowly accumulating, with some conflicting reports."
3) Lionel R. Milgrom. Are Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) Redundant for Testing the Efficacy of Homeopathy? A Critique of RCT Methodology Based on Entanglement Theory. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. October 2005, 11(5): 831-838.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.831
Author suggest homeopathy is untestable by RCT studies because of a "theoretical model of entanglement in homeopathy between patient, practitioner, and remedy" (or it might be a convenient get-out clause).
"Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yet to deliver unequivocal results demonstrating the efficacy (or otherwise) of homeopathic remedies and individualized homeopathic prescribing. This could be caused by an implicit assumption inherent in RCT methodology that specific effects of a remedy and any nonspecific effects of consultation are independent of each other. Reported here is a theoretical invstigation of the consequences arising from this assumption proving to be false.
Methods: A previously developed theoretical model of entanglement in homeopathy between patient, practitioner, and remedy (called PPR entanglement) was used in this investigation.
Results: The adherence to RCT methodology could result in such trials completely disrupting the formation or survival of any three-way PPR entangled state.
Conclusions: Assuming the PPR entangled state is a necessary condition for therapeutic interaction, alternatives to RCTs are urgently required that can take into account possible entangled specific and nonspecific effects during trials of homeopathy. That RCTs sometimes deliver positive results for the use of homeopathic remedies may be caused by residual entanglement arising from homeopathic remedy manufacture."
4) Harald Walach, Wayne B. Jonas, John Ives, Roel Van Wijk, Otto Weingärtner. Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. October 2005, 11(5): 813-829. doi:10.1089/acm.2005.11.813.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.813
A "state of the art review", suggesting that non-reproducibility of homeopathic results is due to lack of theory.
5) Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht, Thorolf E.R. Weißhuhn, Stephan Baumgartner and Stefan N. Willich. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCS-4NC50H3-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9c942b789a6655e847324c6dc9ffec70
Inconclusive, "No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators". Calls for controls, randomization & blinding, in contrast to Milgrom's paper at 3) above.
Summary
"Objective: Systematic assessment of the in vitro research on high potency effects.
Method: Publications of experiments were collected through databases, experts, previous reviews, citation tracking. Inclusion criteria: stepwise agitated dilutions <10−23; cells or molecules from human or animal. Experiments were assessed with the modified SAPEH score.
Results: From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and 2/3 of those 18 that scored 6 points or more and controlled contamination. Nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive. Design and experimental models of the reviewed experiments were inhomogenous, most were performed on basophiles.
Conclusions: Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies. No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments."
As I say. Not universal enthusiasm. Perhaps you can do better?
PS. Kindly give complete references where possible, and URL. Thanks :>)
D'oh! I've called you Mike
D'oh! I've called you Mike too. Sorry Mick :>)
Mick, I just wanted to
Mick,
I just wanted to briefly thank you for taking the time to reply. I intend to follow up with a proper answer in a week or two once I am less busy, and after having read your linked documents.
Hello batarista, "This is my
Hello batarista,
"This is my selection of five from page one of the search results http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=2067878452956471967&hl=en&as_sdt=2000. I admit I've only cherry-picked, but I haven't yet seen universal enthusiasm for Ennis's work. If you can do better, please reply here, but please don't waste everyone's time unless you have something good to offer".
Thanks for posting your google search top 5 out of 96 papers "citing" the Ennis work. Could you please explain what you are attempting to achieve ?
Here's a later study backing up the Ennis multi centre study:
Inhibition of CD203c membrane up-regulation in human basophils by high dilutions of histamine: a controlled replication study.
Link to full paper : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759025/
Nick Day,
"I just wanted to briefly thank you for taking the time to reply. I intend to follow up with a proper answer in a week or two once I am less busy, and after having read your linked documents".
That's no problem Nick. I'll check in when I get the chance.
Cheers
Hello Mick, I asked if you
Hello Mick,
I asked if you had compelling follow-up research to the Ennis study:
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FA. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm Res. 2004 May;53(5):181-8. Epub 2004 Apr 21.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105967)
Belon et al encouraged others to investigate this phenomenon, since they realise that their findings need to be replicated and their results checked independently.
