They shouldn't have said that at the end, they should have said "Homeopathy is back where it started - ithout a shred of evidence to support it" rather than "without any scientific basis".
We don't know whether the higgs boson is real yet or not, but we have data/evidence and models of *something*, whereas with homeopathy we literally have *nothing*.
Even this dilution is nothing compared to the dilution rate of homeopathic medicines. Homeopathic medicines are equivalent to a single drop of blood in all of earth's oceans combined.
Further investigation does NOT need to be done on this topic! there are limited funds for research, investigating these kind of hypothesis is a big WASTE OF THE SCIENTIST'S TIME AND RESOURCES. We should limit our research to proposals that at least sound plausible!
How come then Jacque Benviste and Madeline Ennis (and the peer-reviewed journal which published Ennis work) got it wrong? When they didnt switch the labels, the high dilutions did work, when Nature and Horizon switched the labels, the high dilutions did not work. Im more puzzled than before!!
OF COURSE IT DOESN'T WORK!!!! When you imbue the solutions with negative energy and skepticism, they lose their power! This is evidence of nothing!!!!!!!!!! This is an ancient science that helps hundreds of billions of people. This is so clearly rigged and/or counteracted by James Randi's toxic thought energies.
I find it interesting when people scoff at modern medicine saying it is a money-grubbing industry - conveniently ignoring the fact that the homeopathy industry is worth billions! I also find it amusing that the very people who scoff at ‘Western’ medicine are the FIRST in line when it comes to themselves being sick – if they get in a nasty car accident and have internal injuries or need an amputation…funny how they never go to a homeopath then…
Thanks for posting, I really enjoyed this program!
What the homeopaths should consider when waxing lyrical about water's so-called memory is that the world's water supply is horribly polluted - with everything from toxic chemicals to the waste and decay from the creatures that live in it. So if water really does have a ‘memory’ then it’s NOT happy and we’re all in trouble!!
@battenburgs I so agree, and that's just the tip of the iceberg! Think about it if I eat a very balanced regular meal for a week. Save all my piss(maybe my crap too), dilute it to homeopathic levels with water (your body digest nowhere near all the nutrients before passing rest as water waste). Then simply drink that water, i should have perfect health, nutritionally. And after all that dilution enough to live on for the rest of my life easily? If they are right that would work, yet none try?
They also needed a control with histamine UNDILUTED so that activated cells could be observed, otherwise the observing scientists could just say: no cells were activated in either group.
@rush7777me7777 wrong histamine activation have been observed and is not question by anyone..even in homepathic world....they agreed to the protocole...
Homeoquacks are a waste of space. It's easy to cherry-pick trials that show a postive result but the *totality* of scientific evidence tells us that homeopathic remedies are worthless. Reilly's trial on hay fever appears to be large enough to be statistically significant but in fact there was a 35% drop-out, which he kept quiet about.
Homeopathy can be harmful, e.g. Patient is diagnosed with cancer, they decide to use Homeopathy, then the placebo effect wears off after 3 months. Said cancer has now progressed to the terminal stage, too late for real medicine. This is called opportunity cost. So in a sense you're right in saying homeopathy has a lasting effect, death is very lasting. ;)
@rush7777me7777 There are hundreds of thousands of cases of people needlessly dieing following mainstream treatments, saying that the same happens with alt med is not a case against or for the mainstream. People being people shit happens, that being said a large percentage of mainstream meds do not work or are shit. Of course many are also very beneficial.
The review did however, demonstrate that the quality of homeopathy trials was on average BETTER than the conventional trials analysed.
'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. Cont....
"the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim"
Skeptics who claim that patients of Homeopathy are cured by the placebo effect must prove their claims!
To date there is not an iota of evidence to show that these patients were cured by the placebo effect.
The placebo effect is temporary, lasting a few days or weeks; whereas patients cured with Homeopathy have a lasting curative effect for several months or years.
A new study in the Journal of Molecular Liquids by Jean-Louis Demangeat at the Nuclear Medicine Department of the General Hospital in Haguenau, France reports physical modifications in the solvent of ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine.
..."This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable", said George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University "
You may be wondering why all the notable trials of homeopathy compare it to a placebo. This is because an empty 'placebo' pill has been proven to be beneficial in treating many conditions.
It is worth noting that at least homeopathy has never been proven worse than placebo...,
....unlike conventional medicines, such as Seroxat - the anti-depressant that lead to suicides.
All trials compare the drug under test to a placebo. That's just how it works, it's not some conspiritoral insult to Homeopathy. There has to be a control in almost all experiments.
And Seroxat is not "conventional" medicine, it has been off the market for years because it made people worse than they were without it, thus, it fell by the wayside. Like any other chemical found to have a negative effect.
"Like any other chemical found to have a negative effect."
You might need to research how many Chemicals that have a negative effect are being used and rubber stamped by the industrial corporate government sector. Chemicals that have an obvious effect are not used, but the ones that are slowly killing millions are legal.
Treatment for Cancer is extremely toxic. Many treatments are toxic, the idea is to have a treatment that is less bad than the disease. And not fatal. And hopefully not needed for very long. Sometimes mistakes are made this is true, but it is true of all human effort. I don't need much research to know that, stop being so patronising please.
Reference the peer reviewed paper which says that Homeopathy has a lasting effect please I am not willing to take your word on that one.
Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, et al. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet. 1986;2:881886.
Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ. 2000;321:471476.
@Kingfillins The second one there didn't get enough participants to draw any conclusion from. The first is more interesting but is a 2C or 3C potency not a lot more potent than the usual used in treatments?
This is a discussion.... I am presenting studies of note.
These are very interesting.
Yes doing research is the only way to address this topic. If one suggests there is nothing to Homeopathy or the effect of high dilutes, it indicates they have not researched the topic.
Seven double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving a total of 752 participants have evaluated the potential benefits of Galphimia in relieving symptoms of hay fever.9 Potencies of the remedy used in these trials ranged from 2c to 3c. All of the studies evaluated improvements in allergic symptoms related to the eye, and some also considered symptoms related to the nose. Overall, the results were encouraging.
In the best of these studies, researchers evaluated the effectiveness of Galphimia glauca in alleviating hay fever symptoms in 201 people.10 The treatment group received Galphimia glauca 2c in a liquid solution of 43% alcohol, and the placebo was in an identical solution. Improvement was noted after 2 weeks, and the relative benefit of treatment over placebo continued to increase throughout the 4-week study period.
Electrical impedance and HV plasma images of high dilutions of sodium chloride
Sience Direct
This paper reports impedance data and high voltage plasma photographic plates of high dilutions of sodium chloride in water submitted to the homeopathic dilution and succussion up to 30cH. Extremely low concentrations of the original salt, even beyond Avogadro number, clearly differ from pure water and; the action of sodium chloride on the electrical properties of water is inverted at high dilution.
Hoping for errors in meta analyses sounds rather desperate, Fillins. Cherry picked in vitro studies, even when done to a high methodological standard, still don't prove homoeopathy. Even if an effect were detected, that wouldn't prove water can memorise distinct substances. There's STILL no model explaining water memory, or how like could cure like. Clinical homoeopathic effect is inversely proportional to trial size and quality, indicating homoeopathy is a placebo effect and nothing more.
Also, a group of highly respected scientists have confirmed that the vigorous shaking involved with making homeopathic medicines changes the pressure in the water, akin to water being at 10,000 feet in altitude (Roy, et al., 2005). These scientists have shown how the homeopathic process of using double-distilled water and then diluting and shaking the medicine in a sequential fashion changes the structure of water.
Hoping for, and imagining, errors is exactly what you're doing though, isn't it Fillins? You certainly haven't proved there's anything wrong with these meta analyses, only that you'd like to imagine there is. No well conducted CLINICAL trials support homoeopathy, and the IN VETRO trials, even when they show some effect, don't prove homoeopathy works. These alleged changes in the structure of water are not the same thing as proving homoeopathy works.
Randi looked petrified as the letters appeared to be lining up into a meaningful pattern, before all the tubes were decoded and this quackery was blown out of the water. :-)
Yes, the lifting his hand up to his mouth and biting his thumb would suggest he was petrified, only if he was a cartoon character though. If you look closely, it really is just a random moment that the producers in post production exaggerated for effect. Anyway, Science for the win.
@mik99D You have yet to respond the ONE bottle ONE DOSE issue with your self poisoning test.
Taking one bottle is taking one dose.
So this is a flawed test.
Will you be modifying your test now you know that taking one bottle is not enough?? I hope not, that would be very foolish, about as foolish as doing what you are planning to do, a flawed test, in front of the media.
It sounds like you're using a fallacious appeal to authority here, Fillins. Just because these people received Nobel prizes for other work that doesn't free them of the obligation to adhere to practice good science. I haven't seen your two ancient references, but the Montagnier reference was self published pseudo-science.
Mainstream science shows that homeopathy doesn't work, it's had more than 200 years to demonstrate an effect that goes beyond the placebo effect and has failed dismally, Fillins.
@alexistarr Mainstream Science has shown that high dilutes are different from plain water.
That the succession proses increases the difference.
Mainstream science simply cannot explain why Homeopathy does work..... YET.
