No proof that a ridiculously minuscule amount of an ingredient in water can make ANY difference. It's more honest and efficacious to advise the patient to just drink more water. Also, traditional medicine does NOT treat 'symptoms'. This guy is out and out lying..
The U.S. Department of Justice has handed down an indictment against a former CDC scientist who led research studies that claimed to disprove any link between vaccines and autism.According to government documents, Dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the key researchers in "disproving" any link between vaccines and autism, allegedly defrauded the scientific research community of over one million dollars. See NaturalNews*cm
the question here is not what is proven or not and by who, but if you are able and ready to change your believes if needed and what would be sufficient for you to change your destructive opinions. one must ask, why so many antagonists for something that they think is useless..
the growing number of people attending holistic care in a world where you are not allowed to advertise or promote a discipline that has been proven beyond doubt through 200 years, should be a great indication that it works
@Hardicwilix And what do we mean by "works?" We can say the problem is not that it doesn't work, the problem is that it does and it threatens the patent pharmaceutical industry. Comparatively it would seem it has a lot going against it as a value driven, cryptomolecular pharmacy with generic origins pitted against the huge profit driven synthetic drug manufacturers. And as you suggest, the measure of its oppostion is the measure of its success. Big pharma doesn't stand a chance.
that it is an effective remedy medicine practice, i guess. Darwin proved it also, I can't wait to hear the obscene scrutiny of that one ;)
But you're right and put it so eloquently, but the importance here is to spread the word until people awakens and there will be no more evil attacks. at that time it will be more obvious what fucked up societies in our western world are, we may realize that the biggest terrorists are the suppressors of true knowledge and practice on our own land.
@Hardicwilix I say amen to that. It also helps to point out the organized oppostion that is behind the attacks on homeopathy. Lord Taverne's Sense About Science is funded by Pfizer, currently convicted of murdering countless people with untested anti psychotic drugs by bribing "doctors" to push them, and awarded the biggest fine in the history of Man-not-so-kind for it!
And they still want to call homeopathy fraud? Not only is our medicine proven by their science, it is protected by their law.
@Bandershot Why is it a threat to the pharmaceutical industry? What's to stop pharmaceutical industry from patenting a homeopathic remedy and selling it for big bucks? After all, the bottled water industry makes a killing.
@Bandershot How do you patent a placebo? The same way homeopaths do it today? As do any of the other snake oil salesmen do.
And I will agree with you that "supramaolecular forms" are highlyl unstable and impossible to specify. See, common ground!
And that's BS that homepathic pharmacy is "traditional and mostly from generic sources. Tons of stuff is sold on the market as "traditional", "natural", etc. It is sold as a drug today. I
@Bandershot Hell, I can go into any pharmacy now and, if I was so inclined (I'm not) purchase a homeopathic 'drug' now. There's nothing stopping a pharmaceutical company from doing the same. And if they are really cleaver, they could patent it!
@Bandershot I can walk into any pharmacy (unfortunately) and pay good money for placebos...er, homeopathic remedies, any day of the week. You certainly can make money at it.
I don't know if you censored it before, but I will repeat, there is no vaccination for leptospirosis in humans so it is untrue that there is a "campaign immunizing millions" against the disease.
I don't think injecting water into people is going to do any better, but I'm sure the Cuban government will soon issue the studies to prove it.
@SkepticGuy There was nothing in the report I saw that said the doses were administered by injection. The usual dose is given orally with dry pellets.
For someone who calls himself SkepticGuy, you seem to be skeptical of everything but your own imaagination. Keep it up. You're showing everyone how stupid the paid oppostion to homeoapthy is.
@Bandershot Ok, let me revise my statement. "...there is no vaccination, oral or injected, for leptospirosis in humans so it is untrue that there is a 'campaign immunizing millions' against the disease.
I don't think giving people a sugar pill or injecting water into them is going to do any better, but I'm sure the Cuban government will soon issue the studies to prove it."
@SkepticGuy How do you know there's no vaccination, oral or injected, forleptospirosis?" You cguys come up withthe dumbest presumptions, andthen you lecture me about not having any scientific evidence for homeoapthy, until of course i show you some, which you then have to0 criticize. I've never seen such a pack of flaming hyprocrites. You challenge every assertion but your own, as if you think no ones going to notice you're not applying the same standards to your own BS. Amazing!
@SkepticGuy LOL. You make it sound like something you apply for. Why don't you apply for one, for stupidity?
But if a Nobel prize was to be given for proving homeopathy, it should go to Jacques Benveniste, postuhumously, who's work was just validated by Luc Montagnier, the man who got the 2008 Nobel prize for discovery of the HIV virus. That must drive you skeptards nuts.
Google Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures
@SkepticGuy WHy do you call yourself SkepticGuy? If you were being honest with yourself you'd call yhourself AssumptionGuy. Montagnier has been published. Of course now you'regoing to tell me what he said without having read it, right? Based on yo9ur ASSUMPTIONS. WHere did you learn the art of assumkptioon. From James the Assumer Randi?
@Bandershot Ok, I was referring to legitimate, science publications, but I did find something in "Interdiscplinary Sciences - Computational Life Sciences, and in the first issue, no matter. For a peer-reviewed, refereed publication, it happened all very quickly. From the abstract: Received: 3 January 2009 Revised: 5 January 2009 Accepted: 6 January 2009 . Wow, in three days!!!!
And it really has nothing to do with homeopathy, does it?
@SkepticGuy Yeah, he said it does. If you read the study you'd be amazed. Recently at a conf. of Nobel laureates Montagnier said it's about homeopathy, it's patently obvious. The study is about structuring in aqueous high dilutes; he uses equipment patented by Benveniste to test for hydrogen bond structuring, the same thing in homeopathy. Try reading it.
How much are they paying you now to post anti homeopathy lies? I hear you get 50 cents per post. Too much. You should pay them.
@SkepticGuy Why do you call yourself SkepticGuy? If you were being honest with yourself you'd call yourself AssumptionGuy. Montagnier's published! Its been out for a year! Of course now you're going to tell me what he said without having read it, based on your ASSUMPTIONS, right?. Where did you learn the art of assumption. From James the Assumer Randi? I thought skeptics were supposed to withhold judgment . . I guess not. This must be the New Skepticism.
@Ramiel16 That depends on what you want to accept as proper medicine. There are now 4 or 5 hpathic hospitals in the UK which have been gov't. funded for years. lts acceptance is much greater in Europe, taught in medical schools; if you look at the reference material for it written by MDs, it's exhaustive, covering more symptoms than hyoir crap does. The WHO says its the 2nd most used form of medicine in the world today, whereas what I presume is the dangerous patent meds you're pushing is 4th.
I like the video of the retarded woman trying to say why homeopathic medicines don't hold up the double blind studies, since "everyone is different". Yet she still says they work.
What a crock of shit. This bullshit mentality is leading parents to allow their children to die just so these snake oil salesmen can make a buck.
@ZakkoryWylde You're to be commended for your concern about the public health and safety . . but what I find to be breathtakingly HYPOCRITICAL of YOU is that in addition to being stunningly IGNORANT of the facts re it, you say NOTHING about the COUNTLESS deaths caused by what homeopAthy really threatens, the PATENT POISON "medical" monopoly that kills people by the DROVES!. YOU CAN'T PROVE HOMEOPATHY KILLED ANYONE EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO DIDN"T USE IT! You're a PATENT SHILL!
Has anything been published in a respectable journal or any journal? It's been several years and plenty of time. Seems like they were just giving a talk to a very receptive group. The data must not support them or surely they would have at least published something.
iIdoubt they're interested in playing that game. Why do they have to prove anything to you? They'd probably just as soon see the U.S. and its associates got to hell. Its not as if they're selling anything to you .
@Bandershot It's not a game. Medical research is very serious. After doing research publishing is the next step. How else can others look at the results? Peer review is vital. It's important for further study or to put something into practice.
How can anyone else take advantage of what they have learned, when you can't read about it? Others may see ways to improve methods to make it even more effective. I would think if it works they would want others to take advantage.
Yeah, it's a game. First I hear these know it alls tell me that there's no medical research or "science" to back up homoepathy, then I come across study after study, & when I show those to them, they throw them back in my face & say they're no good, not peer reviewed, not replicated, not possible. When I show them it's been rep'd & peer rev'd, they still throw it back in my face & say it's still not possible.
Look, I agree medical research important, but ultimate proof is in common use.
If you do not release the results, its just like it never happened. Saying an epidemic was stopped is premature. Years later and no report most likely means the data didn't support the preliminary conclusion. What else?
Other studies have nothing to do with this claim. There is no study. There is no data or any other information. You may claim anything, but repeating unfounded claims is irresponsible.
Maybe the Cuban docs have made a study, Idk. I 've spoken with someone who was at their conference. It really is all dependent on what you want to accept. This certainly isn't the first report I've seen about homeopathics used in an epidemic. The point is, whereas the Cubans appear to be happy to share the information about their use of these drugs, I don't imagine they really care a whit about what you think about it. They're certainly not trying to sell anything to you, are they?
The point is the they haven't said anything. Cuba has always been concerned with medical help and 3rd world countries. A cheap solution for this problem is exactly what is needed. If their was something to the report they would have shared years ago.
It's not the lack of a "scientific" study. It's the total lack of any information. I don't care about selling to me or anyone else, but if they can help why not? Keeping knowledge secrete good or bad is not helping.
The point is that I think you're being hypocritical in attacking the information I'm presenting here on the lack of a "scientific" study. If you went over there and started demanding that they conduct immunization as an RCT, they'd laugh you out of the country. They're interested in reesults, not proving something to you. Death by doctor's now 1 of the top 4 leading causes of death in the US,, and that's by using non homeopathic drugs. So what good did testing on those drugs do?
Sorry to revive a dead argument, but there have been MANY studies of studies of homeopathy (i.e. methods and results have been compared, and plotted on a graph). Those with least reliable methods also give the most positive data, generally. Meta studies have been done of the most reliable RCT's and they have shown to have negligible effect, or efficacy.
On another note, comparing against placebo is generally useless. It would be easy to generate positive data... (cont)
brownajr- I've heard your "argument" so many times now that I have come to believe that it is intentional misinformation. It doesn't hold up under inspection. Shang, the only meta to conclude placebo, has been discredited. No other meta has concluded placebo. Botanical tests show dramatic results. See Kolisko and the U of Bologna studies. There have been dozens of biochemical tests of 6 different types. But any exp. homeopath isn't impressed. They've seen the results in humans. So back off.
Which is why modern drugs are usually compared against other, current drugs. Even if homeopathic remedies aren't due to the placebo effect, which we have no conclusive evidence for, it is always debatable how much more effective they are than the drugs currently on the market.
Anyone who is exp. in the use of homeopathiocs doesn't need to see evidence from non human subjects to know beyond the shadow of a doubt they're not placebos . But what non human evidence does do is highlight the vehement lies made up against this amazing medicine. So I'm out of time and patience entertaining your prefabricated doubts. Go back to your murderous drugs and leave homeoapthy alone. There's nothing here for phony "skeptics" and liars.