The same could be said of the more recent study you offer:
Salvatore Chirumbolo, Maurizio Brizzi, Riccardo Ortolani, Antonio Vella, and Paolo Bellavite, Inhibition of CD203c membrane up-regulation in human basophils by high dilutions of histamine: a controlled replication study. Inflamm Res. 2009 November; 58(11): 755–764.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759025/)
Chirumbolo et al conclude "These unusual properties of high dilutions, which merit further investigation, are potentially relevant not just to homeopathic pharmaceutical practice, but also to basic research into cell sensitivity to regulation." In other words, they too, call for the replication and checking of their in vitro results.
Independent corroboration increases confidence in experimental results. Did you notice that the Chirumbolo study was partly funded by Laboratories Boiron, the same homeopathic remedy company where the Ennis study was performed?
The burden of proof regarding homeopathy falls squarely on the shoulders of its supporters; please could you explain what you think the evidence you put forward demonstrates? Is it "we have evidence for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect", is it "we found something odd in vitro" or something else?
Kind regards,
hello batarista Of course
hello batarista
Of course Ennis would call for replication in a subject as scientifically controversial as ultra dilutions even though her own results were replicated in the separate labs in other countries as part of the multicentre study.
No surprises there.
Chirumbolo answered the call, replicated the study and called for further replication.
Still no surprises there.
"Independent corroboration increases confidence in experimental results. Did you notice that the Chirumbolo study was partly funded by Laboratories Boiron, the same homeopathic remedy company where the Ennis study was performed?"
An allopathic drug trial gets funded by a pharma company. No surprises there. An ultra dilution study partly funded by a company who manufactures ultra dilutions. Again no surprises.
Who would you expect to fund it ? GSK, Pfizer, Merck ?
"The burden of proof regarding homeopathy falls squarely on the shoulders of its supporters; please could you explain what you think the evidence you put forward demonstrates? Is it "we have evidence for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect", is it "we found something odd in vitro" or something else?"
The studies suggest that there is a reproducible effect from succussed and ultra diluted preparations of histamine. Some will accept it (while calling for further verification) and some will keep questioning it in a circular way.
Cheers.
Hello Mick, when a
Hello Mick,
when a particular line of enquiry looks promising or potentially fruitful, publicly funded bodies, Universities and drug companies are all able to follow up if they can justify their study to their own bean-counters.
Google Scholar returns 96 papers citing Belon et al (the Ennis study), so it certainly has not been ignored. Which is why I asked if you had compelling follow-up research.
Guggisberg et al, (my reference 1 above) could not reproduce the results of the Ennis study, and suggest the experiment is very delicate (i.e. it's difficult to confidently extract a signal from the noise.)
Walach et al (my reference 2 above), although more concerned with homeopathy in general, point to the lack of an underlying theory, which is a real problem for experimental work.
Witt et al (my reference 5 above) reaffirm the difficulty of this type of experiment in their literature review of the evidence for in vitro homeopathic effects, (67 experiments in 75 publications), concluding that “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.”
Chirumbolo et al, recognise the failings of earlier studies, the lack of controls, the great sensitivity of the experiment and its attendant difficulties, the possibility of contaminants, trace elements, and container material, its controversial nature, apparently contradictory results, the lack of any underpinning theory and even debate about which basophil activation marker to rely on.
Their conclusions are therefore, necessarily cautious, so they go round the circle again, calling for “further investigation”. The totality of evidence for a real effect is weak, but as you say, some will be willing to accept it. At best, what they would be accepting is “we found something odd in vitro”.
I can understand that this line of research is easier ground for homeopathy to defend than “homeopathy in general”. It does at least acknowledge the applicability of and need for robust scientific investigation, which is progress of sorts on another front.
However, Chirumbolo et al published only a few months ago – November 2009 - and real progress accrues at a slower pace than perhaps many would hope for.
Kind regards,
Just to start a new thread
Just to start a new thread of conversation;
Given all the supposed evidence in support of homeopathy you would think that the recent Evidence Check performed by the Science and Technology Committee in the UK would have found in favour of it.
This isn't what happened though.
"MPS URGE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW NHS FUNDING AND MHRA LICENSING OF HOMEOPATHY
In a report published today, the Science and Technology Committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA."
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn21_100222.cfm
Full report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm
It's going to be interesting to see the fallout from this. Will homeopathy survive? Or will science and reason prevail?
Regards,
Gold
Evolved Development
http://evolved.net.nz/
New Zealand Skeptics in the Pub
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/