As nano and energy science advances etc we we see answers. (or not,)
Proper mainstream science always admits more study is needed with Homeopathy. Science is never "over" it is non emotional and not political. It has no "axe to grind".
Science has shown homoeopathic preparations are no different from distilled water, when the science is done properly and the placebo effect is removed, homoeopathy has zero effect, Fillins. This scientific process of elimination proves that homoeopathy "works" only by means of a placebo effect. Your "nano and energy science" is nothing but pseudo-science. I don't have an axe to grind either, I'd love it if there was a real effect at work here, but there's no evidence to suggest there is.
Most of the science over that last 200 years has and still does follow the NEWTONIAN MODEL and this model is not consistent with contemporary knowledge.
The meta reviews of clinical homoeopathic trials show that homoeopathy has no effect beyond the placebo effect, Fillins. Science doesn't need to understand the alleged mechanism to understand whether or not there is any mechanism at work, scientists don't fully understand how tobacco causes cancer, but the epidemiological evidence is clear. Similarly if there were a homoeopathic effect at work, science would have found it by now. It's time to consign this quackery to the history books.
High Homeopathic Potencies Are Different from Potentized Solvent when Investigated with the REDEM Technology
C. Witta; R. Lüdtkeb; T.E.R. Weißhuhna; S.N. Willicha
aInstitut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, bKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Deutschland
Assuming this, C. Witta et al, in vitro study were done to a higher methodological standard than Jacques Benveniste required, that STILL doesn't prove that water can "memorise" DISTINCT substances, in a manner necessary for homoeopathy to have any hope of working, does it, Fillins? We STILL don't have a model explaining "water memory" or how like could cure like, do we? An effect STILL cannot be found in higher quality clinical trials, can it?
Physicist Louis Rey in Lausanne, Switzerland, has published a paper in the mainstream journal, Physica A, describing experiments that suggest water does have a memory of molecules that have been diluted away, as can be demonstrated by a relatively new physical technique that measures
Extremely Dilute Solutions Create Non-Melting Ice Crystals in Room Temperature Water
A group of California scientists at the American Technologies Group have discovered, identified, and characterized a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice crystals that maintain an electrical field. These nanometer sized, rod-shaped water clusters are created when a substance is placed in distilled water, then vigorously shaken or stirred, and then repeatedly diluted and shaken or stirred.
Dr. Lo notes, "There seems to be something unique in water that undergoes extreme dilution, and we now have the laboratory evidence and even the photographic evidence to verify it."
When following the traditional homeopathic pharmacological method to diluting and shaking solutions, the American Technology scientists found that approximately 0.1-0.2% of the solution contained IE crystals. These scientists, however, have
If Louis Rey had proved some effect he hasn't proved water can remember specific substances, or that like can cure like, has he, Fillins? There are no ice crystals present in homoeopathic preparations, how does maintaining an electrical field prove the notion water has a memory? Dr. Lo's "something unique in water that undergoes extreme dilution" sounds a bit vague. Homeopathic preparations contain no "IE crystals", what's your point?
Dr. Martin Chaplin, a respected British professor who is one of the world's experts on water, has verified that "homeopathic water" and "regular water" are not the same, and his review of almost 2,000 references to the scientific literature on water confirm this fact (Chaplin, 2009).
Brian Josephson, Ph.D., Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 New Scientist (October 18, 1997)
"Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's structure". cont...
"Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account."
If Martin Chapman's "homoeopathic water" and "regular water" are not the same, that doesn't prove water can remember DISTINCT substances which could cause DISTINCT effects, or that like could cure like, so homoeopathy remains unproven, Fillins. Brian Josephson's doubtless referring to the in vitro studies of homoeopathy, and conveniently forgetting about the far more significant clinical trials, meta analyses of which prove homoeopathy has no effect.
Certain species of moth can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to propagate their species.
Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival.
Your moth pheromone, and the shark blood sensing, examples are examples of the detection of measurable quantities of molecules, they don't rely on the alleged water memory effect claimed by homoeopaths, Fillins.
The point is we have well conducted clinical trials on Homeopathy that conclude that Homeopathy is superior to placebo.
We have MILLIONS of people who find benefits from Homeopathy,
We have meta analysis that suggests it is not better than Placebo,
yet we have scientific evidence that suggests that water does seem to have the mechanism to retain information that is concussed into it, and thus suggests the meta analysis is incorrect OR....
Really, Fillins? I've never heard of any of these "well conducted clinical trials....that conclude Homoeopathy is superior to placebo". Anecdotes, even millions of them, prove nothing. It hasn't been proved that homoeopathy can remember distinct substances and have distinct effects, nor that like could cure like. You want more cherry picked, methodologically poor studies in order to reinforce your belief in homoeopathy. It shouldn't be funded by any public medical system or sold in pharmacies.
James Randi regularly "overdoses" on homoeopathy, and doesn't get any symptoms, Fillins. You're cherry picking the time you coincidentally happened to feel a little bit unwell after taking a homoeopathic preparation, and recounting it in an anecdote.
@alexistarr This is how Randi tricks the public. He's a fraud. A good magician., but not that bright.
Taking a hole bottle of a homeopathic medicine is simply one dose. Taking that dose 4 times a day every day for 4 months would have an effect. (Or several drops etc). It is the fequency of dose that matters. Homeopathy is subtle. It allows the body to re align itself with health. It does not force anything.
Randi doesn't take one bottle of homoeopathic preparation, but entire packs of homoeopathic pills, well in excess the maximum dose stated on the pack, Fillins. Your allegations that it's the frequency of the dose that matters, and that it "allows the body to re align itself" amount to the fallacy of special pleading, you're making nonsense up as you go along. He regularly receives an overdose, as defined on the pack, for which the manufacturers recommend seeking immediate medical attention.
@alexistarr "for which the manufacturers recommend seeking immediate medical attention." Thats a standard legal requirement on medicines etc. whether or not it relates specifically to Homeopathic is the issue.
Even if Randi took a whole pack, thats still just ONE DOSE.
If he took that dose over and over he would get his medicine. But I do not recommend it.
In the case of homoeopathy it's a waste of time putting any such warning on the packaging, I've heard of marathon runners dropping dead after drinking several litres of water over the course of a run, but it's unlikely anybody's going to drink that much homoeopathic preparation. The reason nobody's managed to overdose on homoeopathic preparations is that they have zero effect.
I later researched the Homeopathic and discovered it can be prescribed to treat blurry vision and dizziness, this was news to me but explained my unusual symptoms, so it was not placebo.
I had "proved" the remedy.
This is remember, how Homeopathy was developed to begin with.
No I am not Cherry picking I had distinct symptoms such as blurry vision. I have never had this before of since. I have a very balanced life, I do not drink much alcohol, (glass of wine occasionally) I eat all organic food. I exercise regularly and look 10 year younger than my age I very rarely have any health issues, and had been prescribed the Homeopathic to address past emotional issues, nothing even "physical"
Three months into taking the remedy I started getting blurry vision etc
From time to time we all feel unwell in one way or another, and most of the time our body recovers from this by itself, without any intervention, Fillins. Of course when true believers in faith healing, acupuncture, homoeopathy or any other supernatural belief system, undergo any such treatment session, they naturally attribute any change in their health to the quackery they most recently received. Coincidences more incredible than the one you're describing happen all the time.
Did you get Blurry vision, or don't you get sick? You should make up your mind, Fillins. Acupuncture, like homoeopathy can't pass rigorously designed, large, randomised double blind clinical trials, which remove the placebo effect, both are remnants from a less enlightened pre-scientific age.
Blurry vision is a sickness. Any part of the body that is not functioning normally can be described as sick.
My point is that I had excellent health, diet, exercise, sleep and balance etc, in my life over the months I was taking the Homeopathic, then I began feeling very "light" as if I was floating. Then my vision started going blurry. I thought I was loosing my vision. But after stopping the Homeopathic my vision returned to normal.
Excellent, we've established that your previous assertion that you don't get sick is false, Fillins. You're cherry picking an illness and attributing it to a homoeopathic preparation that you happened to be taking at the time. Your colourful anecdote, like all anecdotes, of course proves nothing.
At a very high level of well being and health, I had no normally occurring cause for this, yet I had it. The process of elimination and later finding out that the Homeopathic can be used to treat Blurry Vision, led me to conclude that the Homeopathic was the most reasonable cause.
@alexistarr "You were clearly ether experiencing a coincidence, or placebo effect, possibly both, Fillins. In any case anecdotes like this prove nothing."
I explained that I did not know the remedy was used to treat blurry vision and I did not want blurry vision. NO PLACEBO.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS and science supports it. (it also questions it just as good science does.) And good science recommends further study of Homeopathy. IT DOES NOT DENY THE POSSIBILITY or the effects of Homeopathy, because as yet, as with many things it does not fully understand it.
Absolutes do not exist, only in the small minds of men.
You're looking back, in retrospect, over a lifetime of minor ailments and consumed homoeopathic preparations, and recounting a coincidental connection in your anecdote, Fillins. If this coincidence hadn't happened you'd be recounting a different coincidence. Homoeopathy doesn't work, and after 200 years STILL can't demonstrate efficacy in large, randomised, double blind clinical trials, as every licensed pharmaceutical does. It's nothing more than a cash cow kept alive by charlatans.