Now that you've run out of arguments I see you've resorted to the censorship of approving comments, Bandershot. For that reason I see no point in posting here again. At this time homoeopathy remains an unproven supernatural belief system.
You're not going to post anytthing more here? Is that a promise? We have now it now in writing! Alexi Starr will not post anymore of her misinformed homeoapthy hate speeches, ignorance and lies on JohnBenneth's Youtube Bandershot Channel. I think that deserves a drink! I'll have your best Scotch and a pint of Guiness back!
Ben Goldacre published an article on homoeopathy in The Lancet, stating its research to be problematic for a variety of reasons. These included the high publication biases of alternative therapy journals, with very few articles reporting null results; ignoring meta-analytic studies in favour of cherry picked positive results; and the promotion of an observational study (that he described as "little more than a customer-satisfaction survey").
Hi Alexi, thanks for your comment. I agree that h. research is problematic, there IS publ'n bias, both for & especially AGAINST, which is a medical jihad: Contrary to popular belief, NOT scientific! Except for Shang, which has been discredited, NONE of the best known metas & lit. reviews, i.e. Linde, Cucherat, Kleijnen, WItt, Johnson, have concluded h. to be placebo! Look at the peer reviewed studies in non-homeopathic journals! Look at the biochemical assays. Science is on the side of hpathy!
Linde (2002) showed no effects different from placebo. Cucherat (2000) showed a weak effect in low methodological quality studies and none in higher quality studies. Kleijnen (1991) was inconclusive due to low methodological quality. Witt et al (2005) Wasn't randomised or double blind. I couldn't find the Johnson study. When tested to the standards of real medicine homoeopathy fails to come up with the goods, this is hardly a "medical jihad", Bandershot.
I don't find a Linde 2002. Please cite title & publication. However, the Linde 1997 meta in the Lancet reports: "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo." And Linde ibid says "Kleijnen et al in 1991 showed a surprising number of positive results, even among those that received high
quality-ratings for randomisation, blinding, sample size, & other methodological criteria.."
"Systematic reviews of complementary therapies an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy" (Linde et al, 2001) concludes that "The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing, Bandershot. Linde 1997 goes on to conclude that "However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition".
You've left out who it is they're referring to re: CONVINCING. Linde: "IN CONCLUSION, the available systematic reviews . . reflect the ongoing fundamental controversy
on this therapy and strengthen the perception that, on one side, positive evidence from clinical trials WILL NOT CONVINCE skeptics, and that on the other side negative results from trials NOT REPRESENTING ACTUAL PRACTICE will not have any impact on homoeopaths." Linde is right, as your comments show NO EVIDENCE WILL CONVINCE YOU.
A rigorously implemented randomised double blind trial, with thousands of participants, showing homoeopathy to be efficacious would convince me, Bandershot. If it did ever manage to meet this minimum standard that would be a very exciting day for science. Why has nobody every managed to take James Randi's million dollars if homoeopathy really works?
I seriously doubt it, when there's a better, easier test that would be more convincing to the average person, which is why homeopathy has greater use in the world today than the patented poisons you'd have people use in its place, and thats is the real trial of any medicine, to see how it works on yourself, using your own senses first hand. But you won't do that, oh no, that won't make you popular, will it? This is just a social issue for you, not health or science.
When doctors give people sugar pills, telling them they're a pharmaceutical, they get better, Bandershot. If the sugar pills are large and multicoloured the effect is more pronounced. The same thing happens when true believers go to a faith healer. This is the placebo effect and efficacy can only be proved when it's removed with a randomised double blind protocol, at which point homoeopathy stops "working", unless you resort to literature bias, and carefully cherry pick your studies.
LOL! It's becoming clear where you've been getting all your lies. Randi's never formally tested anyone for anything under his own terms, & never will. He's never affixed his signature to his own challenge because it would then become an enforceable contract. He dismisses all applications in "preliminary" tests or endless arguing over a "protocol", as he did with me in '99 & Vithoulkas. Anyone can see from the literature that there are numerous tests that'd pass the binary proof Randi demands.
Protocol, of the sort Randi insists on, is very important if the truth is to win out, Bandershot. Jacques Benveniste's experiments, for example, seemed to prove homoeopathy, but miraculously the effect vanished when Randi introduced a randomised double blind protocol, meaning that his lab assistant, who was performing the experiments, didn't know which vials were "homoeopathic" and which were "placebo". Which element of the protocol prevented you from passing Randi's preliminary trial?
The basohiul degran test has been rep'd many times, and Randi's seen Benveniste successfully do it. Look at the reports; Randi and Maddox deliberately sabotaged the test. Randi has a million at stake and handled the key to a double blind. Sleight of hand?
Pharma is heavily invested in the outcome of trials and the public's perception of hpathy, and will try to discredit any evidence that supports it. After months of exchanging emails, Randi broke off discussion of a test in Fall '99.
The "basohiul degran test" yields NOTHING when searched for on Google, Bing, Yahoo, or Cuil. Benveniste invited Maddox, Steward and Randi to design a double blind procedure, which they did. Before revealing the results the team asked if there were any complaints about the procedure, none were brought up. Most experimental drugs, as does homoeopathy, fail the rigorous trials procedure, and are consigned to the dustbin of history. Homoeopathy only stays alive because it's promoted by charlatans.
Oh, I'm so sorry, the correct spelling is "basophil degranulation." I thought I made that clear in a previous comment. But I'm puzzled as to how it is that a person who has such intense feelings about a subject can know so little about it. Certainly you should be aware of all the b.d. tests done, and reports of what really happened with Maddox et al, telling Steward to SHUT UP while he was screaming at everyone during a positive replication of it, & what about allowing Randi to handle the key?
Randi's a self confessed charlatan who has made a career of deceiving others, like you. But he has no scientific credentials. When he's held up to his own light and subjected to his own standards of proof, he's fails miserably. Where's his peer reviewed study that proves the placebo hypothesis, when not one credible meta analysis or review of homeoathy has ever confiemd it? They may say the evidence is weak, the results not stable, but no competent analysis can conclude placebo.
The difference is Randi's honest about how conjuring skills can be used to deceive people, unlike the charlatans who pretend homoeopathy has any efficacy, Bandershot. That's no more than an ad hominem attack on Randi. How specifically does he fail when subjected to his own standards? Homeopathy can't pass a properly conducted randomised double blind trial, without careful cherry picking, since it has no efficacy that only leaves the placebo effect.
Well, first of all, why should your opinions bear any weight here? A true skeptic withholds judgment of any kind, and here you are trying to prove a negative to support your first hypothesis, that all homeopaths are charlatans, without real knoweldge of the subject. You've taken your info from a source heavily invested in the outcome, encouraging negative opinions. Rather than simply presenting information, we get conclusive opinions after Randi's hung the title CHARLATAN on his door!
A slug can see that this doesn't make any sense. They can't conclusively disprove anything, just to allow the outside chance that a red space monkey is in charge of us all. But they can disprove homeopathy as well as they can anything else.
To put the theory into perspective, it goes something like this:
A person three billion lightyears away from an alien holding a glass with aspirin dissolved in it, can inhale enough of that to cure meningitus.
Knock off the straw man arguments and false analogies. The same kind of crap was spread around about the first airplane, radio and countless other things that are taken for granted today. Stop lying about it rea some of the phsyics aswsociated with it by top physicists like Anagnostatos, Roy, Tiller, Hoover & Josephson. The homeopathic molecule has been identified as a clathrate. As much as you'd like to think so, it has nothing to do with space aliens three billion light years away.
The WItt refernce is the 2007 "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature." Complement Ther Med. Witt graded each of 67 trials, 3/4 of which showed the biochemical action of homeoapthics. -cont-
Kleijen et al 1991 concludes that "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias", Bandershot. "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature" (Witt et all, 2007), was not randomised or blinded.
That is to say that so few of the homoeopathic studies reviewed by (Witt et al, 2007) had been randomised or blinded, that they actually made a point of recommending that the people, whose studies they were considering, should make a point of incorporating these minimum standards into any trials they conduct in future.
You're reading the abstract, not the entire review, you're just trying to play catchup after being caught posting a lie. If I'm wrong then tell us how many invitros Witt reports were blinded. I want to see you contradict yourself again. First you lied in saying a non existent review concluded homeoapthy is a placebo, now you're still interpreting conclusions to fit your prejudices against homeopathy.
Despite 200 yrs of angry, lying opposition like yours, homeopathy persists because it works.
I'm reading the conclusions of the reviews, which all state that homoeopathy only shows any sort of result in poorly conducted trials, of the sort that are methodologically flawed, Bandershot. When the science is done rigorously, and steps are taken to mitigate the placebo effect, this quackery shows zero effect. Can you quote this alleged "lie"? I'm not interpreting the conclusions, I'm quoting them. Homoeopathy persists only because it's a good way for charlatans to fleece the unwary.
Can I quote a lie? Yeah, the one Alexi just stated. William E. Boyd, MD at Glasgow Univerrsity was conducting exhaustive in vitro tests on homeopathy 70 years ago, reporting the effects in elegantly written reports intended to aid replication. His studies were designed by Barbour scholars, overseen by Sir Gowland Hopkins, results analyzed by statisticians. Look at the Belon multi centred studies including Ennis' work at Queens College, which Witt gave tghe highest rating, What's Randi done? Zero
At the end of the day, Witt et al 2007, still conclude that "No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators", Bandershot. Given all the interest from people such as yourself, has homoeopathy really not progressed at all over the last 70 years? It seems incredible to me that you're having to allude to 70 year old studies. What's Randi done? Introduced millions to critical thinking and debunked a wide range of woo woo.
Systems of belief like astrology or atheism aren't widespread legal doctrines of medical science used by licensed medical professionals to treat people with serious medical problems as homeopathy does. There are countless people who sya they owe their lives to homeopathy. I know one who is an applied physicist who's tested homeopathy using NMR who says that homeopathy has kept him out of a wheelchair & his wife out of the grave. And who've you got? Dr. Randi? A 3 card monte dealer with cancer?
Randi's smart enough to entrust his cancer care to evidence based medicine, rather than homoeopathic quackery which can't even pass a randomised double blind trial without a careful cherry picking of the literature, Bandershot.
You're getting desperate, Alexi. Witt wasn't "randomised" or "blinded" because it's a CRITICAL REVIEW. Metas, reviews aren't RCT's. Witt scored 67 trials on numeorus indices, giving each trial a final score of 1 to 10. Contrary to what you claim, there are high rated positive invitro trials, such as Boyd & Belon. Kleijnen concluded 18 yrs ago "there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy" which is being done at this moment. You lost the argument then, you're losing it now.
I corrected mis-wording yesterday, as anybody reading this forum can see, and stated that it's not Witt that has problems over a lack of randomising or blinding, but the studies they reviewed, Bandershot. However you dress it up Witt found "No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators". That further evaluation of homoeopathy has taken place over the last 18 years, and it still can't demonstrate efficacy in a properly conducted randomised double blind trial.
The 2007 Johnson review for phamacists, "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. states, "Although, high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems; to date, studies have not successfully settled the original dilemma concerning a mechanism of action for very dilute solutions."
