Show THAT Homeopathy works

[timokay]

1). "Homeopathy must first show THAT it works - Scientifically - then it will get all the support it needs for HOW it works".

 

2). The problem is that Homeopaths are not Scientists. Their attempts at explaining how it works are usually met with derision - attention should be focused on the kind of Scientific testing that shows conclusively THAT it works, not HOW it works. But Homeopathy's ways differ fundamentally from those of Science, so how Homeopaths are not likely to be able to contribute to the Scientific task.

 

3). So, Homeopaths cannot do Scientific research, which must be left to the Scientists. The problem is, the Scientists doing the experiments usually do not understand the ways of Homeopathy, and miss obvious flaws in the experiment.

 

4). There are significant obstacles to be overcome BEFORE Double-blind Placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies and test protocols should be discussed. The first step is to devise Scientific experiments which are likely to test Homeopathy successfully.

 

Preference for:

 

A. Experiments which test Objective symptoms.

 

B. Experiments where both Science and Homeopathy can agree on the starting point; i.e., a particular "disease":

 

EXAMPLE 1. MECHANICAL : Where compression of the spinal cord or a nerve root is clearly demonstrated by MRI, with classical neurological signs confirming the diagnosis in the patient.

 

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that such cases could be used for testing Homeopathy. If it were possible, and the patient received Homeopathic treatment, MRI repeated after resolution of pain would (would not?) show how healing processes resolved the mechanical problem, i.e., nerve compression.

 

EXAMPLE 2. Bacterial "Diseases" like Syphilis and Gonorrhea, and their cure, were very well documented by Hahnemann.

 

The unambiguous presentation of disease symptoms to both Medical Science and Homeopathy, provides a common starting point for testing. Both of these diseases are today treated with antibiotics, but there are concerns about the widespread use of antibiotics.

 

Guinea Pig models: Konrad Wicher. Syphilis Research Laboratory

 

"Syphilis, caused by infection of Treponema pallidum ssp. pallidum (TP) is one of the sexually transmitted disease known for almost 500 years, and yet, many facts about the disease are unknown and the organism cannot be cultured in vitro. We have found that both susceptible and a resistant strains of guinea pigs are capable of transmitting the disease to their fetuses."

 

In uncomplicated cases, Hahnemann treated Syphilis successfully with a single dose of potentised Mercury. (See Chronic Diseases - Samuel Hahnemann, Page 87-96.) Syphilis experiments on Guinea Pigs, with treatment using Homeopathic medicines may provide statistical significance. Monkeys have proved to be the most successful animals for testing this disease.

 

Gonorrhea: Bacterium, Neisseria gonorrhoeae:

 

In Homeopathy, Gonorrhea (Sycosis) is trested with two potentised medicines; Thuja and Nitric Acid. (See Chronic Diseases - Samuel Hahnemann, Page 83-84.)

 

Again, animal testing may provide statistically significant results. Monkeys have proved to be one of the best models for both syphilis and gonorrhea. Homeopaths would, initially, need to take part in this Scientific work as consultants.

 

Tim

[timokay]

EXAMPLE 3.

 

Homeopathic medicines, whether given to a patient or taken by the healthy ("proving"), show very real signs, such as a localised rashes, or inflammations. Such signs show up very clearly on high-definition Muscle/Spinal Ultrasound (which shows inflammatory and lymphatic "particle" activities in real-time). Monitoring of these activities before and after administration of the medicine would show clear changes in the tissues where the rash is to be expected.

 

EXAMPLE 4.

 

Discussed earlier with MRC Hans.

 

Hans: Also, you claim that Homeopathic drugs taken on their own (by a healthy person, I assume) produce symptoms. This is even easier to test.

 

Tim: Yes, it doesn't mean they have any curative effects, just that they do produce symptoms. This test would be the easiest of all.

 

Hans: If the predicted effect for Bryonia 6c is objectively measurable, fine. I'd expect something to the tune of 100+100 subjects to be adequate.