"It's nothing more than a cash cow kept alive by charlatans". Top Scientific minds disagree and simply points to prejudice.
Study Finds Homeopathic Nasal Spray Effective for Allergies
Researchers from Strategic BioSciences and the Institute for Asthma and Allergy in Wheaton, Maryland, have found that homeopathic nasal sprays using capsicum, an active component derived from the fruit of the cayenne pepper plant, are effective in relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
Two new studies conclude that a review which claimed that homeopathy is just a placebo, published in The Lancet, was seriously flawed.
George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University comments: 'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice.....
-- Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.
-- The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions; if homeopathy works for some of these but not others the result changes, implying that it is not placebo.
-- The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless.
-- Doubts remain about the opaque, unpublished criteria used in the review, including the definition of 'higher quality'.
Top scientific minds agree there's no clinical evidence homoeopathy has any effect, Fillins. That Strategic BioSciences nasal spray study had 24 participants, they probably did one every week until they got the results they wanted, burying the rest. If a review that found homoeopathy to be just a placebo was flawed, how does that prove homoeopathy has any efficacy? CONCLUSION = The meta analysis of clinical homoeopathic trials conclude it doesn't work, there's no reason to conclude it works.
You are talking from a fixed position on something that is not fixed. Reputable scientists are calling for further study of Homeopathy. To suggest that it does not work is based on SOME research. NOT ALL THE RESEARCH.
And the fact that the Meta Analysis is seriously flawed we have no consensus. With new research and studies happening now the case is OPEN.
To suggest that some of the research is all the research is head in the sand nonsense.
Reputable scientists are calling for further high quality clinical studies, of the sort that homoeopathy can't pass, not the sort of methodologically flawed studies that show inconclusive results, so that it can finally be consigned to the trash can of history where it belongs, Fillins. Homoeopathy has had more than 200 years to demonstrate efficacy and has failed dismally. Meta Analysis shows a real effect in real medicine, it's only quackery that can't meet the demands of such analysis.
Homeopathy has always had an individualised methodology, this central tenant may not match the "large scale" approach. To not address such in a trial is a weakness in the trial
A remedy that treats one condition in a person may not be the appropriate remedy for another. Some r more broad acting
We see this in Alopathic prescriptions also were patients receive a cocktail of drugs. (Non of which have had their safety tested in combination)
Homeopathy is not simply the application of a chemical.
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the best objective meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies, 81 of which showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy.
Homoeopathy believers are just picking faults as the meta analyses don't give the results they want, Fillins. There's still no real evidence, and this "individualised methodology" is just special pleading to cover the fact it can't pass large randomised double blind clinical trials. Whatever mistakes medicine makes that doesn't make homoeopathy work. Kleijnen et al, 1991, couldn't draw any definitive conclusions as most trials were of low methodological quality and unknown publication bias.
"individualised methodology" is just special pleading to cover the fact it can't pass large randomised double blind clinical trials."
The basic standard with Classical Homeopathy is that it is personalised and individualised. AS WITH ANY GOOD MEDICAL PRACTICE, which is why so many alopathic medicines dont work, one glove fits all doesnt fit with medicine.
Do you know any thing about the practice of Homeopathy, or just what you have been told by Randi?
Real medicine does work and it proves this when it passes large, randomised, double blind clinical trials, Fillins. The bottom line is that homoeopathy can't do this, when objectively tested it fails. Don't feel bad about this, many pharmaceuticals never make it into production because they can't pass such rigorous testing either.
When anti depressant drug studies went through the meta analysis process they came up not effective. But what happened? The scientists "just picked faults as the meta analysis don't give the results they want" Yes Meta analysis HAS FAULTS and is not conclusive.
Frass, M, Dielacher, Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest March, 2005 This impressive study was conducted at the University of Vienna and published in the leading respiratory medicine journal...with substantially significant results in the treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD is the #4 reason that people in the USA die). At present 2 different universities are conducted trials to replicate this important study
Frass et al, 2004 was a tiny study, with only 50 participants, which only took 2 days to do, and thus is susceptible to publication bias, Fillins. If repeated often enough they were bound to get the results they wanted, meanwhile any unwanted results could be easily buried.
Acupuncture for Osteoarthritis of the Knee Study Results 2004
A landmark study has shown that acupuncture provides pain relief and improves function for people with osteoarthritis of the knee and serves as an effective complement to standard care. The study, the largest Phase III clinical trial of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis, was funded by NCCAM and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, both components of the National Institutes of Health.
"Effectiveness of acupuncture as adjunctive therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomize controlled trial", Berman et al, 2004 was not blinded, Fillins. However, a meta analysis of 13 studies of pain treatment with acupuncture, published in January 2009 in the journal BMJ, concluded there was little difference in the effect of real, sham and no acupuncture.
A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acupuncture for the treatment of childhood persistent allergic rhinitis.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that active acupuncture was more effective than sham acupuncture in decreasing the symptom scores for persistent allergic rhinitis and increasing the symptom-free days.
The recent meta-analysis of homeopathic trials concluded that the results were compatible with the notion that clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects (43). However, as demonstrated by Lüdtke et al., this conclusion was based on an arbitrarily chosen subset of eight trials, out of 21 high-quality trials and the results favor homeopathy, if another threshold to define a large trial is used (44).
"Moreover, the homeopathic interventions were grouped in classical, clinical, complex or isopathy, without any further reference to the specific homeopathic clinical or pharmaceutical methodology used in each one of these groups. Defining the homeopathic methodology being analyzed would have been essential to avoid biased or generalized conclusions".
With respect, your continued prejudice against Homeopathy is unscientific and seems to ensures your blindness to anything other than your belief.
"A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acupuncture for the treatment of childhood persistent allergic rhinitis", Ng et al, 2004, only involved 72 patients. Tiny studies like this are prone to publication bias, had it failed to show the desired result it probably would have been buried. Which "recent meta-analysis of homoeopathic trials"? Re-analysing the data after the event until you get the result you want, doesn't sound very scientific. :-)
My lifestyle stayed the same, my vision returned to normal, and nothing was different other than not taking the Homeopathic. And my vision is once again 20 20.
Sure its an anecdote, But i addressed this medically, I had no physical reason to have blurry vision.
You did not respond to the flawed Meta Analysis of Homeopathy.
Re your Acupuncture comment...Meta Analysis IS "Re-analysing the data after the event"
Meta Analysis is not free from flaws such as Simpson's Paradox.
Minor ailments like this usually put themselves right, though I realise why you may want to believe homoeopathy had some sort effect, you clearly have a lot of emotional investment in this belief system, Fillins. Cherry picked anecdotes have nothing to do with medical science. Methodologically sound meta analyses agree the protocols to be used BEFORE not AFTER any analysis. Just because you want to imagine a meta analysis is flawed that doesn't make it so.
No emotion, simple expierience, that is all. The thing that drives science.
Research the issue. Meta Analysis has its issues. That is not "because I imagine meta analysis is flawed". It is because it is well known to be so, see for the 5th time "Simpson's Paradox". That is not my "want", it is a phenomena called "Simpson's Paradox."
Your "simple experience" amounts to simple anecdotes, which are a million miles away from constituting any sort of proof that homoeopathy can demonstrate any efficacy, Fillins. Even if "Meta Analysis has its issues" it gives a vastly clearer picture regarding the efficacy of homoeopathy than your anecdotes. Blanket attacks on meta analysis do nothing to prove that homoeopathy has any effect.
Getting blurry vision and having the feeling of floating is not minor. I am not looking back, I am recounting what happened. At the time I investigated all possible reasons and found none apart from the Homeopathic, the definitions of which fit my symptoms EXACTLY.
And as I said, I did not know that the Homeopathic is used to treat such symptoms.
....... If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.'
This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy. An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.
You wanted to believe homoeopathy caused your symptoms so you immediately dismissed all other possible causes, Fillins. There's no reason to assume homoeopathy works for any conditions, when you take away the placebo effect all effects go out the window with it. Even if there was something wrong with any of the reviews that doesn't alter the fact there's zero compelling evidence homoeopathy has any effect. I'm basing my belief that homoeopathy doesn't work on the fact there's no proof it works.
I have clearly explained that I DID NOT KNOW that the Homeopathic treated Blurry Vision. So How could it be Placebo when I did not know what to expect?
I did not know this to begin with, so I did not "immediately dismissed all other possible causes" I addressed all possibilities and found the remedy was the only one that explained my condition.
ie I had no concussion, poisoning etc
Considering I was in peak health it was not hard to address what causes were likely or not.
It doesn't matter what you knew at the time, you're retrospectively interpreting this carefully cherry picked event in order to fit with what you want to believe, Fillins. You don't want to accept any possibility other than the notion that homoeopathy works, so you don't. This anecdote of yours illustrates the importance of rigorously designed, large, methodologically sound, randomised double blind trials. Very tellingly homoeopathy has never shown any effect in such trials.
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
We still find effectiveness in Homeopathic studies.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo.
So much negativity about Homeopathy and its supposed lack of scientific proof yet...