So, given the misinformation you've tried to pass off here, I stand by my original assertion.
The 2007 Johnson review for phamacists, "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. states, "Although, high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems; to date, studies have not successfully settled the original dilemma concerning a mechanism of action for very dilute solutions."
So, given the misinformation you've tried to pass off here, I stand by my original assertion.
"Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?" (Johnson et al, 2007) discusses homoeopathy without coming to a conclusion about its efficacy, Bandershot.
Give it up, Alexi. Read it JOHNSON again: "In the last 3 decades, a number of high-quality, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled homeopathic studies have reported that homeopathically prepared products are more effective than placebo for a variety of conditions such as acute hayfever, rheumatoid arthritis, primary fibromyalgia, allergic asthma, influenza syndrome, childhood diarrhea, and primary fibromyalgia."
Sounds conclusive enough to me. You're living proof of obstinate prejudice.
Do you mean to say that 6 cherry picked trials, many of which involved less than 30 participants, is the best homoeopathy can produce after 3 decades? Give it up, Bandershot. The conclusions of the meta analyses are clear, as reported in "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy" (Linde et al,1999), higher quality trials report less positive results.
No, there's many more trials and there's the totality of evidence, which includes much more than just staged clinical trials, the evidence which you're forced to ignore and dismiss to maintain your anti homeopathy campaign. The fact of the matter, you and countless others have failed to make a case against homeopathy, no matter how hard you've tried. The FDA was created in the '30s by a homeopath, Sen. Copeland, MD. who used h. to save lives in NYC during the world's greatest pandemic (1918 flu)
This "totality of evidence" sounds a bit vague, Bandershot. I thought I had already made a convincing case against homoeopathy, it only "works" in the absence of randomised, double blind protocols, or where you carefully cherry pick your studies. The efficacy of homoeopathy is inversely proportional to the methodological quality of the trial in question. If Sen. Copeland was an MD, I rather hope he managed to save some lives, or what would be the point? :-)
Cucherat states "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo." They DO NOT STATE that NO higher quality trial showede an effect. They state, "Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies." Kleijnen states, "Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used." -cont.-
The 2007 Johnson review for phamacists, "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. states, "Although, high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems; to date, studies have not successfully settled the original dilemma concerning a mechanism of action for very dilute solutions."
So, given the misinformation you've tried to pass off here, I stand by my original assertion.
"Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group" (Cucherat et al, 2000) concludes that the higher the quality of the study, the smaller the effect homoeopathy has, Bandershot. Clearly this is an indication that the only effect homoeopathy has is a placebo effect, when this is removed in higher quality randomised double blind trials homoeopathy shows no real effect.
Why won't you let me respond to the accusations about me you wrote in that article? You know, the one where you quoted me without asking my permission or informing me of your actions. Come on, be a man, allow an honest exchange of ideas.
Results of the survey were remarkable. In approximately 90 percent of the cases no instances of the flu occurred when Influenzinum was used preventively no matter what the dosage protocol. Among the physicians the effectiveness was deemed good to very good in 90 percent of the cases. In 5 percent there was no protective effect.
Thank you! I've scripted a vid on the subject will include the Influenzinium info. The historical record reporting the successful use of homeopathy for prevention of the flu is STUNNING! In 1918, out of approx 50,000 cases analyzed, homeopathically trained MD's were losing 1% of their H1N1 cases, while untrained docs were losing 28%! The question is, how do we get this information before the public?
Spanish or 1918 flu never reached mortality rates of 28%. What is wrong with you that you cant even get the most basic of facts right even before you rampage off into your fantasy that homoeopathy is anything more than expensive water.
You weren't listening. 28% was not what was claimed for the entire population. The highest death rate worldwide was 6%. The 28% figure was taken from 24,000 cases administered by allopahtic doctors. Not everyone who got the flu saw a doctor; if there is one, and you feel like you're going to die, you call a doctor. So MDs logically saw the most severe & fatal cases. Listen & think about it 1st before shooting your mouth off. It may not be what you want it to be, I'm just reporting the data.
I draw on numerous sources: Read my article on the subject at scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com. Because of the extremely controversal nature of the subject I've paid extra attention to documenting it.with footnotes.
I've also produced a video, "The Homeopathic Treatment of the Flu" on this same channel. You will find there direct links to the footnotes from which the 28% figure was obtained.
Direct links to those sources are in the video description field of the video, ont his same channel.
In this French survey 70 percent of participants used a 9C strength of Influenzinum. (In the US one would assume a higher proportion of practitioners use a higher strength because of the different prescribing preferences between the two countries.)
Weekly doses were used by 26 percent of participants and monthly dosage by 23 percent. Another 16 percent used a weekly then monthly dosage plan, and 35 percent applied some other dosage protocol. 80 percent of respondents began treatment in the fall (September through November) and ended between February and April.
In 1998 the French Society of Homeopathy conducted a survey of 23 homeopathic doctors concerning their use of Influenzinum as a flu preventive (Coulamy, 1998). The survey included use of Influenzinum over a 10 year period (1987-1998) in 453 patients. The protocol for the frequency of doses varied considerably among these doctors.
Sorry about your ignorance of and lack of knowledge about homeopathy. Your opinions just don't represent the facts about this wonderfully healing system of medicine.
I've had wonderful success with the gentle but dynamic healing of h. in my treatment of neuropathy, fibromyalgia and high blood pressure. Also great in treating acute illnesses like colds, sore throats and poison ivy.
I hope many, many more people find this fantastic system of healing. They won't be disappointed!
Millions of people around the world testify that H. does not just work but works beautifully--light years ahead of conv. med.
For those who need scientific evidence supporting h. there is plenty of it. Take a look at PubMed and the provings done on h. remedies over the course of the past 200 years.
Anyone who says h. doesn't work or that it is just placebo hasn't tried it and knows nothing about it.
"Millions of people around the world testify that H. does not just work but works beautifully"
Here we see an example of the "Argument from popularity" fallacy. The general idea is that "well all THESE people can't be wrong!" The problem is, yes, that many people CAN be wrong. Misinformation and confirmation bias are dangerous things and have lead people to support all kinds of idiotic notions, like bloodletting or the "four humors."
"What was the name of the study that allegedly claimed h. nosode outperformed conven. med...."
Are YOU for real? You're asking for a STUDY? It was a PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT involving 2 1/2 million people done under the auspices of the prestigious, WHO-qualified Carlos J. Finlay Institute. Google it. You can read the report.
Frankly, it is meaningless to continue this conversation. If I gave you 100+ double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, peer-reviewed studies on Influ. you'd still
You will never convince me or the millions of other people who know and use h. that it doesn't work. Honestly, what you believe is of no consequence to me.
"If I gave you 100+ double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, peer-reviewed studies on Influ."
Let's start with ONE and see where things go from there.
As for the alleged Cuban trail, I've found a few press releases but so far no details or actual numbers. If you have access to something that gives actual DETAILS of the study please PM it to me.
STILL no cites to back up your claim that Influ. doesn't work and that the companies selling it are quacks?
STILL (!!!!) no acknowledgment that the numbers of lives saved and the number of infects down thru using h. nosode to defend against lepto. are impressive especially compared to the no's achieved by conventional vaccines!
Let's start with one cite for each of these three issues, and we'll go from there.
There are NO clinical trials demonstrating ANY level of efficacy for Influenzinum.
There's no proof it works.
Google for information about Influenzinum. Most of what you'll ll find are posts and articles by homeopaths all of whom PROFIT from products like Influenzinum.
You can babble all you want demanding I prove it doesn't work, but the simple fact is you're making claims of efficacy for something for which there's NO evidence it actually works.
The complete lack of evidence of efficacy is all the proof I need. It's not my job to prove it's a useless waste of money when there's NO evidence that Influenzinum actually works.
No research.
No studies.
Nada.
Zip.
Zero.
Find an Influenzinum study that meets the FDA requirements for approval of a new drug. Show it to me. I'll be eager to read it if one surfaces.
"It was a PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT involving 2 1/2 million people"
Yes it it. That means it's a government funded study. In the REAL world with REAL scientists a paper would be published detailing the methodology, data collected and end results. All we've gotten from the homeopaths who claim to have done this are press releases.
If there's a published study, kindly PM me the link.
Major vaccinations with Vax-Spiral were already well underway. Unless there was an actual study where some people were given Vax-Spiral and others given only the homeopathic remedy, then there's no way to tell for sure of the homeopaths weren't just taking credit for the success of Vax-Spiral and the major education and prevention program Cuba has been running for years.
Actually you're confusing the two homeopathic preparations we were discussing. I pointed out there are no studies regarding Influenzinum, which is true.
I also pointed out that there is NO PUBLISHED information about the Cuban study you keep bringing up.
A study was done in Cuba but the people who did it have failed to publish any actual details.
If discussing two different issues is confusing you, we can focus on just one.
read the article "Vax-Spiral ®. Trivalent Antileptospirosis Vaccine For Human Use; Research, Development And Impact On The Disease In Cuba" in the MEDICC Review (Available online)
Clinical trials of the vaccine were done in 1996 and 1997 and Vax-Spiral was found to be 97% effective.
This means a 97% effective vaccine had been available for over half a decade before the homeopathy trial.
You are confused about the project undertaken by the Carlos J. Finlay Institute during the 2007-08 --- THAT IS AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY THE 2007-08 SEASON --- leptospirosis season in Cuba. The report very clearly states that:
1) h. nosode with 2 Bach flower essences ONLY were used
2) the project involved 2 1/2 MILLION people
3) the RESULTS were: INFECTS DOWN from the 1,000's to 10 or fewer per mth, DEATHS DOWN FROM 100+ to ZERO AS COMPARED TO PAST RECORDS OF CONVENTIONAL VACCINE USE
If any of that is true (Which I doubt) where is the published research on it? If those claims are true and accurate then where is the report on the test???
If those claims are true, they why do we only have press releases about it?
This is not how scientists conduct research, but how charlatans court the public. Science by press release is an indication of a scam, not reliable science.
If you want to read a published report you'll have to wait until it comes out.
BTW, YOU made the claim that Boiron and others selling h. remedies are quacks and that Influ. does not work. It's YOUR job to back up your claims with proof. You've been asked for cites but continue to fail to post them.
2) can't acknowledge the most compelling evidence for h. even from the highest quality studies and lab work and the most renowned scientists while at the same time demanding exactly that very proof
3) rely on denial, avoidance of the facts and insults to carry your alleged "case" against h.
Funny how you don't recognize the pathology behind your position even though it's blatantly obvious to anyone who reads your posts.
"2) can't acknowledge the most compelling evidence for h."
You haven't provided ANY evidence yet, just unsubstantiated claims.
"3) rely on denial"
In the real world, claims of efficacy need to be supported by clinical trials. It's YOUR job to prove homeopathy works, something you have so far failed to do.
1. why don't you actually read the references Bandershot has posted on his videos.
2. very strange that you believe 200+ studies reported in mainstream medical journals as evidencing for homeopathy "unsubstantiated claims"
3. it's YOUR job to read the studies and the scientific work evidencing for homeopathy. it's NOT my job to prove anything to you. getting the facts is your responsibility.