 

Tim: "Objectively measurable" might be a problem...certainly unmistakable symptoms felt by the patient..is that okay? Or they must be measured with an instrument of some kind?

 

Hans: Show THAT it works (not HOW). Tim: That is an important statement - THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE I HAVE SEEN. One of the BBCi people said it too. Hans: This is the approach of all modern science, or rather, one of them.

 

1) You have a thesis (A causes B), so you test it, and if it turnd out to be true, you set out discovering why. Especially in medical science this is productive; after all, the patient does not care why the treatment works, as long as it works.

 

2) Based on a putative causal effect (given our knowledge of A it should cause B), you make a prediction and design a test to verify (or reject) it. We are talking about both types here. About the case stories in your next post: These are old stories that cannot be confirmed. We cannot know if the diagnosis was correct, we cannot know if the patient was really cured or relapsed later. All the participants are long dead, no independent records exist (I presume). I know you trust Hahnemann 100%, but this trust is entirely belief-based and is of no use to others. I'm sorry, but such accounts, while interesting in a historical perspective, have zero scientific value.

 

Tim: I merely pasted parts of the Chronic Diseases, i.e., the manual describing the diseases and how to treat them (used by Homeopaths for 170 years).

 

Tim

[JaKiri]

timokay said in post #1

2). The problem is that Homeopaths are not Scientists. Their attempts at explaining how it works are usually met with derision - attention should be focused on the kind of Scientific testing that shows conclusively THAT it works, not HOW it works. But Homeopathy's ways differ fundamentally from those of Science, so how Homeopaths are not likely to be able to contribute to the Scientific task.

 

The scientific method tests whether something works.

 

It's not hard to follow.

 

The reason that the 'results' are met with derision is because they don't prove anything, or are hideously biased.

[timokay]

Mr L Jakiri (is that the best name?)

 

The scientific method tests whether something works.

It's not hard to follow.

 

 

Scientific method is hard to apply to Homeopathy because there are some fundamental differences. This topic tries to overcome these differences.

 

The reason that the 'results' are met with derision is because they don't prove anything, or are hideously biased.

 

I did not say the results were met with derision:

 

Their attempts at explaining how it works are usually met with derision

 

...but their attempts to explain HOW it works.

 

Tim

[Sayonara]

The scientific method is "platform independent" - it can be applied to demonstrate whether anything is true or false, as long as there is testable evidence either way.

[JaKiri]

First they must show that it works.

 

That hasn't been done.

 

This is the way science works.

 

Find something the model doesn't account for, then adjust it to fit.

 

For instance, Michaelson-Morely and Lorenz Transforms were united in one framework by Einsten.

[timokay]

Say,

 

Even when Science and Homeopathy cannot agree on the term "disease"?

[JaKiri]

Why should Science change its definition which it has built up over a long period of time to accomidate Homeopathy?

 

It would be like everyone in the world changing the spelling of 'cat' to 'kat' because one person doesn't like it the way it is.

[timokay]

Mr L,

 

They are chalk and cheese, yet both are rational and disciplined.

They live in completely separate worlds - for the patients' sake they should communicate and cooperate because Homeopathy has a lot to offer to Science.

[BTox]

timokay said in post #9 :

Mr L,

 

They are chalk and cheese, yet both are rational and disciplined.

They live in completely separate worlds - for the patients' sake they should communicate and cooperate because Homeopathy has a lot to offer to Science.

 

Chalk and cheese? Poor analogy. They are active (conventional medicine) and placebo (homeopathy). There is only one world, and it is best served by scientifically proven treatments, not antiquated, disproven nonsense like homeopathy.

[timokay]

Btox,

 

Delightful fellow. Disproven by whom?

 

Some sites for interested parties:

 

http://www.ccrhindia.org/drugresearch.htm

 

http://www.holistic-online.com/Homeopathy/homeo_clinical.htm

 

http://www.billgrayhomeopathy.com/HomeopathyIntro.html

 

http://holisticonline.com/Homeopathy/homeo_how_it_works.htm

 

http://www.whatmedicine.co.uk/articlesWater7.htm

[Sayonara]

timokay said in post #7 :

Say,

 

Even when Science and Homeopathy cannot agree on the term "disease"?