1. Only 13% of commonly used orthodox interventions are solidly based on evidence (see.... clinicalevidencedotcom.)
2. A huge study showed that antidepressants are 'little better than placebo' yet millions of pounds/dollars are spent on these drugs and the salaries of those who prescribe them.
It doesn't matter what you knew at the time, because this anecdote of a coincidence which happened to you is being retrospectively cherry picked, Fillins. Jacobs et al, 2003, and Bell et al, 2004, are both small studies which once again could be susceptible to publication bias. I can't find this 13% statistic, can you give a more precise reference? Homoeopathy's NO BETTER than placebo, if these antidepressants have little effect they shouldn't be used.
Its an honest comprehensive unprejudiced analysis amounting to a fair trial but I have certain reservations about PLACEBO : (1) Placebo can't work on animals or small babies who lack self-awareness (2) Placebo will not work if the patient has already taken some other medicine without any relief. (3) Placebo ruled out if a specific remedy works and some non-indicated remedy doesn't. Science is yet to answer many wonders of life which are metaphysical but do exist in our experience.
The answer to the animal one has been blown out of the water. It appears that a Vet will spend 2-15 minutes with a sick animal. A Homoeopathic vet will spend 1-2 hours with the animal. It is the pastoral care that counts. And guess what ? Homeopathic vets have 70% of patients die or get worse. They only report the hits, which is like placebo, but they just get better due to natural white blood cells and time.
An experiment is is only as good as the methodology - it was pretty obvious two of the scientists had issues with the way they ran their experiments. When the testing was done thoroughly, carefully and without bias...well, you could see the results. If you're not absolutely careful, your bias can influence the results, even if subconsciously and accidentally. I think some people (even some doctors) are such zealots in regards to homeopathy, that their experiments are flawed.
Have you read that paper? I'm going to assume not. The data presented is far from conclusive and in fact contradicts in some sense the purpose of the experiment. Their data shows that there was an increase in CGI during treatment with verum when this is the opposite of what would occur if the homeopathic verum was effective. They ascribe this to people "expected a placebo". Which itself tends to suggest that the only difference between nothing and the verum is the same as placebo.
jazzx251 "Let's suppose I do a scientific experiment."
With all due respect, that is not a scientific experiment, that is you pretending that you know what you are talking about using a supporting statement that shows you do not.
Whats up is a reasonable amount of data that supports Homeopathy. More studies are needed of course.
Fascinating. I think the most interesting thing is how some folks like Kingfillins can be shown results like this and still cling to a superstitious belief like homeopathy. It has NOT been proven by peer reviewed scientists to work. Anyone who can do so can get a quick million dollars. "If one dreams of hitting the golf ball into a hole, does it matter if they do it in waking life?" Yes. Does it matter if I dreamed that I shot my neighbor or if I really shot him. Yeah. It matters.
There is evidence from single RCTs (not refuted by others) in favour of homeopathy for a number of other conditions: allergic asthma,22 ankle sprain,23 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,24 bronchitis,25 chronic fatigue syndrome,26 premenstrual syndrome.27
Weiser M, Strösser W, Klein P (1998). Homeopathic vs.
conventional treatment of vertigo: a randomized double-blind
controlled clinical study. Archives of Otolaryngology
In 1861 a virulent epidemic of malarial fever was raging over lower Bengal and it was at this juncture that the great philanthropist, Late Babu Rajendra Lall Dutta, a layman, truly laid the foundation of Homeopathy and started its practice with astounding results. He converted the redoubtable allopath and his opponent, Dr. Mahendra Lall Sircar, M.D. D.L., C.I. E. to Homeopathy.
"Health, Inc: How Modern Medicine Became a Monopoly"
to find out how our "conventional" medical system came about. The facts speak for themselves.
This is not to say that mainstream medicine does not have its place. Some modern drugs are very beneficial in extreme cases and modern surgery is amazing. But most people do not need pharmaceutical drugs.
I was being sarcastic. There is actually NO evidence that homeopathy works. There have been oodles of double blind tests and none do better than placebo. It is just water. We are carrying out a big demo soon and you will be able to see it. On the 21st of Jan we are taking another overdose of homoeopathic pills. So why aren't we dead from the last one? I had three vials of a total 180 pills in two minutes. Nothing happened. Or was there a different hole in my chakra?
If Homeopathy is as good as Placebo it very much works.Remember if it works as well as placebo, that dose not mean it is the Placebo effect in action. It could very well mean that the Homeopathy is working.
They shouldn't have said that at the end, they should have said "Homeopathy is back where it started - ithout a shred of evidence to support it" rather than "without any scientific basis".
We don't know whether the higgs boson is real yet or not, but we have data/evidence and models of *something*, whereas with homeopathy we literally have *nothing*.
shoseki 3 weeks ago
Soooo... what about sharks that can detect a single drop of blood in 100,000 gallons of saltwater?
wendyoffroad 5 months ago
@wendyoffroad
Even this dilution is nothing compared to the dilution rate of homeopathic medicines. Homeopathic medicines are equivalent to a single drop of blood in all of earth's oceans combined.
FiverBeyond 3 months ago
Further investigation does NOT need to be done on this topic! there are limited funds for research, investigating these kind of hypothesis is a big WASTE OF THE SCIENTIST'S TIME AND RESOURCES. We should limit our research to proposals that at least sound plausible!
94jmcorrea 8 months ago
uh, WRONG! This so called "scientist" was shaking each dilution with one of those supposed "medical" devices which vibrates the test tube.
We all know that each dilution cylinder needs to be tapped against a leather bound Bible for the succussion to work.
DUH!
legionmantis 9 months ago
How come then Jacque Benviste and Madeline Ennis (and the peer-reviewed journal which published Ennis work) got it wrong? When they didnt switch the labels, the high dilutions did work, when Nature and Horizon switched the labels, the high dilutions did not work. Im more puzzled than before!!
ogfunk187 1 year ago
OF COURSE IT DOESN'T WORK!!!! When you imbue the solutions with negative energy and skepticism, they lose their power! This is evidence of nothing!!!!!!!!!! This is an ancient science that helps hundreds of billions of people. This is so clearly rigged and/or counteracted by James Randi's toxic thought energies.
ivanmikhailov 1 year ago
@ivanmikhailov are you for real?
Broax 1 year ago
I find it interesting when people scoff at modern medicine saying it is a money-grubbing industry - conveniently ignoring the fact that the homeopathy industry is worth billions! I also find it amusing that the very people who scoff at ‘Western’ medicine are the FIRST in line when it comes to themselves being sick – if they get in a nasty car accident and have internal injuries or need an amputation…funny how they never go to a homeopath then…
battenburgs 1 year ago
Thanks for posting, I really enjoyed this program!
What the homeopaths should consider when waxing lyrical about water's so-called memory is that the world's water supply is horribly polluted - with everything from toxic chemicals to the waste and decay from the creatures that live in it. So if water really does have a ‘memory’ then it’s NOT happy and we’re all in trouble!!
battenburgs 1 year ago 7
@battenburgs I so agree, and that's just the tip of the iceberg! Think about it if I eat a very balanced regular meal for a week. Save all my piss(maybe my crap too), dilute it to homeopathic levels with water (your body digest nowhere near all the nutrients before passing rest as water waste). Then simply drink that water, i should have perfect health, nutritionally. And after all that dilution enough to live on for the rest of my life easily? If they are right that would work, yet none try?
Christopholaes 1 year ago
win
mpr106 1 year ago
They also needed a control with histamine UNDILUTED so that activated cells could be observed, otherwise the observing scientists could just say: no cells were activated in either group.
rush7777me7777 1 year ago 3
@rush7777me7777 wrong histamine activation have been observed and is not question by anyone..even in homepathic world....they agreed to the protocole...
get some science education
lapmarty 1 year ago
it's possibly that the laser interfered with the reaction of the cells... it's been proven to happen
dantheman1507 1 year ago
@dantheman1507 the reaction already occured prior to the laser analysis. the binding of the dye to the cytoplasmic proteins is not reversible either.
tomrw54 1 year ago
is that plain water distiled and sterilized?
dantheman1507 1 year ago
Homeoquacks are a waste of space. It's easy to cherry-pick trials that show a postive result but the *totality* of scientific evidence tells us that homeopathic remedies are worthless. Reilly's trial on hay fever appears to be large enough to be statistically significant but in fact there was a 35% drop-out, which he kept quiet about.
skepticat1 1 year ago
@skepticat1
piss-off, what do you know?
dantheman1507 1 year ago
@dantheman1507
Judging by your ignorant response, a lot more than you.
skepticat1 1 year ago
@skepticat1
yeah right... and pigs fly
dantheman1507 1 year ago
Homeopathy can be harmful, e.g. Patient is diagnosed with cancer, they decide to use Homeopathy, then the placebo effect wears off after 3 months. Said cancer has now progressed to the terminal stage, too late for real medicine. This is called opportunity cost. So in a sense you're right in saying homeopathy has a lasting effect, death is very lasting. ;)
24601h 1 year ago
@24601h Google Penelope Dingle
rush7777me7777 1 year ago
@rush7777me7777 There are hundreds of thousands of cases of people needlessly dieing following mainstream treatments, saying that the same happens with alt med is not a case against or for the mainstream. People being people shit happens, that being said a large percentage of mainstream meds do not work or are shit. Of course many are also very beneficial.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
Comment removed
Yony42 1 year ago
On Lancet Homeopathic Meta analysis.....