4. as is always true of "skeptics", your arguments rely on the Three D's of Skepticism.
The Three D's are: denial of the facts, distortion of the facts, and attempts to discredit anyone who makes positive statements about homeopathy (homeopaths, their patients, the renowned scientists whose work shows how homeopathy can work, the work of Nobel Prize winners, the work of researchers showing that it does work).
It's easy -- try it for yourself. Make your own decision instead of taking the word of magicians and other clowns posting silly videos here.
"1. why don't you actually read the references Bandershot has posted on his videos. "
I have. If you check out his sources you find they're all hearsay, anecdotal or consist of "studies" with small sample sizes or statistically irrelevant results. I even once found he was using a study that concluded homeopathy was nothing more than placebo as evidence FOR homeopathy!
"2. very strange that you believe 200+ studies reported in mainstream medical journals as evidencing for homeopathy "unsubstantiated claims"
I spent an entire holiday weekend in 2009 going through that list. All of them were garbage, many even concluded homeopathy was nothing more than placebo!
"4. as is always true of "skeptics", your arguments rely on the Three D's of Skepticism. "
All I want are studies with a large sample size, statistically relevant results larger than placebo and the study's margin of error, double or triple blinded with a placebo and / or control branch. So far NO studies that meet that criteria have claimed homeopathy is anything other than placebo.
Your 200 studies of garbage data does not convince real scientists.
So studies evidencing for hpathy don't convince "real" scientists? That's really interesting considering that world renowned "real" scientists like Roy, Bell, Tiller, Conte and Berlocchi and "real" Nobel Prize winners like Luc Montagnier and Brian Josephson have provided insights into how it can work through the structure of liquid water and EM signals.
As I said, all your arguments come down to three things -- denial of the facts, distortion of the facts and attempts to discredit.
According to the CDC and the World Health Organization, millions are at risk of dying should a pandemic strike again. With the H1N1 Swine Flu, this reality now appears to be closer at hand. We must turn over any stone and investigate any system of medicine that has the potential to save lives. Homeopathy is such a system. Its proven track record must no longer be ignored. Its history is clear and we have the capability to treat masses of people infected or at risk of being infected by this Flu.
A recent comprehensive epidemiological study of some 61,000 confirmed cases of Spanish Flu from 1918-19 by Canadian physician, Dr. Andre Saine, shows that patients treated with Homeopathy had death rates of 0.7 percent compared to death rates in the untreated and from conventional care of 30 percent or more. The Spanish Flu was also an H1N1 type A influenza virus.
The virus may drift or change by the time a vaccine was made available, so this, too, must be closely monitored. Viruses mutate or change their form quickly and develop resistance to drugs and vaccines over time. Will this happen? All these are questions we must ask and trust the experts to monitor.
Currently it looks as if the HINI swine flu virus is sensitive to two main anti-viral agents (Tamiflu and Relenza). There is currently no vaccine and that would take many months to mass-produce. One of the greatest problems facing conventional medicine is the amount of time required to identify and manufacture drugs and vaccines capable of helping manage a deadly outbreak of flu.
"One of the greatest problems facing conventional medicine is the amount of time required to identify and manufacture drugs and vaccines capable of helping manage a deadly outbreak of flu."
Well, science based medicine has that pesky "clinical trial" phase needed to prove the medicine actually works. Being able to skip that step and just go straight from "Hey this should work!" to sales gives quackery a "first to market" edge.
Based on the infection (attack) rate in the unprotected group, 58 cases of infection would have been expected in the homeopathically protected group. Instead, there were only four cases of Meningococcal infection. Statistical analysis showed that Homeopathic vaccination offered 95% protection in the first six months and 91% protection over the year against Meningococcal disease.
Given that epidemiology is everyone's business, and the dramatic rise in the in vitro and vivo confirmations of homeopathy, would it be incorrect to say it is now the responsibility of EVERYONE to at least acquaint themselves with homotoxicology, for their own health and others?
In 1998 two Professors of Medicine from the University Foundation in Blumenau, Brazil, conducted a study on Meningococcal disease and homeopathic vaccination .
A total of 65,826 people between the ages of 0-20 were given a Homeopathic Vaccination for protection against Meningococcal disease while 23,532 were not. Over a 12-month period, the following results were obtained:
During a Poliomyelitis epidemic in Buenos Aires, practitioners (Homeopaths and Doctors) distributed the Homeopathic vaccination remedy Lathyrus sativus to over 40,000 people. Not one of them developed Polio during the epidemic despite exposure.
· Nurses and patients protected by Homeopathic Vaccination at the London Homeopathic Hospital remained disease free during a 3 year period in which they were regularly exposed to Diphtheria.
Mohanaturo has given us many sources for his information. As he says, it is available to you on the net; you would not have known this if you hadn't looked it up on Jack's website.
But it is interesting to note that you have gone from attacking homeopathy because of what you thought was a lack of evidence, to now attacking the reporters for passing it along.
It is you, mapache, who is lacking attribution and credibility for your wild allegations.
The Bible makes it VERY clear that the only medicine we're allowed to use is derived from plants. ONLY natural medicine is permitted by God. Homeopathy is therefore permitted, most of big pharma's garbage is banned.
Arnica 1M along with Acupuncture can replace the need of the dangerous drug NSAID Ibuprofen which has side-effects of constipation & digestive disturbances.
I immediately stopped the patient from taking Ibuprofen and replaced it with Arnica 1M which gave the same pain relief effect in his chronic peri-anal fistula.
I couldn't believe it when one tiny Silica 30C pill simply opened up my ear infection and made it disappear.
People don't realise how powerful their minds and the healing systems of their body really are.
In a way I can see (though not respect) why Pharma companies would wish to keep the masses ignorant. But I can't understand why some of said masses appear to take *pride* in their ignorance.
mohan, bander and the rest of you nutcases have a peri-anal fistula where your brains should be....
I love it when the water salesmen/women say that they are better than "big pharma" because homeoPATHETIC companies make less money, implying that real doctors/scientists are motivated only by greed and are too naive to see that homeopathy works. By their logic, my small computer company is about a hundred million times better than Microsoft.
My experience of h. is that it has been a life saver in my treatment for head injuries, neuropathy, fibromyalgia and high blood pressure. It has been equally effective in treating acute illnesses.
My testimony is the same as the tens of millions of people using it around the world: H. DOES NOT JUST WORK, IT WORKS BEAUTIFULLY WITH NO SIDE EFFECTS OR IATROGENIC DISEASES.
Too bad the skeptics don't try it or learn anything about it before coming to their conclusions!
Nobody sues homeopathic companies because they are afraid of being laughed out of court when they tell a judge that they thought that water was going to cure their arthritis or whatever their ailment was, and it surprisingly didn't work.
I don't disagree that pharmaceutical companies make more money than they should. They also spend billions on research, testing, licensing and insurance and other overhead that homeopathic companies don't assume. Homeopathic companies are just as greedy. They don't make as much money, but they assume no risk since drinking water or eating starch (or whatever the 99.999999999999999999999999999999%...of the pills are made of) will never hurt anyone.
No proof that a ridiculously minuscule amount of an ingredient in water can make ANY difference. It's more honest and efficacious to advise the patient to just drink more water. Also, traditional medicine does NOT treat 'symptoms'. This guy is out and out lying..
MrRouXRenard 3 weeks ago
"We are very aware of Benneth...total nut case...sigh"-Randi
tenkins 3 months ago
The U.S. Department of Justice has handed down an indictment against a former CDC scientist who led research studies that claimed to disprove any link between vaccines and autism.According to government documents, Dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the key researchers in "disproving" any link between vaccines and autism, allegedly defrauded the scientific research community of over one million dollars. See NaturalNews*cm
promiseIsaih60 9 months ago
Homeopathy is i believe a great cure for fake disease. what would work better than a fake cure.
istan50 1 year ago
It is hard to make claims that can NOT be validated. Does it hurt........
teb0atoz 1 year ago
the question here is not what is proven or not and by who, but if you are able and ready to change your believes if needed and what would be sufficient for you to change your destructive opinions. one must ask, why so many antagonists for something that they think is useless..
the growing number of people attending holistic care in a world where you are not allowed to advertise or promote a discipline that has been proven beyond doubt through 200 years, should be a great indication that it works
Hardicwilix 1 year ago
@Hardicwilix And what do we mean by "works?" We can say the problem is not that it doesn't work, the problem is that it does and it threatens the patent pharmaceutical industry. Comparatively it would seem it has a lot going against it as a value driven, cryptomolecular pharmacy with generic origins pitted against the huge profit driven synthetic drug manufacturers. And as you suggest, the measure of its oppostion is the measure of its success. Big pharma doesn't stand a chance.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
that it is an effective remedy medicine practice, i guess. Darwin proved it also, I can't wait to hear the obscene scrutiny of that one ;)
But you're right and put it so eloquently, but the importance here is to spread the word until people awakens and there will be no more evil attacks. at that time it will be more obvious what fucked up societies in our western world are, we may realize that the biggest terrorists are the suppressors of true knowledge and practice on our own land.
Hardicwilix 1 year ago
@Hardicwilix I say amen to that. It also helps to point out the organized oppostion that is behind the attacks on homeopathy. Lord Taverne's Sense About Science is funded by Pfizer, currently convicted of murdering countless people with untested anti psychotic drugs by bribing "doctors" to push them, and awarded the biggest fine in the history of Man-not-so-kind for it!
And they still want to call homeopathy fraud? Not only is our medicine proven by their science, it is protected by their law.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Why is it a threat to the pharmaceutical industry? What's to stop pharmaceutical industry from patenting a homeopathic remedy and selling it for big bucks? After all, the bottled water industry makes a killing.
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy Wait a minute, aren't you one of those guys who's claiming homeoapthics are placebos? How do you patent a placebo? LOL!
It may indeed be possible to patent supramolecular forms, but they havenb't been stable enough and they'r difficult to specify.
Another reason is that the homeopathic pharmacy is traditional and made mostly from generic sources. It's not synthethized like most patented drugs.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot How do you patent a placebo? The same way homeopaths do it today? As do any of the other snake oil salesmen do.
And I will agree with you that "supramaolecular forms" are highlyl unstable and impossible to specify. See, common ground!
And that's BS that homepathic pharmacy is "traditional and mostly from generic sources. Tons of stuff is sold on the market as "traditional", "natural", etc. It is sold as a drug today. I
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@Bandershot Hell, I can go into any pharmacy now and, if I was so inclined (I'm not) purchase a homeopathic 'drug' now. There's nothing stopping a pharmaceutical company from doing the same. And if they are really cleaver, they could patent it!
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@Bandershot I can walk into any pharmacy (unfortunately) and pay good money for placebos...er, homeopathic remedies, any day of the week. You certainly can make money at it.
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
I don't know if you censored it before, but I will repeat, there is no vaccination for leptospirosis in humans so it is untrue that there is a "campaign immunizing millions" against the disease.
I don't think injecting water into people is going to do any better, but I'm sure the Cuban government will soon issue the studies to prove it.