That's not relevant.

 

If you are applying scientific method correctly, your definition of "disease" must have already been accounted for in the hypothesis you are testing.

 

I think you may be mistaking "science" for "medical types who refute homeopathy out of hand". Science is not an instituion - it's a way of investigating questions.

[blike]

This is off topic, but tim deserves props for maintaining is politeness and composure, even though we all disagree :}

[timokay]

Say,

 

Then how do you decide whether a person is ill, and what illness they have? ..the starting point for any clinical trials.

 

If you are applying scientific method correctly, your definition of "disease" must have already been accounted for in the hypothesis you are testing.

 

S'pose you're right.

 

I think you may be mistaking "science" for "medical types who refute homeopathy out of hand". Science is not an instituion - it's a way of investigating questions.

 

The BBCi site is FULL of the second type above, and therefore a complete waste of time.

 

What do you think of the examples at the beginning of this topic?

 

 

Tim

[BTox]

timokay said in post #11 :

Btox,

 

Delightful fellow. Disproven by whom?

 

 

By any legitimate scientist who has tested it. Here are just a few of the most recent studies:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12799863&dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12919110&dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12716269&dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12562974&dopt=Abstract

[timokay]

Btox,

 

At last, someone who looks at papers.

 

My support extends only to Hahnemannian Homeopathy (the classical Homeopathy practiced by Hahnemann) at the moment, as that is the only Homeopathy I know in detail.

 

I could never support mixing remedies, as you will find in most of the Medline papers.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3&dopt=Abstract

 

At present, we do not have any evidence that homeopathic therapy has any effect other than a placebo effect. However, this can be very impressive sometimes. We do not know which variables are correlated with placebo effectiveness, and we do not have any data on real-type homeopathy outside a trial setting, as there are no data available.

 

I would not call this a conclusive test of any kind.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...0&dopt=Abstract

 

In dermatology, homeopathy is often used in atopic dermatitis,

 

The atopic preparations are mixtures. And Hahnemann never supported external treatment like this. He stipulates in the ORGANON of medicine that medicines should not be applied externally.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract

 

The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo.

 

A tough one for me. Who was the Homeopath and what did he administer? Probably not a Hahnemannian.

 

"B w" would have an answer here, as it's his field. Hahnemann mentions strategies for handling anxiety disorders..he would always search for and treat the underlying problem. He was aware of the Placebo effect also, and knew how to use it. In fact, it may be the treatment in many cases like this.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

 

In the common classical form of homeopathy, prescriptions are individualised for each patient.

 

The "common classical form" is NOT Hahnemannian Homeopathy.

 

..medication in 96 children with mild to moderate asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment.

 

Homeopathy can never be tested as AN ADJUNCT to conventional treatment. Conventional treatment ALWAYS interferes with both case-taking and the action of the medicine. Hahnemann had some VERY STRONG WORDS on that matter.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

 

Homeopathic arnica is widely believed to control bruising, reduce swelling and promote recovery after local trauma; many patients therefore take it perioperatively.

 

This kind of study could never a strategy for testing Homeopathy. The effectiveness of a polychrest like Arnica on one or two symptoms is not what Homeopathy is about, at all.

 

Polychrests are medicines that MAY affect a high proportion of people, but certainly not in the specific symptoms measured in this study. Homeopathic medicines act on the "totality of symptoms" in that patient.

 

Each patient is carefully assessed for ALL their symptoms, signs and manifestations. The doctor selects (from about 2,500) the medicine which is most homeopathic to each particular case.

 

 

Tim

[timokay]

Blike,

 

even though we all disagree :}

 

Hands up ALL who disagree.