The review did however, demonstrate that the quality of homeopathy trials was on average BETTER than the conventional trials analysed.
'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. Cont....
Kingfillins 2 years ago
"the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim"
Skeptics who claim that patients of Homeopathy are cured by the placebo effect must prove their claims!
To date there is not an iota of evidence to show that these patients were cured by the placebo effect.
The placebo effect is temporary, lasting a few days or weeks; whereas patients cured with Homeopathy have a lasting curative effect for several months or years.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
mohanaturo Err aren't you missing the point the it is the Homeopaths who haveto prove that their quackery works? Which, by the way they never have!
mik99D 2 years ago
@mik99D Err, Homeopathy has been proven effective in many trials. Your claim is inconsistent with the evidence.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
The only medical condition homoeopathy ever cured was dehydration. :-)
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
You are suggesting that Meta Analysis is some error free grand device, yet Meta Analysis is not full proof with issues such as "Simpson's paradox".
Science has shown that high dilutes differ from plain water....
Kingfillins 2 years ago
INSTRUMENTAL MEASURING OF DIFFERENT HOMEOPATHIC DILUTIONS OF POTASSIUM IODIDE IN WATER
Igor Jerman, M.D., Sc.D., Full Professor of Theoretical Biology
Maja Berden, M.A. Biology
Metod Škarja, M.A. Physics
BION, Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology,
Celovška 264, 1000 LJUBLJANA, Slovenia
(Received October 10,1998; Accepted with revisions March 10, 1999)
Kingfillins 2 years ago
High dilution effect reported in NMR study
A new study in the Journal of Molecular Liquids by Jean-Louis Demangeat at the Nuclear Medicine Department of the General Hospital in Haguenau, France reports physical modifications in the solvent of ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
@Kingfillins Err doest water have the highest absorption cross section ?
mik99D 2 years ago
Cont...
..."This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable", said George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University "
Kingfillins 2 years ago
You may be wondering why all the notable trials of homeopathy compare it to a placebo. This is because an empty 'placebo' pill has been proven to be beneficial in treating many conditions.
It is worth noting that at least homeopathy has never been proven worse than placebo...,
....unlike conventional medicines, such as Seroxat - the anti-depressant that lead to suicides.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
All trials compare the drug under test to a placebo. That's just how it works, it's not some conspiritoral insult to Homeopathy. There has to be a control in almost all experiments.
And Seroxat is not "conventional" medicine, it has been off the market for years because it made people worse than they were without it, thus, it fell by the wayside. Like any other chemical found to have a negative effect.
sonicthebadger 1 year ago
@sonicthebadger
"Like any other chemical found to have a negative effect."
You might need to research how many Chemicals that have a negative effect are being used and rubber stamped by the industrial corporate government sector. Chemicals that have an obvious effect are not used, but the ones that are slowly killing millions are legal.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
Treatment for Cancer is extremely toxic. Many treatments are toxic, the idea is to have a treatment that is less bad than the disease. And not fatal. And hopefully not needed for very long. Sometimes mistakes are made this is true, but it is true of all human effort. I don't need much research to know that, stop being so patronising please.
Reference the peer reviewed paper which says that Homeopathy has a lasting effect please I am not willing to take your word on that one.
sonicthebadger 1 year ago 2
@sonicthebadger
Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, et al. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet. 1986;2:881886.
Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ. 2000;321:471476.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins The second one there didn't get enough participants to draw any conclusion from. The first is more interesting but is a 2C or 3C potency not a lot more potent than the usual used in treatments?
sonicthebadger 1 year ago
@sonicthebadger
This is a discussion.... I am presenting studies of note.
These are very interesting.
Yes doing research is the only way to address this topic. If one suggests there is nothing to Homeopathy or the effect of high dilutes, it indicates they have not researched the topic.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@sonicthebadger
Seven double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving a total of 752 participants have evaluated the potential benefits of Galphimia in relieving symptoms of hay fever.9 Potencies of the remedy used in these trials ranged from 2c to 3c. All of the studies evaluated improvements in allergic symptoms related to the eye, and some also considered symptoms related to the nose. Overall, the results were encouraging.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@sonicthebadger
In the best of these studies, researchers evaluated the effectiveness of Galphimia glauca in alleviating hay fever symptoms in 201 people.10 The treatment group received Galphimia glauca 2c in a liquid solution of 43% alcohol, and the placebo was in an identical solution. Improvement was noted after 2 weeks, and the relative benefit of treatment over placebo continued to increase throughout the 4-week study period.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@sonicthebadger
"stop being so patronising please."
Where have I done so?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Telling me to do my research.
sonicthebadger 1 year ago
Homeopathy is commonly shown to be at the least as good as placebo, but not worse.
Placebo is unlikely to have a lasting effect,
Homeopathy is.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
Electrical impedance and HV plasma images of high dilutions of sodium chloride
Sience Direct
This paper reports impedance data and high voltage plasma photographic plates of high dilutions of sodium chloride in water submitted to the homeopathic dilution and succussion up to 30cH. Extremely low concentrations of the original salt, even beyond Avogadro number, clearly differ from pure water and; the action of sodium chloride on the electrical properties of water is inverted at high dilution.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Hoping for errors in meta analyses sounds rather desperate, Fillins. Cherry picked in vitro studies, even when done to a high methodological standard, still don't prove homoeopathy. Even if an effect were detected, that wouldn't prove water can memorise distinct substances. There's STILL no model explaining water memory, or how like could cure like. Clinical homoeopathic effect is inversely proportional to trial size and quality, indicating homoeopathy is a placebo effect and nothing more.
alexistarr 2 years ago
There is no "hoping for errors in meta analysis". Errors ARE a recognised phenomena WITH meta analysis, such as 'Simpson's paradox".
To suggest that Meta Analysis is some perfect model is simply incorrect. It is a guide, that is all.
Even when science supports Homeopathy with well conducted trials, you say (essentially) "YES, BUT"...
I say YES, BUT more research needs to be done.
and YES there is credible scientific support for Homeopathy pointing toward the need for more research.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Also, a group of highly respected scientists have confirmed that the vigorous shaking involved with making homeopathic medicines changes the pressure in the water, akin to water being at 10,000 feet in altitude (Roy, et al., 2005). These scientists have shown how the homeopathic process of using double-distilled water and then diluting and shaking the medicine in a sequential fashion changes the structure of water.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Hoping for, and imagining, errors is exactly what you're doing though, isn't it Fillins? You certainly haven't proved there's anything wrong with these meta analyses, only that you'd like to imagine there is. No well conducted CLINICAL trials support homoeopathy, and the IN VETRO trials, even when they show some effect, don't prove homoeopathy works. These alleged changes in the structure of water are not the same thing as proving homoeopathy works.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Randi looked petrified as the letters appeared to be lining up into a meaningful pattern, before all the tubes were decoded and this quackery was blown out of the water. :-)
alexistarr 2 years ago
Yes, the lifting his hand up to his mouth and biting his thumb would suggest he was petrified, only if he was a cartoon character though. If you look closely, it really is just a random moment that the producers in post production exaggerated for effect. Anyway, Science for the win.
Damn6Deal6Done6 2 years ago
JREF
mik99D 2 years ago
@mik99D You have yet to respond the ONE bottle ONE DOSE issue with your self poisoning test.
Taking one bottle is taking one dose.
So this is a flawed test.
Will you be modifying your test now you know that taking one bottle is not enough?? I hope not, that would be very foolish, about as foolish as doing what you are planning to do, a flawed test, in front of the media.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Nobel Laureate Scientists throughout the ages who have proven the efficacy of Homeopathic high dilutions:
Hans Von Euler
Nobel Laureate - Chemistry 1930
Brian David Josephson
Nobel Laureate - Physics 1973
Luc Montagnier
Nobel Laureate-Physiology/Medicine20 09
Kingfillins 2 years ago
It sounds like you're using a fallacious appeal to authority here, Fillins. Just because these people received Nobel prizes for other work that doesn't free them of the obligation to adhere to practice good science. I haven't seen your two ancient references, but the Montagnier reference was self published pseudo-science.
alexistarr 2 years ago 2
@alexistarr
Blindly following anything is a "fallacious appeal to authority"....
Including mainstream science, no?
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Mainstream science shows that homeopathy doesn't work, it's had more than 200 years to demonstrate an effect that goes beyond the placebo effect and has failed dismally, Fillins.
alexistarr 2 years ago 2
@alexistarr Mainstream Science has shown that high dilutes are different from plain water.
That the succession proses increases the difference.
Mainstream science simply cannot explain why Homeopathy does work..... YET.
As nano and energy science advances etc we we see answers. (or not,)
Proper mainstream science always admits more study is needed with Homeopathy. Science is never "over" it is non emotional and not political. It has no "axe to grind".
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Science has shown homoeopathic preparations are no different from distilled water, when the science is done properly and the placebo effect is removed, homoeopathy has zero effect, Fillins. This scientific process of elimination proves that homoeopathy "works" only by means of a placebo effect. Your "nano and energy science" is nothing but pseudo-science. I don't have an axe to grind either, I'd love it if there was a real effect at work here, but there's no evidence to suggest there is.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
Most of the science over that last 200 years has and still does follow the NEWTONIAN MODEL and this model is not consistent with contemporary knowledge.