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy There was nothing in the report I saw that said the doses were administered by injection. The usual dose is given orally with dry pellets.
For someone who calls himself SkepticGuy, you seem to be skeptical of everything but your own imaagination. Keep it up. You're showing everyone how stupid the paid oppostion to homeoapthy is.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Ok, let me revise my statement. "...there is no vaccination, oral or injected, for leptospirosis in humans so it is untrue that there is a 'campaign immunizing millions' against the disease.
I don't think giving people a sugar pill or injecting water into them is going to do any better, but I'm sure the Cuban government will soon issue the studies to prove it."
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy How do you know there's no vaccination, oral or injected, forleptospirosis?" You cguys come up withthe dumbest presumptions, andthen you lecture me about not having any scientific evidence for homeoapthy, until of course i show you some, which you then have to0 criticize. I've never seen such a pack of flaming hyprocrites. You challenge every assertion but your own, as if you think no ones going to notice you're not applying the same standards to your own BS. Amazing!
Bandershot 1 year ago
There's a Nobel Prize in this for you! Why not go for it?
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy LOL. You make it sound like something you apply for. Why don't you apply for one, for stupidity?
But if a Nobel prize was to be given for proving homeopathy, it should go to Jacques Benveniste, postuhumously, who's work was just validated by Luc Montagnier, the man who got the 2008 Nobel prize for discovery of the HIV virus. That must drive you skeptards nuts.
Google Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures
Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Then one of them should be winning shortly. However, I understand that Montagnier's study is unpublished, as of yet.
And the ad hominem is noted. Thank you.
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy WHy do you call yourself SkepticGuy? If you were being honest with yourself you'd call yhourself AssumptionGuy. Montagnier has been published. Of course now you'regoing to tell me what he said without having read it, right? Based on yo9ur ASSUMPTIONS. WHere did you learn the art of assumkptioon. From James the Assumer Randi?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Ok, I was referring to legitimate, science publications, but I did find something in "Interdiscplinary Sciences - Computational Life Sciences, and in the first issue, no matter. For a peer-reviewed, refereed publication, it happened all very quickly. From the abstract: Received: 3 January 2009 Revised: 5 January 2009 Accepted: 6 January 2009 . Wow, in three days!!!!
And it really has nothing to do with homeopathy, does it?
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy Yeah, he said it does. If you read the study you'd be amazed. Recently at a conf. of Nobel laureates Montagnier said it's about homeopathy, it's patently obvious. The study is about structuring in aqueous high dilutes; he uses equipment patented by Benveniste to test for hydrogen bond structuring, the same thing in homeopathy. Try reading it.
How much are they paying you now to post anti homeopathy lies? I hear you get 50 cents per post. Too much. You should pay them.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@SkepticGuy Why do you call yourself SkepticGuy? If you were being honest with yourself you'd call yourself AssumptionGuy. Montagnier's published! Its been out for a year! Of course now you're going to tell me what he said without having read it, based on your ASSUMPTIONS, right?. Where did you learn the art of assumption. From James the Assumer Randi? I thought skeptics were supposed to withhold judgment . . I guess not. This must be the New Skepticism.
Bandershot 1 year ago
If it really worked wouldn't homeopathy be used as proper medicine in hospitals by now?
Ramiel16 1 year ago
@Ramiel16 That depends on what you want to accept as proper medicine. There are now 4 or 5 hpathic hospitals in the UK which have been gov't. funded for years. lts acceptance is much greater in Europe, taught in medical schools; if you look at the reference material for it written by MDs, it's exhaustive, covering more symptoms than hyoir crap does. The WHO says its the 2nd most used form of medicine in the world today, whereas what I presume is the dangerous patent meds you're pushing is 4th.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Ramiel16 Exactly. Do you know what they call "alternative medicine" that works? Medicine.
SkepticGuy 1 year ago
HOMEOPATHY DOESN'T WORK!
kennycube 1 year ago
I like the video of the retarded woman trying to say why homeopathic medicines don't hold up the double blind studies, since "everyone is different". Yet she still says they work.
What a crock of shit. This bullshit mentality is leading parents to allow their children to die just so these snake oil salesmen can make a buck.
ZakkoryWylde 1 year ago
@ZakkoryWylde You're to be commended for your concern about the public health and safety . . but what I find to be breathtakingly HYPOCRITICAL of YOU is that in addition to being stunningly IGNORANT of the facts re it, you say NOTHING about the COUNTLESS deaths caused by what homeopAthy really threatens, the PATENT POISON "medical" monopoly that kills people by the DROVES!. YOU CAN'T PROVE HOMEOPATHY KILLED ANYONE EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO DIDN"T USE IT! You're a PATENT SHILL!
HOMEOPATHY WORKS!
Bandershot 1 year ago
what do you say to overdosing on homeopathic sleeping pills? It says 'contact poison in case of overdose'
Richy15251 1 year ago
@Richy15251 I don't know what product you're talking about, and even if I did, why are you asking me? Ask THEM!
Bandershot 1 year ago
This guy rocks!
tamiswed 1 year ago
We agree! Great video!
Homeostasis Laboratories
homeostaticlabs 1 year ago
I think one of the best testimonies of the efficacy of Homeopathy is the book titled:
"HOMEOPATHY CURES WHERE ALLOPATHY FAILS" written by an Allopathy doctor.
In it he details various case histories much of whom are Allopathy doctors who were getting worse from Allopathy drugs.
The book should be titled:
"HOMEOPATHY CURES ALLOPATHY DOCTORS"!!!!
LOL!!!
mohanaturo 1 year ago
Has anything been published in a respectable journal or any journal? It's been several years and plenty of time. Seems like they were just giving a talk to a very receptive group. The data must not support them or surely they would have at least published something.
1skyhand 2 years ago
iIdoubt they're interested in playing that game. Why do they have to prove anything to you? They'd probably just as soon see the U.S. and its associates got to hell. Its not as if they're selling anything to you .
Bandershot 2 years ago
@Bandershot It's not a game. Medical research is very serious. After doing research publishing is the next step. How else can others look at the results? Peer review is vital. It's important for further study or to put something into practice.
How can anyone else take advantage of what they have learned, when you can't read about it? Others may see ways to improve methods to make it even more effective. I would think if it works they would want others to take advantage.
1skyhand 2 years ago
Yeah, it's a game. First I hear these know it alls tell me that there's no medical research or "science" to back up homoepathy, then I come across study after study, & when I show those to them, they throw them back in my face & say they're no good, not peer reviewed, not replicated, not possible. When I show them it's been rep'd & peer rev'd, they still throw it back in my face & say it's still not possible.
Look, I agree medical research important, but ultimate proof is in common use.
Bandershot 2 years ago
@Bandershot
Homeopathy stops epidemic...proof in common use
If you do not release the results, its just like it never happened. Saying an epidemic was stopped is premature. Years later and no report most likely means the data didn't support the preliminary conclusion. What else?
Other studies have nothing to do with this claim. There is no study. There is no data or any other information. You may claim anything, but repeating unfounded claims is irresponsible.
1skyhand 2 years ago
Maybe the Cuban docs have made a study, Idk. I 've spoken with someone who was at their conference. It really is all dependent on what you want to accept. This certainly isn't the first report I've seen about homeopathics used in an epidemic. The point is, whereas the Cubans appear to be happy to share the information about their use of these drugs, I don't imagine they really care a whit about what you think about it. They're certainly not trying to sell anything to you, are they?
Bandershot 2 years ago
The point is the they haven't said anything. Cuba has always been concerned with medical help and 3rd world countries. A cheap solution for this problem is exactly what is needed. If their was something to the report they would have shared years ago.
It's not the lack of a "scientific" study. It's the total lack of any information. I don't care about selling to me or anyone else, but if they can help why not? Keeping knowledge secrete good or bad is not helping.
1skyhand 2 years ago
The point is that I think you're being hypocritical in attacking the information I'm presenting here on the lack of a "scientific" study. If you went over there and started demanding that they conduct immunization as an RCT, they'd laugh you out of the country. They're interested in reesults, not proving something to you. Death by doctor's now 1 of the top 4 leading causes of death in the US,, and that's by using non homeopathic drugs. So what good did testing on those drugs do?
Bandershot 2 years ago
@Bandershot
Sorry to revive a dead argument, but there have been MANY studies of studies of homeopathy (i.e. methods and results have been compared, and plotted on a graph). Those with least reliable methods also give the most positive data, generally. Meta studies have been done of the most reliable RCT's and they have shown to have negligible effect, or efficacy.
On another note, comparing against placebo is generally useless. It would be easy to generate positive data... (cont)
brownajr 1 year ago
brownajr- I've heard your "argument" so many times now that I have come to believe that it is intentional misinformation. It doesn't hold up under inspection. Shang, the only meta to conclude placebo, has been discredited. No other meta has concluded placebo. Botanical tests show dramatic results. See Kolisko and the U of Bologna studies. There have been dozens of biochemical tests of 6 different types. But any exp. homeopath isn't impressed. They've seen the results in humans. So back off.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Which is why modern drugs are usually compared against other, current drugs. Even if homeopathic remedies aren't due to the placebo effect, which we have no conclusive evidence for, it is always debatable how much more effective they are than the drugs currently on the market.
brownajr 1 year ago
Anyone who is exp. in the use of homeopathiocs doesn't need to see evidence from non human subjects to know beyond the shadow of a doubt they're not placebos . But what non human evidence does do is highlight the vehement lies made up against this amazing medicine. So I'm out of time and patience entertaining your prefabricated doubts. Go back to your murderous drugs and leave homeoapthy alone. There's nothing here for phony "skeptics" and liars.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Now that you've run out of arguments I see you've resorted to the censorship of approving comments, Bandershot. For that reason I see no point in posting here again. At this time homoeopathy remains an unproven supernatural belief system.
alexistarr 2 years ago
You're not going to post anytthing more here? Is that a promise? We have now it now in writing! Alexi Starr will not post anymore of her misinformed homeoapthy hate speeches, ignorance and lies on JohnBenneth's Youtube Bandershot Channel. I think that deserves a drink! I'll have your best Scotch and a pint of Guiness back!
Hooray!
Bandershot 2 years ago
Ben Goldacre published an article on homoeopathy in The Lancet, stating its research to be problematic for a variety of reasons. These included the high publication biases of alternative therapy journals, with very few articles reporting null results; ignoring meta-analytic studies in favour of cherry picked positive results; and the promotion of an observational study (that he described as "little more than a customer-satisfaction survey").
alexistarr 2 years ago
Hi Alexi, thanks for your comment. I agree that h. research is problematic, there IS publ'n bias, both for & especially AGAINST, which is a medical jihad: Contrary to popular belief, NOT scientific! Except for Shang, which has been discredited, NONE of the best known metas & lit. reviews, i.e. Linde, Cucherat, Kleijnen, WItt, Johnson, have concluded h. to be placebo! Look at the peer reviewed studies in non-homeopathic journals! Look at the biochemical assays. Science is on the side of hpathy!