 

Tim

[JaKiri]

Hi

[Glider]

An (unfortunately) not unknown situation:

 

"Doctor. I have a problem with my bowels. I've been seeing my homeopath for nearly a year with this problem, but nothing (s)he gives me seems to help. What can I do?"

 

10 days later, after test results

 

"I'm sorry to tell you, you have bowel cancer. Unfortunately, you have developed secondary metastices in your liver and lymphatic system. If only you'd come to see me earlier. I'm afraid there's nothing we can do now".

 

This happens and it is tragic. I agree with the first line in the first post; Homeopathy need to demonstrate THAT it works. However, it needs to do so through through accepted methodology, rather than adjusting the methodology to accomodate homeopathy (nothing can fail under those terms). Moreover, I don't think homeopathic techniques should be practiced UNTIL they have been shown to be effective.

 

Physicians generally work to the principle 'Do no harm'. If homeopaths work to the same principle, then they must know that providing even harmless intervention is still doing harm if: a) it is ineffective, and b) it prevents the patient from seeking effective treatment as soon as possible.

[Chaos Theory]

Homeopathy never works. It's based on archaic and useless principles. Even educated homeopaths will ignore the obvious when it comes to running the business.

 

Then the uneducated go along for the ride for a snobbery lifestyle or out of sheer ignorance.

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

 

Because homeopathic remedies were actually less dangerous than those of nineteenth-century medical orthodoxy, many medical practitioners began using them.

Yes, better than blood letting-but things have changed a bit in the last 150 years! It also doesn't mean the 'remedies' worked. They were just 'less harmful' than bloodletting.

 

Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar).

 

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth.

 

 

 

use common sense folks. It's useless. It is proven useless over and over again.

 

The authors concluded that there is no evidence that homeopathic treatment has any more value than a placebo

 

There have been stricter legislations finally to prevent the harm homeopathy causes. Tables have turned. Modern medicine is less harmful than homeopathy. Modern medicine actually works.

 

Bills introduced to strengthen supplement regulation. Senators have introduced two bills intended to strengthen the FDA's ability to regulate herbs and dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003 (S.722), introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to:

 

 

**Require manufacturers and distributors of these products to report adverse events.

**Enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct safety reviews and approve or disapprove continued marketing of suspect products. To gain approval, a manufacturer would have to demonstrate that the product is safe under ordinary or frequent consditions of use.

**Require premarket approval of "stimulant supplements," products that speed metabolism, increase heart rate, constrict blood vessels or cause the body to release adrenaline.

**Remove products that promote muscle growth or are advertised to promote muscle growth from the definition of "dietary supplement," which means that they have more stringent requirements to market.

**Eliminate a provision of the Act requiring the United States to bear the burden of proof to show a supplement or ingredient in a supplement is unsafe. http://www.nutriwatch.org/09Reg/s722.pdf

 

http://www.nutriwatch.org/09Reg/s1538.pdf

 

http://capwiz.com/nnfa/issues/alert/?alertid=3098131

 

http://www.nnfa.org/services/government/pdf/RetailAdvocacy_Countercard.pdf

 

[Chaos Theory]

Hahnemann died in 1843 already. Enough about the old fogey and his 17 th century 'medicine' already.

[atinymonkey]

As apposed to the father of medicine, Hippocrates? I think he believed in both approaches, not one exclusively.

[Chaos Theory]

It doesn't matter. Medicine now is nothing like it was back then. If you were to only learn THEIR teachings, then you'd be one scary 'doctor'. If you only learn one of them you're just as scary. I don't care if you're the father of computers, I won't build my computer like yours from your information from back then.

[JaKiri]

atinymonkey said in post #22 :

As apposed to the father of medicine, Hippocrates? I think he believed in both approaches, not one exclusively.

 

We don't refer to Hippocrates for the treatment of diseases, more to the philosophical side of things.

 

Noone calls Newton a quack just because he turned out to be wrong.

[Chaos Theory]

Newton wasn't treating people. I'll rephrase that though. Anyone using the old guy's methods is a quack.