This limits what these scientists can perceive.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
The meta reviews of clinical homoeopathic trials show that homoeopathy has no effect beyond the placebo effect, Fillins. Science doesn't need to understand the alleged mechanism to understand whether or not there is any mechanism at work, scientists don't fully understand how tobacco causes cancer, but the epidemiological evidence is clear. Similarly if there were a homoeopathic effect at work, science would have found it by now. It's time to consign this quackery to the history books.
alexistarr 2 years ago
High Homeopathic Potencies Are Different from Potentized Solvent when Investigated with the REDEM Technology
C. Witta; R. Lüdtkeb; T.E.R. Weißhuhna; S.N. Willicha
aInstitut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, bKarl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Deutschland
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Assuming this, C. Witta et al, in vitro study were done to a higher methodological standard than Jacques Benveniste required, that STILL doesn't prove that water can "memorise" DISTINCT substances, in a manner necessary for homoeopathy to have any hope of working, does it, Fillins? We STILL don't have a model explaining "water memory" or how like could cure like, do we? An effect STILL cannot be found in higher quality clinical trials, can it?
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
Physicist Louis Rey in Lausanne, Switzerland, has published a paper in the mainstream journal, Physica A, describing experiments that suggest water does have a memory of molecules that have been diluted away, as can be demonstrated by a relatively new physical technique that measures
thermoluminescence.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Extremely Dilute Solutions Create Non-Melting Ice Crystals in Room Temperature Water
A group of California scientists at the American Technologies Group have discovered, identified, and characterized a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice crystals that maintain an electrical field. These nanometer sized, rod-shaped water clusters are created when a substance is placed in distilled water, then vigorously shaken or stirred, and then repeatedly diluted and shaken or stirred.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Dr. Lo notes, "There seems to be something unique in water that undergoes extreme dilution, and we now have the laboratory evidence and even the photographic evidence to verify it."
When following the traditional homeopathic pharmacological method to diluting and shaking solutions, the American Technology scientists found that approximately 0.1-0.2% of the solution contained IE crystals. These scientists, however, have
discovered methods to increase this to 10%.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
If Louis Rey had proved some effect he hasn't proved water can remember specific substances, or that like can cure like, has he, Fillins? There are no ice crystals present in homoeopathic preparations, how does maintaining an electrical field prove the notion water has a memory? Dr. Lo's "something unique in water that undergoes extreme dilution" sounds a bit vague. Homeopathic preparations contain no "IE crystals", what's your point?
alexistarr 2 years ago
Dr. Martin Chaplin, a respected British professor who is one of the world's experts on water, has verified that "homeopathic water" and "regular water" are not the same, and his review of almost 2,000 references to the scientific literature on water confirm this fact (Chaplin, 2009).
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Brian Josephson, Ph.D., Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 New Scientist (October 18, 1997)
"Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's structure". cont...
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Brian Josephson, Ph.D.
"Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account."
Kingfillins 2 years ago
If Martin Chapman's "homoeopathic water" and "regular water" are not the same, that doesn't prove water can remember DISTINCT substances which could cause DISTINCT effects, or that like could cure like, so homoeopathy remains unproven, Fillins. Brian Josephson's doubtless referring to the in vitro studies of homoeopathy, and conveniently forgetting about the far more significant clinical trials, meta analyses of which prove homoeopathy has no effect.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Certain species of moth can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to propagate their species.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Your moth pheromone, and the shark blood sensing, examples are examples of the detection of measurable quantities of molecules, they don't rely on the alleged water memory effect claimed by homoeopaths, Fillins.
alexistarr 2 years ago
The point is we have well conducted clinical trials on Homeopathy that conclude that Homeopathy is superior to placebo.
We have MILLIONS of people who find benefits from Homeopathy,
We have meta analysis that suggests it is not better than Placebo,
yet we have scientific evidence that suggests that water does seem to have the mechanism to retain information that is concussed into it, and thus suggests the meta analysis is incorrect OR....
Kingfillins 2 years ago
we need further studies on Homeopathy.
Science is "healthy skepticism" not numbness. How does this help to find the answer, if it was up to you we would ban Homeopathy? Stop its use?
We ignore all the supporting evidence because it doesn't make sense to you?
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Really, Fillins? I've never heard of any of these "well conducted clinical trials....that conclude Homoeopathy is superior to placebo". Anecdotes, even millions of them, prove nothing. It hasn't been proved that homoeopathy can remember distinct substances and have distinct effects, nor that like could cure like. You want more cherry picked, methodologically poor studies in order to reinforce your belief in homoeopathy. It shouldn't be funded by any public medical system or sold in pharmacies.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
I have personally overdosed on Homeopathy, I started to get the symptoms the remedy is meant to cure...
AND I DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT THESE WERE TILL AFTER I GOT THEM.
So it was not Placebo. My only thought was that I would get improvements, not get blurry vision etc!
I have never had vision issues before or after this period.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
James Randi regularly "overdoses" on homoeopathy, and doesn't get any symptoms, Fillins. You're cherry picking the time you coincidentally happened to feel a little bit unwell after taking a homoeopathic preparation, and recounting it in an anecdote.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr This is how Randi tricks the public. He's a fraud. A good magician., but not that bright.
Taking a hole bottle of a homeopathic medicine is simply one dose. Taking that dose 4 times a day every day for 4 months would have an effect. (Or several drops etc). It is the fequency of dose that matters. Homeopathy is subtle. It allows the body to re align itself with health. It does not force anything.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Randi doesn't take one bottle of homoeopathic preparation, but entire packs of homoeopathic pills, well in excess the maximum dose stated on the pack, Fillins. Your allegations that it's the frequency of the dose that matters, and that it "allows the body to re align itself" amount to the fallacy of special pleading, you're making nonsense up as you go along. He regularly receives an overdose, as defined on the pack, for which the manufacturers recommend seeking immediate medical attention.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr "for which the manufacturers recommend seeking immediate medical attention." Thats a standard legal requirement on medicines etc. whether or not it relates specifically to Homeopathic is the issue.
Even if Randi took a whole pack, thats still just ONE DOSE.
If he took that dose over and over he would get his medicine. But I do not recommend it.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
In the case of homoeopathy it's a waste of time putting any such warning on the packaging, I've heard of marathon runners dropping dead after drinking several litres of water over the course of a run, but it's unlikely anybody's going to drink that much homoeopathic preparation. The reason nobody's managed to overdose on homoeopathic preparations is that they have zero effect.
alexistarr 2 years ago
I later researched the Homeopathic and discovered it can be prescribed to treat blurry vision and dizziness, this was news to me but explained my unusual symptoms, so it was not placebo.
I had "proved" the remedy.
This is remember, how Homeopathy was developed to begin with.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
The cherry picked anecdotes of true believers prove nothing, Fillins.
alexistarr 2 years ago
No I am not Cherry picking I had distinct symptoms such as blurry vision. I have never had this before of since. I have a very balanced life, I do not drink much alcohol, (glass of wine occasionally) I eat all organic food. I exercise regularly and look 10 year younger than my age I very rarely have any health issues, and had been prescribed the Homeopathic to address past emotional issues, nothing even "physical"
Three months into taking the remedy I started getting blurry vision etc
Kingfillins 2 years ago
From time to time we all feel unwell in one way or another, and most of the time our body recovers from this by itself, without any intervention, Fillins. Of course when true believers in faith healing, acupuncture, homoeopathy or any other supernatural belief system, undergo any such treatment session, they naturally attribute any change in their health to the quackery they most recently received. Coincidences more incredible than the one you're describing happen all the time.
alexistarr 2 years ago
As I said I dont get sick. Blurry vision is specific, my vision before and since is 20 20 perfect vision.
You are calling acupuncture a supernatural belief system. It is scientifically proven effective.
You might need to get yourself up to speed.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Did you get Blurry vision, or don't you get sick? You should make up your mind, Fillins. Acupuncture, like homoeopathy can't pass rigorously designed, large, randomised double blind clinical trials, which remove the placebo effect, both are remnants from a less enlightened pre-scientific age.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
Blurry vision is a sickness. Any part of the body that is not functioning normally can be described as sick.
My point is that I had excellent health, diet, exercise, sleep and balance etc, in my life over the months I was taking the Homeopathic, then I began feeling very "light" as if I was floating. Then my vision started going blurry. I thought I was loosing my vision. But after stopping the Homeopathic my vision returned to normal.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Excellent, we've established that your previous assertion that you don't get sick is false, Fillins. You're cherry picking an illness and attributing it to a homoeopathic preparation that you happened to be taking at the time. Your colourful anecdote, like all anecdotes, of course proves nothing.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
Blurry vision is a distinct condition.
At a very high level of well being and health, I had no normally occurring cause for this, yet I had it. The process of elimination and later finding out that the Homeopathic can be used to treat Blurry Vision, led me to conclude that the Homeopathic was the most reasonable cause.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
You were clearly ether experiencing a coincidence, or placebo effect, possibly both, Fillins. In any case anecdotes like this prove nothing.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr "You were clearly ether experiencing a coincidence, or placebo effect, possibly both, Fillins. In any case anecdotes like this prove nothing."