Bandershot 2 years ago
Linde (2002) showed no effects different from placebo. Cucherat (2000) showed a weak effect in low methodological quality studies and none in higher quality studies. Kleijnen (1991) was inconclusive due to low methodological quality. Witt et al (2005) Wasn't randomised or double blind. I couldn't find the Johnson study. When tested to the standards of real medicine homoeopathy fails to come up with the goods, this is hardly a "medical jihad", Bandershot.
alexistarr 2 years ago
I don't find a Linde 2002. Please cite title & publication. However, the Linde 1997 meta in the Lancet reports: "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo." And Linde ibid says "Kleijnen et al in 1991 showed a surprising number of positive results, even among those that received high
quality-ratings for randomisation, blinding, sample size, & other methodological criteria.."
-cont-
Bandershot 2 years ago
"Systematic reviews of complementary therapies an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy" (Linde et al, 2001) concludes that "The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing, Bandershot. Linde 1997 goes on to conclude that "However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition".
alexistarr 2 years ago
You've left out who it is they're referring to re: CONVINCING. Linde: "IN CONCLUSION, the available systematic reviews . . reflect the ongoing fundamental controversy
on this therapy and strengthen the perception that, on one side, positive evidence from clinical trials WILL NOT CONVINCE skeptics, and that on the other side negative results from trials NOT REPRESENTING ACTUAL PRACTICE will not have any impact on homoeopaths." Linde is right, as your comments show NO EVIDENCE WILL CONVINCE YOU.
Bandershot 2 years ago
A rigorously implemented randomised double blind trial, with thousands of participants, showing homoeopathy to be efficacious would convince me, Bandershot. If it did ever manage to meet this minimum standard that would be a very exciting day for science. Why has nobody every managed to take James Randi's million dollars if homoeopathy really works?
alexistarr 2 years ago
I seriously doubt it, when there's a better, easier test that would be more convincing to the average person, which is why homeopathy has greater use in the world today than the patented poisons you'd have people use in its place, and thats is the real trial of any medicine, to see how it works on yourself, using your own senses first hand. But you won't do that, oh no, that won't make you popular, will it? This is just a social issue for you, not health or science.
Bandershot 2 years ago
When doctors give people sugar pills, telling them they're a pharmaceutical, they get better, Bandershot. If the sugar pills are large and multicoloured the effect is more pronounced. The same thing happens when true believers go to a faith healer. This is the placebo effect and efficacy can only be proved when it's removed with a randomised double blind protocol, at which point homoeopathy stops "working", unless you resort to literature bias, and carefully cherry pick your studies.
alexistarr 2 years ago 2
LOL! It's becoming clear where you've been getting all your lies. Randi's never formally tested anyone for anything under his own terms, & never will. He's never affixed his signature to his own challenge because it would then become an enforceable contract. He dismisses all applications in "preliminary" tests or endless arguing over a "protocol", as he did with me in '99 & Vithoulkas. Anyone can see from the literature that there are numerous tests that'd pass the binary proof Randi demands.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Protocol, of the sort Randi insists on, is very important if the truth is to win out, Bandershot. Jacques Benveniste's experiments, for example, seemed to prove homoeopathy, but miraculously the effect vanished when Randi introduced a randomised double blind protocol, meaning that his lab assistant, who was performing the experiments, didn't know which vials were "homoeopathic" and which were "placebo". Which element of the protocol prevented you from passing Randi's preliminary trial?
alexistarr 2 years ago
The basohiul degran test has been rep'd many times, and Randi's seen Benveniste successfully do it. Look at the reports; Randi and Maddox deliberately sabotaged the test. Randi has a million at stake and handled the key to a double blind. Sleight of hand?
Pharma is heavily invested in the outcome of trials and the public's perception of hpathy, and will try to discredit any evidence that supports it. After months of exchanging emails, Randi broke off discussion of a test in Fall '99.
Bandershot 2 years ago
The "basohiul degran test" yields NOTHING when searched for on Google, Bing, Yahoo, or Cuil. Benveniste invited Maddox, Steward and Randi to design a double blind procedure, which they did. Before revealing the results the team asked if there were any complaints about the procedure, none were brought up. Most experimental drugs, as does homoeopathy, fail the rigorous trials procedure, and are consigned to the dustbin of history. Homoeopathy only stays alive because it's promoted by charlatans.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Oh, I'm so sorry, the correct spelling is "basophil degranulation." I thought I made that clear in a previous comment. But I'm puzzled as to how it is that a person who has such intense feelings about a subject can know so little about it. Certainly you should be aware of all the b.d. tests done, and reports of what really happened with Maddox et al, telling Steward to SHUT UP while he was screaming at everyone during a positive replication of it, & what about allowing Randi to handle the key?
Bandershot 2 years ago
Randi's a self confessed charlatan who has made a career of deceiving others, like you. But he has no scientific credentials. When he's held up to his own light and subjected to his own standards of proof, he's fails miserably. Where's his peer reviewed study that proves the placebo hypothesis, when not one credible meta analysis or review of homeoathy has ever confiemd it? They may say the evidence is weak, the results not stable, but no competent analysis can conclude placebo.
Bandershot 2 years ago
The difference is Randi's honest about how conjuring skills can be used to deceive people, unlike the charlatans who pretend homoeopathy has any efficacy, Bandershot. That's no more than an ad hominem attack on Randi. How specifically does he fail when subjected to his own standards? Homeopathy can't pass a properly conducted randomised double blind trial, without careful cherry picking, since it has no efficacy that only leaves the placebo effect.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Well, first of all, why should your opinions bear any weight here? A true skeptic withholds judgment of any kind, and here you are trying to prove a negative to support your first hypothesis, that all homeopaths are charlatans, without real knoweldge of the subject. You've taken your info from a source heavily invested in the outcome, encouraging negative opinions. Rather than simply presenting information, we get conclusive opinions after Randi's hung the title CHARLATAN on his door!
Bandershot 2 years ago
He doesn't need scientific credentials.
A slug can see that this doesn't make any sense. They can't conclusively disprove anything, just to allow the outside chance that a red space monkey is in charge of us all. But they can disprove homeopathy as well as they can anything else.
To put the theory into perspective, it goes something like this:
A person three billion lightyears away from an alien holding a glass with aspirin dissolved in it, can inhale enough of that to cure meningitus.
mad4it 2 years ago
Knock off the straw man arguments and false analogies. The same kind of crap was spread around about the first airplane, radio and countless other things that are taken for granted today. Stop lying about it rea some of the phsyics aswsociated with it by top physicists like Anagnostatos, Roy, Tiller, Hoover & Josephson. The homeopathic molecule has been identified as a clathrate. As much as you'd like to think so, it has nothing to do with space aliens three billion light years away.
Bandershot 2 years ago
The WItt refernce is the 2007 "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature." Complement Ther Med. Witt graded each of 67 trials, 3/4 of which showed the biochemical action of homeoapthics. -cont-
Bandershot 2 years ago
Kleijen et al 1991 concludes that "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias", Bandershot. "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature" (Witt et all, 2007), was not randomised or blinded.
alexistarr 2 years ago
That is to say that so few of the homoeopathic studies reviewed by (Witt et al, 2007) had been randomised or blinded, that they actually made a point of recommending that the people, whose studies they were considering, should make a point of incorporating these minimum standards into any trials they conduct in future.
alexistarr 2 years ago
You're reading the abstract, not the entire review, you're just trying to play catchup after being caught posting a lie. If I'm wrong then tell us how many invitros Witt reports were blinded. I want to see you contradict yourself again. First you lied in saying a non existent review concluded homeoapthy is a placebo, now you're still interpreting conclusions to fit your prejudices against homeopathy.
Despite 200 yrs of angry, lying opposition like yours, homeopathy persists because it works.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I'm reading the conclusions of the reviews, which all state that homoeopathy only shows any sort of result in poorly conducted trials, of the sort that are methodologically flawed, Bandershot. When the science is done rigorously, and steps are taken to mitigate the placebo effect, this quackery shows zero effect. Can you quote this alleged "lie"? I'm not interpreting the conclusions, I'm quoting them. Homoeopathy persists only because it's a good way for charlatans to fleece the unwary.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Can I quote a lie? Yeah, the one Alexi just stated. William E. Boyd, MD at Glasgow Univerrsity was conducting exhaustive in vitro tests on homeopathy 70 years ago, reporting the effects in elegantly written reports intended to aid replication. His studies were designed by Barbour scholars, overseen by Sir Gowland Hopkins, results analyzed by statisticians. Look at the Belon multi centred studies including Ennis' work at Queens College, which Witt gave tghe highest rating, What's Randi done? Zero
Bandershot 2 years ago
At the end of the day, Witt et al 2007, still conclude that "No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators", Bandershot. Given all the interest from people such as yourself, has homoeopathy really not progressed at all over the last 70 years? It seems incredible to me that you're having to allude to 70 year old studies. What's Randi done? Introduced millions to critical thinking and debunked a wide range of woo woo.
alexistarr 2 years ago
the belief in astrology has been around a lot longer than 200 years, so does that make astrology true too?
KalahariSurf 2 years ago 2
Systems of belief like astrology or atheism aren't widespread legal doctrines of medical science used by licensed medical professionals to treat people with serious medical problems as homeopathy does. There are countless people who sya they owe their lives to homeopathy. I know one who is an applied physicist who's tested homeopathy using NMR who says that homeopathy has kept him out of a wheelchair & his wife out of the grave. And who've you got? Dr. Randi? A 3 card monte dealer with cancer?
Bandershot 2 years ago
Randi's smart enough to entrust his cancer care to evidence based medicine, rather than homoeopathic quackery which can't even pass a randomised double blind trial without a careful cherry picking of the literature, Bandershot.
alexistarr 2 years ago
You're getting desperate, Alexi. Witt wasn't "randomised" or "blinded" because it's a CRITICAL REVIEW. Metas, reviews aren't RCT's. Witt scored 67 trials on numeorus indices, giving each trial a final score of 1 to 10. Contrary to what you claim, there are high rated positive invitro trials, such as Boyd & Belon. Kleijnen concluded 18 yrs ago "there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy" which is being done at this moment. You lost the argument then, you're losing it now.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I corrected mis-wording yesterday, as anybody reading this forum can see, and stated that it's not Witt that has problems over a lack of randomising or blinding, but the studies they reviewed, Bandershot. However you dress it up Witt found "No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators". That further evaluation of homoeopathy has taken place over the last 18 years, and it still can't demonstrate efficacy in a properly conducted randomised double blind trial.
alexistarr 2 years ago
The 2007 Johnson review for phamacists, "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. states, "Although, high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems; to date, studies have not successfully settled the original dilemma concerning a mechanism of action for very dilute solutions."
So, given the misinformation you've tried to pass off here, I stand by my original assertion.
Bandershot 2 years ago
The 2007 Johnson review for phamacists, "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. states, "Although, high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems; to date, studies have not successfully settled the original dilemma concerning a mechanism of action for very dilute solutions."
So, given the misinformation you've tried to pass off here, I stand by my original assertion.
Bandershot 2 years ago
"Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?" (Johnson et al, 2007) discusses homoeopathy without coming to a conclusion about its efficacy, Bandershot.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Give it up, Alexi. Read it JOHNSON again: "In the last 3 decades, a number of high-quality, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled homeopathic studies have reported that homeopathically prepared products are more effective than placebo for a variety of conditions such as acute hayfever, rheumatoid arthritis, primary fibromyalgia, allergic asthma, influenza syndrome, childhood diarrhea, and primary fibromyalgia."
Sounds conclusive enough to me. You're living proof of obstinate prejudice.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Do you mean to say that 6 cherry picked trials, many of which involved less than 30 participants, is the best homoeopathy can produce after 3 decades? Give it up, Bandershot. The conclusions of the meta analyses are clear, as reported in "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy" (Linde et al,1999), higher quality trials report less positive results.
alexistarr 2 years ago
well said
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
No, there's many more trials and there's the totality of evidence, which includes much more than just staged clinical trials, the evidence which you're forced to ignore and dismiss to maintain your anti homeopathy campaign. The fact of the matter, you and countless others have failed to make a case against homeopathy, no matter how hard you've tried. The FDA was created in the '30s by a homeopath, Sen. Copeland, MD. who used h. to save lives in NYC during the world's greatest pandemic (1918 flu)
Bandershot 2 years ago
This "totality of evidence" sounds a bit vague, Bandershot. I thought I had already made a convincing case against homoeopathy, it only "works" in the absence of randomised, double blind protocols, or where you carefully cherry pick your studies. The efficacy of homoeopathy is inversely proportional to the methodological quality of the trial in question. If Sen. Copeland was an MD, I rather hope he managed to save some lives, or what would be the point? :-)
alexistarr 2 years ago
Cucherat states "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo." They DO NOT STATE that NO higher quality trial showede an effect. They state, "Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies." Kleijnen states, "Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used." -cont.-
Bandershot 2 years ago
The 2007 Johnson review for phamacists, "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. states, "Although, high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems; to date, studies have not successfully settled the original dilemma concerning a mechanism of action for very dilute solutions."
So, given the misinformation you've tried to pass off here, I stand by my original assertion.
Bandershot 2 years ago
"Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group" (Cucherat et al, 2000) concludes that the higher the quality of the study, the smaller the effect homoeopathy has, Bandershot. Clearly this is an indication that the only effect homoeopathy has is a placebo effect, when this is removed in higher quality randomised double blind trials homoeopathy shows no real effect.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Comment removed
alexistarr 2 years ago
Why won't you let me respond to the accusations about me you wrote in that article? You know, the one where you quoted me without asking my permission or informing me of your actions. Come on, be a man, allow an honest exchange of ideas.
adamredwine 2 years ago
What we need from the skeptic PSEUDO scientists is proof that Homeopathy is indeed placebo effect.......evidence which to date is seriously lacking.
Especially when two REAL scientists - Nobel Laureates Luc Montagnier and Josephson - have shown in their tests that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
Logis is NOT the forte of Skeptics.
The religion of skepticism is!
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Results of the survey were remarkable. In approximately 90 percent of the cases no instances of the flu occurred when Influenzinum was used preventively no matter what the dosage protocol. Among the physicians the effectiveness was deemed good to very good in 90 percent of the cases. In 5 percent there was no protective effect.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Thank you! I've scripted a vid on the subject will include the Influenzinium info. The historical record reporting the successful use of homeopathy for prevention of the flu is STUNNING! In 1918, out of approx 50,000 cases analyzed, homeopathically trained MD's were losing 1% of their H1N1 cases, while untrained docs were losing 28%! The question is, how do we get this information before the public?
Thank you VERY much, Dr. Mohanaturo!
PS: The new Influenzinium is now available!
Bandershot 2 years ago
Spanish or 1918 flu never reached mortality rates of 28%. What is wrong with you that you cant even get the most basic of facts right even before you rampage off into your fantasy that homoeopathy is anything more than expensive water.
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago 2
You weren't listening. 28% was not what was claimed for the entire population. The highest death rate worldwide was 6%. The 28% figure was taken from 24,000 cases administered by allopahtic doctors. Not everyone who got the flu saw a doctor; if there is one, and you feel like you're going to die, you call a doctor. So MDs logically saw the most severe & fatal cases. Listen & think about it 1st before shooting your mouth off. It may not be what you want it to be, I'm just reporting the data.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You are reporting nothing but your own imagination..... Otherwise you would have been able to cite a source for your hilarious 28% figure.
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago 8
I draw on numerous sources: Read my article on the subject at scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com. Because of the extremely controversal nature of the subject I've paid extra attention to documenting it.with footnotes.
I've also produced a video, "The Homeopathic Treatment of the Flu" on this same channel. You will find there direct links to the footnotes from which the 28% figure was obtained.
Direct links to those sources are in the video description field of the video, ont his same channel.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Nope your 28% figure is still bull dust.
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago 8
In this French survey 70 percent of participants used a 9C strength of Influenzinum. (In the US one would assume a higher proportion of practitioners use a higher strength because of the different prescribing preferences between the two countries.)
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Weekly doses were used by 26 percent of participants and monthly dosage by 23 percent. Another 16 percent used a weekly then monthly dosage plan, and 35 percent applied some other dosage protocol. 80 percent of respondents began treatment in the fall (September through November) and ended between February and April.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
In 1998 the French Society of Homeopathy conducted a survey of 23 homeopathic doctors concerning their use of Influenzinum as a flu preventive (Coulamy, 1998). The survey included use of Influenzinum over a 10 year period (1987-1998) in 453 patients. The protocol for the frequency of doses varied considerably among these doctors.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
"If they're TRUE" (your words, not mine). LOLOL - NO EVIDENCE, again... yawn...
VimisiDigitalMedia 2 years ago
flakingnapstich,
It's amazing how much idiotic paranoia you portray in your ignorance of the numerous scientific studies that validate Homeopathy's efficacy.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Hey, flakingnapstich.....
Sorry about your ignorance of and lack of knowledge about homeopathy. Your opinions just don't represent the facts about this wonderfully healing system of medicine.
den151redbank 2 years ago
I've had wonderful success with the gentle but dynamic healing of h. in my treatment of neuropathy, fibromyalgia and high blood pressure. Also great in treating acute illnesses like colds, sore throats and poison ivy.
I hope many, many more people find this fantastic system of healing. They won't be disappointed!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Millions of people around the world testify that H. does not just work but works beautifully--light years ahead of conv. med.
For those who need scientific evidence supporting h. there is plenty of it. Take a look at PubMed and the provings done on h. remedies over the course of the past 200 years.
Anyone who says h. doesn't work or that it is just placebo hasn't tried it and knows nothing about it.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"Millions of people around the world testify that H. does not just work but works beautifully"
Here we see an example of the "Argument from popularity" fallacy. The general idea is that "well all THESE people can't be wrong!" The problem is, yes, that many people CAN be wrong. Misinformation and confirmation bias are dangerous things and have lead people to support all kinds of idiotic notions, like bloodletting or the "four humors."
halleyscomet 2 years ago
CITE PLEASE for your extraordinary claim that h. nosode did not outperform conventional vaccines during the 2007-08 leptospirosis season in Cuba.
den151redbank 2 years ago
What was the name of the study that allegedly claimed h. nosode outperformed conventional vaccines during the 2007-08 leptospirosis season in Cuba?
Point me to the study and I'll read it. Then I can respond.
halleyscomet 2 years ago 2
"What was the name of the study that allegedly claimed h. nosode outperformed conven. med...."
Are YOU for real? You're asking for a STUDY? It was a PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT involving 2 1/2 million people done under the auspices of the prestigious, WHO-qualified Carlos J. Finlay Institute. Google it. You can read the report.
Frankly, it is meaningless to continue this conversation. If I gave you 100+ double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, peer-reviewed studies on Influ. you'd still
den151redbank 2 years ago
deny they existed and were valid.
den151redbank 2 years ago
You will never convince me or the millions of other people who know and use h. that it doesn't work. Honestly, what you believe is of no consequence to me.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"If I gave you 100+ double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, peer-reviewed studies on Influ."
Let's start with ONE and see where things go from there.
As for the alleged Cuban trail, I've found a few press releases but so far no details or actual numbers. If you have access to something that gives actual DETAILS of the study please PM it to me.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
WHAT????!!!
STILL no cites to back up your claim that Influ. doesn't work and that the companies selling it are quacks?
STILL (!!!!) no acknowledgment that the numbers of lives saved and the number of infects down thru using h. nosode to defend against lepto. are impressive especially compared to the no's achieved by conventional vaccines!
Let's start with one cite for each of these three issues, and we'll go from there.
den151redbank 2 years ago
There are NO clinical trials demonstrating ANY level of efficacy for Influenzinum.
There's no proof it works.
Google for information about Influenzinum. Most of what you'll ll find are posts and articles by homeopaths all of whom PROFIT from products like Influenzinum.
You can babble all you want demanding I prove it doesn't work, but the simple fact is you're making claims of efficacy for something for which there's NO evidence it actually works.
Show me the proof Influenzinum works.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
Where is your cite?
den151redbank 2 years ago
The complete lack of evidence of efficacy is all the proof I need. It's not my job to prove it's a useless waste of money when there's NO evidence that Influenzinum actually works.
No research.
No studies.
Nada.
Zip.
Zero.
Find an Influenzinum study that meets the FDA requirements for approval of a new drug. Show it to me. I'll be eager to read it if one surfaces.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
"It was a PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT involving 2 1/2 million people"
Yes it it. That means it's a government funded study. In the REAL world with REAL scientists a paper would be published detailing the methodology, data collected and end results. All we've gotten from the homeopaths who claim to have done this are press releases.
If there's a published study, kindly PM me the link.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
Comment removed
den151redbank 2 years ago
Major vaccinations with Vax-Spiral were already well underway. Unless there was an actual study where some people were given Vax-Spiral and others given only the homeopathic remedy, then there's no way to tell for sure of the homeopaths weren't just taking credit for the success of Vax-Spiral and the major education and prevention program Cuba has been running for years.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
YOU are either misinformed or a LIAR!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Well that was a well researched, articulate response.
Kindly send me some resources detailing what I allegedly got wrong.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
"That means it's a government funded study." So now you state there IS a study which you claimed a few minutes ago didn't exist! How amusing!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Actually you're confusing the two homeopathic preparations we were discussing. I pointed out there are no studies regarding Influenzinum, which is true.
I also pointed out that there is NO PUBLISHED information about the Cuban study you keep bringing up.
A study was done in Cuba but the people who did it have failed to publish any actual details.
If discussing two different issues is confusing you, we can focus on just one.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
read the article "Vax-Spiral ®. Trivalent Antileptospirosis Vaccine For Human Use; Research, Development And Impact On The Disease In Cuba" in the MEDICC Review (Available online)
Clinical trials of the vaccine were done in 1996 and 1997 and Vax-Spiral was found to be 97% effective.