I explained that I did not know the remedy was used to treat blurry vision and I did not want blurry vision. NO PLACEBO.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
HOMEOPATHY WORKS and science supports it. (it also questions it just as good science does.) And good science recommends further study of Homeopathy. IT DOES NOT DENY THE POSSIBILITY or the effects of Homeopathy, because as yet, as with many things it does not fully understand it.
Absolutes do not exist, only in the small minds of men.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
You're looking back, in retrospect, over a lifetime of minor ailments and consumed homoeopathic preparations, and recounting a coincidental connection in your anecdote, Fillins. If this coincidence hadn't happened you'd be recounting a different coincidence. Homoeopathy doesn't work, and after 200 years STILL can't demonstrate efficacy in large, randomised, double blind clinical trials, as every licensed pharmaceutical does. It's nothing more than a cash cow kept alive by charlatans.
alexistarr 2 years ago
"It's nothing more than a cash cow kept alive by charlatans". Top Scientific minds disagree and simply points to prejudice.
Study Finds Homeopathic Nasal Spray Effective for Allergies
Researchers from Strategic BioSciences and the Institute for Asthma and Allergy in Wheaton, Maryland, have found that homeopathic nasal sprays using capsicum, an active component derived from the fruit of the cayenne pepper plant, are effective in relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
New evidence for homeopathy
November 3, 2008
Two new studies conclude that a review which claimed that homeopathy is just a placebo, published in The Lancet, was seriously flawed.
George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University comments: 'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice.....
Kingfillins 2 years ago
CONCLUSION =
-- Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.
-- The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions; if homeopathy works for some of these but not others the result changes, implying that it is not placebo.
-- The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless.
-- Doubts remain about the opaque, unpublished criteria used in the review, including the definition of 'higher quality'.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Top scientific minds agree there's no clinical evidence homoeopathy has any effect, Fillins. That Strategic BioSciences nasal spray study had 24 participants, they probably did one every week until they got the results they wanted, burying the rest. If a review that found homoeopathy to be just a placebo was flawed, how does that prove homoeopathy has any efficacy? CONCLUSION = The meta analysis of clinical homoeopathic trials conclude it doesn't work, there's no reason to conclude it works.
alexistarr 2 years ago
You are talking from a fixed position on something that is not fixed. Reputable scientists are calling for further study of Homeopathy. To suggest that it does not work is based on SOME research. NOT ALL THE RESEARCH.
And the fact that the Meta Analysis is seriously flawed we have no consensus. With new research and studies happening now the case is OPEN.
To suggest that some of the research is all the research is head in the sand nonsense.
Study the top trials of Homeopathy :)
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Reputable scientists are calling for further high quality clinical studies, of the sort that homoeopathy can't pass, not the sort of methodologically flawed studies that show inconclusive results, so that it can finally be consigned to the trash can of history where it belongs, Fillins. Homoeopathy has had more than 200 years to demonstrate efficacy and has failed dismally. Meta Analysis shows a real effect in real medicine, it's only quackery that can't meet the demands of such analysis.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
and when the Meta Analysis is, as in this case. is faulty?
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Homeopathy has always had an individualised methodology, this central tenant may not match the "large scale" approach. To not address such in a trial is a weakness in the trial
A remedy that treats one condition in a person may not be the appropriate remedy for another. Some r more broad acting
We see this in Alopathic prescriptions also were patients receive a cocktail of drugs. (Non of which have had their safety tested in combination)
Homeopathy is not simply the application of a chemical.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the best objective meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies, 81 of which showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Homoeopathy believers are just picking faults as the meta analyses don't give the results they want, Fillins. There's still no real evidence, and this "individualised methodology" is just special pleading to cover the fact it can't pass large randomised double blind clinical trials. Whatever mistakes medicine makes that doesn't make homoeopathy work. Kleijnen et al, 1991, couldn't draw any definitive conclusions as most trials were of low methodological quality and unknown publication bias.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
"individualised methodology" is just special pleading to cover the fact it can't pass large randomised double blind clinical trials."
The basic standard with Classical Homeopathy is that it is personalised and individualised. AS WITH ANY GOOD MEDICAL PRACTICE, which is why so many alopathic medicines dont work, one glove fits all doesnt fit with medicine.
Do you know any thing about the practice of Homeopathy, or just what you have been told by Randi?
Will post address to you,,,
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Real medicine does work and it proves this when it passes large, randomised, double blind clinical trials, Fillins. The bottom line is that homoeopathy can't do this, when objectively tested it fails. Don't feel bad about this, many pharmaceuticals never make it into production because they can't pass such rigorous testing either.
alexistarr 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexistarr
When anti depressant drug studies went through the meta analysis process they came up not effective. But what happened? The scientists "just picked faults as the meta analysis don't give the results they want" Yes Meta analysis HAS FAULTS and is not conclusive.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Frass, M, Dielacher, Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest March, 2005 This impressive study was conducted at the University of Vienna and published in the leading respiratory medicine journal...with substantially significant results in the treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD is the #4 reason that people in the USA die). At present 2 different universities are conducted trials to replicate this important study
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Frass et al, 2004 was a tiny study, with only 50 participants, which only took 2 days to do, and thus is susceptible to publication bias, Fillins. If repeated often enough they were bound to get the results they wanted, meanwhile any unwanted results could be easily buried.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Acupuncture for Osteoarthritis of the Knee Study Results 2004
A landmark study has shown that acupuncture provides pain relief and improves function for people with osteoarthritis of the knee and serves as an effective complement to standard care. The study, the largest Phase III clinical trial of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis, was funded by NCCAM and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, both components of the National Institutes of Health.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
"Effectiveness of acupuncture as adjunctive therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomize controlled trial", Berman et al, 2004 was not blinded, Fillins. However, a meta analysis of 13 studies of pain treatment with acupuncture, published in January 2009 in the journal BMJ, concluded there was little difference in the effect of real, sham and no acupuncture.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr
PubMed
Pediatrics. 2004 Nov;114(5):1242-7.
A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acupuncture for the treatment of childhood persistent allergic rhinitis.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that active acupuncture was more effective than sham acupuncture in decreasing the symptom scores for persistent allergic rhinitis and increasing the symptom-free days.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
@alexistarr "
The recent meta-analysis of homeopathic trials concluded that the results were compatible with the notion that clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects (43). However, as demonstrated by Lüdtke et al., this conclusion was based on an arbitrarily chosen subset of eight trials, out of 21 high-quality trials and the results favor homeopathy, if another threshold to define a large trial is used (44).
Kingfillins 2 years ago
"Moreover, the homeopathic interventions were grouped in classical, clinical, complex or isopathy, without any further reference to the specific homeopathic clinical or pharmaceutical methodology used in each one of these groups. Defining the homeopathic methodology being analyzed would have been essential to avoid biased or generalized conclusions".
With respect, your continued prejudice against Homeopathy is unscientific and seems to ensures your blindness to anything other than your belief.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
"A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acupuncture for the treatment of childhood persistent allergic rhinitis", Ng et al, 2004, only involved 72 patients. Tiny studies like this are prone to publication bias, had it failed to show the desired result it probably would have been buried. Which "recent meta-analysis of homoeopathic trials"? Re-analysing the data after the event until you get the result you want, doesn't sound very scientific. :-)
alexistarr 2 years ago
My lifestyle stayed the same, my vision returned to normal, and nothing was different other than not taking the Homeopathic. And my vision is once again 20 20.
Sure its an anecdote, But i addressed this medically, I had no physical reason to have blurry vision.
You did not respond to the flawed Meta Analysis of Homeopathy.
Re your Acupuncture comment...Meta Analysis IS "Re-analysing the data after the event"
Meta Analysis is not free from flaws such as Simpson's Paradox.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Minor ailments like this usually put themselves right, though I realise why you may want to believe homoeopathy had some sort effect, you clearly have a lot of emotional investment in this belief system, Fillins. Cherry picked anecdotes have nothing to do with medical science. Methodologically sound meta analyses agree the protocols to be used BEFORE not AFTER any analysis. Just because you want to imagine a meta analysis is flawed that doesn't make it so.
alexistarr 2 years ago
No emotion, simple expierience, that is all. The thing that drives science.
Research the issue. Meta Analysis has its issues. That is not "because I imagine meta analysis is flawed". It is because it is well known to be so, see for the 5th time "Simpson's Paradox". That is not my "want", it is a phenomena called "Simpson's Paradox."
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Your "simple experience" amounts to simple anecdotes, which are a million miles away from constituting any sort of proof that homoeopathy can demonstrate any efficacy, Fillins. Even if "Meta Analysis has its issues" it gives a vastly clearer picture regarding the efficacy of homoeopathy than your anecdotes. Blanket attacks on meta analysis do nothing to prove that homoeopathy has any effect.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Getting blurry vision and having the feeling of floating is not minor. I am not looking back, I am recounting what happened. At the time I investigated all possible reasons and found none apart from the Homeopathic, the definitions of which fit my symptoms EXACTLY.
And as I said, I did not know that the Homeopathic is used to treat such symptoms.
I had "proved" the Homeopathic.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
@Kingfillins What was the diagnosis?
rush7777me7777 1 year ago
@rush7777me7777 Hi, What was the diagnosis of what?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
....... If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.'
Kingfillins 2 years ago
This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy. An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
@alexistarr
YOU ARE BASING YOU BELIEF THAT HOMEOPATHY DOES NOT WORK ON META ANALYSIS THAT WAS FLAWED.
And you are defending such unscientific practices?
Kingfillins 2 years ago
You wanted to believe homoeopathy caused your symptoms so you immediately dismissed all other possible causes, Fillins. There's no reason to assume homoeopathy works for any conditions, when you take away the placebo effect all effects go out the window with it. Even if there was something wrong with any of the reviews that doesn't alter the fact there's zero compelling evidence homoeopathy has any effect. I'm basing my belief that homoeopathy doesn't work on the fact there's no proof it works.
alexistarr 2 years ago
I have clearly explained that I DID NOT KNOW that the Homeopathic treated Blurry Vision. So How could it be Placebo when I did not know what to expect?
I did not know this to begin with, so I did not "immediately dismissed all other possible causes" I addressed all possibilities and found the remedy was the only one that explained my condition.
ie I had no concussion, poisoning etc
Considering I was in peak health it was not hard to address what causes were likely or not.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what you knew at the time, you're retrospectively interpreting this carefully cherry picked event in order to fit with what you want to believe, Fillins. You don't want to accept any possibility other than the notion that homoeopathy works, so you don't. This anecdote of yours illustrates the importance of rigorously designed, large, methodologically sound, randomised double blind trials. Very tellingly homoeopathy has never shown any effect in such trials.
alexistarr 2 years ago
@alexistarr I researched blurry vision at the time, non of the explanations related to me.
It matters what I knew at the time, because at the time I addressed this issue thoroughly, I am not looking "retrospectively".
Sure there could be another explanation, but none I could find,
Kingfillins 2 years ago
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
Kingfillins 2 years ago
We still find effectiveness in Homeopathic studies.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
So much negativity about Homeopathy and its supposed lack of scientific proof yet...
1. Only 13% of commonly used orthodox interventions are solidly based on evidence (see.... clinicalevidencedotcom.)
2. A huge study showed that antidepressants are 'little better than placebo' yet millions of pounds/dollars are spent on these drugs and the salaries of those who prescribe them.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what you knew at the time, because this anecdote of a coincidence which happened to you is being retrospectively cherry picked, Fillins. Jacobs et al, 2003, and Bell et al, 2004, are both small studies which once again could be susceptible to publication bias. I can't find this 13% statistic, can you give a more precise reference? Homoeopathy's NO BETTER than placebo, if these antidepressants have little effect they shouldn't be used.
alexistarr 2 years ago
Its an honest comprehensive unprejudiced analysis amounting to a fair trial but I have certain reservations about PLACEBO : (1) Placebo can't work on animals or small babies who lack self-awareness (2) Placebo will not work if the patient has already taken some other medicine without any relief. (3) Placebo ruled out if a specific remedy works and some non-indicated remedy doesn't. Science is yet to answer many wonders of life which are metaphysical but do exist in our experience.
healer1995 2 years ago
@healer1995 Placebo is a fascinating phenomena...
Kingfillins 2 years ago
The answer to the animal one has been blown out of the water. It appears that a Vet will spend 2-15 minutes with a sick animal. A Homoeopathic vet will spend 1-2 hours with the animal. It is the pastoral care that counts. And guess what ? Homeopathic vets have 70% of patients die or get worse. They only report the hits, which is like placebo, but they just get better due to natural white blood cells and time.
mik99D 2 years ago
Very nicely presented! A must share documentary.
TilenKow 2 years ago
An experiment is is only as good as the methodology - it was pretty obvious two of the scientists had issues with the way they ran their experiments. When the testing was done thoroughly, carefully and without bias...well, you could see the results. If you're not absolutely careful, your bias can influence the results, even if subconsciously and accidentally. I think some people (even some doctors) are such zealots in regards to homeopathy, that their experiments are flawed.
kabloozie 2 years ago
Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, et al (2005). Homeopathic
treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder:
a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial.
European Journal of Pediatrics, 164: 75867.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Have you read that paper? I'm going to assume not. The data presented is far from conclusive and in fact contradicts in some sense the purpose of the experiment. Their data shows that there was an increase in CGI during treatment with verum when this is the opposite of what would occur if the homeopathic verum was effective. They ascribe this to people "expected a placebo". Which itself tends to suggest that the only difference between nothing and the verum is the same as placebo.
Parmenus 2 years ago
As I said more studies are needed.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Why not spend a $billion on researching unicorns? The money will be better spent because imagine actually finding a unicorn!
mik99D 2 years ago 2
Let's suppose I do a scientific experiment.
I drink one pint of tap water, and one pint of tap water that has been infected with rabbit urine, although at a very small dose.
Will that stop me from talking like Bug's Bunny?
I mean ... what is up doctor?
jazzx251 2 years ago
jazzx251 "Let's suppose I do a scientific experiment."
With all due respect, that is not a scientific experiment, that is you pretending that you know what you are talking about using a supporting statement that shows you do not.
Whats up is a reasonable amount of data that supports Homeopathy. More studies are needed of course.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
I think we should dilute one molecule of Adolf Hitler in a trillion parts water.
That should cure you of your inability to laugh.
Or maybe, Stephen Hawking will donate us a molecule so we can cure disability by diluting it in a sextillion parts water.
Homeopathy is just water - pure and simple water.
I mean, lets cure lung cancer by diluting one molecule of tobacco in one square light year of water.
It has never worked.
jazzx251 2 years ago 2
Fascinating. I think the most interesting thing is how some folks like Kingfillins can be shown results like this and still cling to a superstitious belief like homeopathy. It has NOT been proven by peer reviewed scientists to work. Anyone who can do so can get a quick million dollars. "If one dreams of hitting the golf ball into a hole, does it matter if they do it in waking life?" Yes. Does it matter if I dreamed that I shot my neighbor or if I really shot him. Yeah. It matters.
digibud 2 years ago
There is evidence from single RCTs (not refuted by others) in favour of homeopathy for a number of other conditions: allergic asthma,22 ankle sprain,23 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,24 bronchitis,25 chronic fatigue syndrome,26 premenstrual syndrome.27
Weiser M, Strösser W, Klein P (1998). Homeopathic vs.
conventional treatment of vertigo: a randomized double-blind
controlled clinical study. Archives of Otolaryngology
Head and Neck Surgery, 124: 87985.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
In 1861 a virulent epidemic of malarial fever was raging over lower Bengal and it was at this juncture that the great philanthropist, Late Babu Rajendra Lall Dutta, a layman, truly laid the foundation of Homeopathy and started its practice with astounding results. He converted the redoubtable allopath and his opponent, Dr. Mahendra Lall Sircar, M.D. D.L., C.I. E. to Homeopathy.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Argument from authority! Homeopathy doesn't work or we would do away with conventional medicine. All HOMEOPATHS are LIARS or DELUSIONAL.
mik99D 2 years ago
mik99D you could google.......
"Health, Inc: How Modern Medicine Became a Monopoly"
to find out how our "conventional" medical system came about. The facts speak for themselves.
This is not to say that mainstream medicine does not have its place. Some modern drugs are very beneficial in extreme cases and modern surgery is amazing. But most people do not need pharmaceutical drugs.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
quantum theory
harly30 2 years ago
Additional from me. Homoeopathy doesn't work.
Signed me:
Dr MRD Quals: BSc(hons), BA, MSc, EngD, MinstP. CEng, CPhys, MBA, ManDipSci, PGCE,
I think I have MORE authority than the dunce you quote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mik99D 2 years ago
@mik99D
Is that your response to reading my suggestion for you to google and read .....
"Health, Inc: How Modern Medicine Became a Monopoly"
Did you actually read it?
You list your minor academic degrees as well as you highest?
Have you personally tested Homeopathic preparations?
Science has show that high dilutes differ from plain water and there is clear evidence that Homeopathy does work.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
I was being sarcastic. There is actually NO evidence that homeopathy works. There have been oodles of double blind tests and none do better than placebo. It is just water. We are carrying out a big demo soon and you will be able to see it. On the 21st of Jan we are taking another overdose of homoeopathic pills. So why aren't we dead from the last one? I had three vials of a total 180 pills in two minutes. Nothing happened. Or was there a different hole in my chakra?
mik99D 2 years ago
@mik99D That means you had one dose. Please feel free to try that dosage 4 times a day for 3 months and see what happens.
I got sick from taking Arnica for 3 months at 200c. I got symptoms that I didn't even know Arnica treated such as blurry vision.
You say no better than Placebo, yet Placebo works wonders, so that is no mean feat.
Kingfillins 2 years ago
Sorry the demo is on 30th Jan at 10:23 in Liverpool city centre.
mik99D 2 years ago
If Homeopathy is as good as Placebo it very much works.Remember if it works as well as placebo, that dose not mean it is the Placebo effect in action. It could very well mean that the Homeopathy is working.
Kingfillins 2 years ago