This means a 97% effective vaccine had been available for over half a decade before the homeopathy trial.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
You are confused about the project undertaken by the Carlos J. Finlay Institute during the 2007-08 --- THAT IS AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY THE 2007-08 SEASON --- leptospirosis season in Cuba. The report very clearly states that:
1) h. nosode with 2 Bach flower essences ONLY were used
2) the project involved 2 1/2 MILLION people
3) the RESULTS were: INFECTS DOWN from the 1,000's to 10 or fewer per mth, DEATHS DOWN FROM 100+ to ZERO AS COMPARED TO PAST RECORDS OF CONVENTIONAL VACCINE USE
den151redbank 2 years ago
Citation needed.
If any of that is true (Which I doubt) where is the published research on it? If those claims are true and accurate then where is the report on the test???
If those claims are true, they why do we only have press releases about it?
This is not how scientists conduct research, but how charlatans court the public. Science by press release is an indication of a scam, not reliable science.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
If you want to read a published report you'll have to wait until it comes out.
BTW, YOU made the claim that Boiron and others selling h. remedies are quacks and that Influ. does not work. It's YOUR job to back up your claims with proof. You've been asked for cites but continue to fail to post them.
den151redbank 2 years ago
CITES PLEASE FOR YOUR CLAIMS!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Funny how you:
1) can't back up any of your claims
2) can't acknowledge the most compelling evidence for h. even from the highest quality studies and lab work and the most renowned scientists while at the same time demanding exactly that very proof
3) rely on denial, avoidance of the facts and insults to carry your alleged "case" against h.
Funny how you don't recognize the pathology behind your position even though it's blatantly obvious to anyone who reads your posts.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"1) can't back up any of your claims "
I'm the only one who has cited actual studies.
"2) can't acknowledge the most compelling evidence for h."
You haven't provided ANY evidence yet, just unsubstantiated claims.
"3) rely on denial"
In the real world, claims of efficacy need to be supported by clinical trials. It's YOUR job to prove homeopathy works, something you have so far failed to do.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
1. why don't you actually read the references Bandershot has posted on his videos.
2. very strange that you believe 200+ studies reported in mainstream medical journals as evidencing for homeopathy "unsubstantiated claims"
3. it's YOUR job to read the studies and the scientific work evidencing for homeopathy. it's NOT my job to prove anything to you. getting the facts is your responsibility.
4. as is always true of "skeptics", your arguments rely on the Three D's of Skepticism.
den151redbank 2 years ago
The Three D's are: denial of the facts, distortion of the facts, and attempts to discredit anyone who makes positive statements about homeopathy (homeopaths, their patients, the renowned scientists whose work shows how homeopathy can work, the work of Nobel Prize winners, the work of researchers showing that it does work).
It's easy -- try it for yourself. Make your own decision instead of taking the word of magicians and other clowns posting silly videos here.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"1. why don't you actually read the references Bandershot has posted on his videos. "
I have. If you check out his sources you find they're all hearsay, anecdotal or consist of "studies" with small sample sizes or statistically irrelevant results. I even once found he was using a study that concluded homeopathy was nothing more than placebo as evidence FOR homeopathy!
His "sources" are garbage.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
"2. very strange that you believe 200+ studies reported in mainstream medical journals as evidencing for homeopathy "unsubstantiated claims"
I spent an entire holiday weekend in 2009 going through that list. All of them were garbage, many even concluded homeopathy was nothing more than placebo!
halleyscomet 2 years ago
"getting the facts is your responsibility."
And the facts make it clear that homeopathy is nothing more than placebo.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
"4. as is always true of "skeptics", your arguments rely on the Three D's of Skepticism. "
All I want are studies with a large sample size, statistically relevant results larger than placebo and the study's margin of error, double or triple blinded with a placebo and / or control branch. So far NO studies that meet that criteria have claimed homeopathy is anything other than placebo.
Your 200 studies of garbage data does not convince real scientists.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
So studies evidencing for hpathy don't convince "real" scientists? That's really interesting considering that world renowned "real" scientists like Roy, Bell, Tiller, Conte and Berlocchi and "real" Nobel Prize winners like Luc Montagnier and Brian Josephson have provided insights into how it can work through the structure of liquid water and EM signals.
As I said, all your arguments come down to three things -- denial of the facts, distortion of the facts and attempts to discredit.
den151redbank 2 years ago
According to the CDC and the World Health Organization, millions are at risk of dying should a pandemic strike again. With the H1N1 Swine Flu, this reality now appears to be closer at hand. We must turn over any stone and investigate any system of medicine that has the potential to save lives. Homeopathy is such a system. Its proven track record must no longer be ignored. Its history is clear and we have the capability to treat masses of people infected or at risk of being infected by this Flu.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
A recent comprehensive epidemiological study of some 61,000 confirmed cases of Spanish Flu from 1918-19 by Canadian physician, Dr. Andre Saine, shows that patients treated with Homeopathy had death rates of 0.7 percent compared to death rates in the untreated and from conventional care of 30 percent or more. The Spanish Flu was also an H1N1 type A influenza virus.
mohanaturo 2 years ago 2
What was the title of the study?
Where was it published?
halleyscomet 2 years ago
The virus may drift or change by the time a vaccine was made available, so this, too, must be closely monitored. Viruses mutate or change their form quickly and develop resistance to drugs and vaccines over time. Will this happen? All these are questions we must ask and trust the experts to monitor.
mohanaturo 2 years ago 2
Currently it looks as if the HINI swine flu virus is sensitive to two main anti-viral agents (Tamiflu and Relenza). There is currently no vaccine and that would take many months to mass-produce. One of the greatest problems facing conventional medicine is the amount of time required to identify and manufacture drugs and vaccines capable of helping manage a deadly outbreak of flu.
mohanaturo 2 years ago 3
"One of the greatest problems facing conventional medicine is the amount of time required to identify and manufacture drugs and vaccines capable of helping manage a deadly outbreak of flu."
Well, science based medicine has that pesky "clinical trial" phase needed to prove the medicine actually works. Being able to skip that step and just go straight from "Hey this should work!" to sales gives quackery a "first to market" edge.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
Based on the infection (attack) rate in the unprotected group, 58 cases of infection would have been expected in the homeopathically protected group. Instead, there were only four cases of Meningococcal infection. Statistical analysis showed that Homeopathic vaccination offered 95% protection in the first six months and 91% protection over the year against Meningococcal disease.
mohanaturo 2 years ago 2
Given that epidemiology is everyone's business, and the dramatic rise in the in vitro and vivo confirmations of homeopathy, would it be incorrect to say it is now the responsibility of EVERYONE to at least acquaint themselves with homotoxicology, for their own health and others?
Bandershot 2 years ago
65,826 protected homeopathically - 4 cases of Meningococcal infection. 23,532 not protected - 20 cases of Meningococcal infection.
mohanaturo 2 years ago 2
In 1998 two Professors of Medicine from the University Foundation in Blumenau, Brazil, conducted a study on Meningococcal disease and homeopathic vaccination .
A total of 65,826 people between the ages of 0-20 were given a Homeopathic Vaccination for protection against Meningococcal disease while 23,532 were not. Over a 12-month period, the following results were obtained:
mohanaturo 2 years ago 2
During a Poliomyelitis epidemic in Buenos Aires, practitioners (Homeopaths and Doctors) distributed the Homeopathic vaccination remedy Lathyrus sativus to over 40,000 people. Not one of them developed Polio during the epidemic despite exposure.
· Nurses and patients protected by Homeopathic Vaccination at the London Homeopathic Hospital remained disease free during a 3 year period in which they were regularly exposed to Diphtheria.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Prof. Mohanaturo- Thank you for giving us this information. You are the best source of information about homeopathy participating on this page.
Bandershot 2 years ago
No, Sir, I am not a professor. Just a Homeopath.
All info is available on the net if Homeopathy's detractors are interested.
You, Sir are an asset to the spread of information for the suffering and sick humanity on this wonderful healing therapeutic modality of the new age.
Thank You!
mohanaturo 2 years ago
mohanaturo... good job copy pasting the article. Why don't you give credit to the doctor that wrote it instead of seeming like the "expert" yourself.
So now you are not only naive, you are a naive plagairist.
mapache11 2 years ago 3
Mohanaturo has given us many sources for his information. As he says, it is available to you on the net; you would not have known this if you hadn't looked it up on Jack's website.
But it is interesting to note that you have gone from attacking homeopathy because of what you thought was a lack of evidence, to now attacking the reporters for passing it along.
It is you, mapache, who is lacking attribution and credibility for your wild allegations.
You should take a class in homeopathy.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Ignorance is not bliss.
The good Allopathic Doctors generally have only two solutions: Pills or the Knife
If people wish to hold only to this limited viewpoint, good luck to them.
numberharmonics 2 years ago
The Bible makes it VERY clear that the only medicine we're allowed to use is derived from plants. ONLY natural medicine is permitted by God. Homeopathy is therefore permitted, most of big pharma's garbage is banned.
Cornswalled 2 years ago 2
Hippocrates was clearly a fan of homeopathy... how many convertional doctors are ignorant of the man they swear allegiance to?
I believe the orignal Hippocratic oath forbade euthanasia and abortion also.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Funny how the butchers dropped that from the oath once Row V Wade made it easy for them to profit by murdering infants and the elderly.
Cornswalled 2 years ago
Arnica 1M along with Acupuncture can replace the need of the dangerous drug NSAID Ibuprofen which has side-effects of constipation & digestive disturbances.
I immediately stopped the patient from taking Ibuprofen and replaced it with Arnica 1M which gave the same pain relief effect in his chronic peri-anal fistula.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
I couldn't believe it when one tiny Silica 30C pill simply opened up my ear infection and made it disappear.
People don't realise how powerful their minds and the healing systems of their body really are.
In a way I can see (though not respect) why Pharma companies would wish to keep the masses ignorant. But I can't understand why some of said masses appear to take *pride* in their ignorance.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
mohan, bander and the rest of you nutcases have a peri-anal fistula where your brains should be....
I love it when the water salesmen/women say that they are better than "big pharma" because homeoPATHETIC companies make less money, implying that real doctors/scientists are motivated only by greed and are too naive to see that homeopathy works. By their logic, my small computer company is about a hundred million times better than Microsoft.
mapache11 2 years ago
My experience of h. is that it has been a life saver in my treatment for head injuries, neuropathy, fibromyalgia and high blood pressure. It has been equally effective in treating acute illnesses.
My testimony is the same as the tens of millions of people using it around the world: H. DOES NOT JUST WORK, IT WORKS BEAUTIFULLY WITH NO SIDE EFFECTS OR IATROGENIC DISEASES.
Too bad the skeptics don't try it or learn anything about it before coming to their conclusions!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Nobody sues homeopathic companies because they are afraid of being laughed out of court when they tell a judge that they thought that water was going to cure their arthritis or whatever their ailment was, and it surprisingly didn't work.
mapache11 2 years ago
I don't disagree that pharmaceutical companies make more money than they should. They also spend billions on research, testing, licensing and insurance and other overhead that homeopathic companies don't assume. Homeopathic companies are just as greedy. They don't make as much money, but they assume no risk since drinking water or eating starch (or whatever the 99.999999999999999999999999999999%...of the pills are made of) will never hurt anyone.
mapache11 2 years ago