Hmm, not sure if this belongs in parapsychology but I've seen it mentioned here so *shrugs*

Is the university of Leipzig reputable, and can anyone here read the German original of this article? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.uni-leipzig.de/presse2003/homoeopathie.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.uni-leipzig.de/presse2003/homoeopathie.html%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D Google translation is all very well but it doesn't really flow. Other websites (http://www.quantec.ch/english/biocommunication/biocommunication_homeopathy_quantec.html) referring to the same person say that she's proven a homeopathic effect though.

Homeopathic effect has been shown to be at the same level of the placebo effect;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2903029.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

So, really, no effect for the alleged reasons ascribed at all.

Homeopathic effect has been shown to be at the same level of the placebo effect;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2903029.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

So, really, no effect for the alleged reasons ascribed at all.
please explain to us professor phlosgistian:
what IS a placebo?......and can you provide sources please?

Everybody knows what a placebo is, unless they're an idiot, or being deliberately obtuse.

Everybody knows what a placebo is, unless they're an idiot, or being deliberately obtuse.
....hahhh. kno your reply would be such. you are verypredictable mon capiTAN

no. what i MEAN isss. what IS....IS it? whatactually is it meaning? medical science dont know sos i thought i'd ask you seeing you seem t know itall.

Everybody knows what a placebo is.

I don't.

unless they're an idiot,

Im not

or being deliberately obtuse.

Im not being that either.

sooooo whats a placebo?

Sorry John, but you're an idiot. Not least for making a post and showing your ignorance, instead of spending the time looking it up.

Read Wikipedia's article on the placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect). Wikipedia is a good resource :p

Speaking of spending the time to look things up - Phlogistician, you obviously didn't read the second link I gave. It explained that Karen Nieber's experiment showed an effect on tissue from rat intestines detatched (unfortunately for the rodent) from the original rat. Are you suggesting that these tissue samples - on their own - are conscious and capable of producing a placebo effect? ;)

I can think of only one possible flaw with the experiment, but first I asked whether the university carrying it out is reputable. Obviously if they're known for producing crackpot research this result shouldn't be given much weight. But are they?

Homeopathic effect has been shown to be at the same level of the placebo effect;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2903029.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

So, really, no effect for the alleged reasons ascribed at all.

Mr. phlogistician probably thinks that he is being scientific referring to BBC news :D .

Well, I would not trust your opinions, since they are apparently biased by mainstream knowledge.

Why wouldn't you believe at least something like <a href="http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm">this</a> information?

http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/trudeau.htm

Read the section titled, A Brief History of Homeoapathy, then pick up a copy of the text that is cited in the footnotes. Homeopathy is hogwash.

Until you get a copy of Voodoo Science, by Robert Park (2000, Oxford University Press), visit http://www.homeowatch.org/ and read what real science has to say about this pseudoscience.

Sorry John, but you're an idiot. Not least for making a post and showing your ignorance, instead of spending the time looking it up.

Your right.My bad!! We could all go and 'look it up', but then what would be the point in belong to this 'community'? If i am an idiot in your eyes, a genius such as yourself should have no prob's in explaining...im sure youd be able to explain far better than anylooking it up.

i could do. :eek:

you see what the skeptics will --in a hostile manner, actually--rave against, is what they consider 'voodoo science'. Yet NOT it appears be affected by the knowledge of the toxicity of accepted medical drugs...

Thus tey will poo poo peoples own powers--ie., whic ignore-ant materialistic medical science calls 'the placebo effect', and push for more drug profits for the pharmacetical companines through their inevitable praise for approved medication

Say what you will, duendy. But, to date, homeopathy has not yielded results whereas modern medicine that undergoes the rigors of scientific testing has. Period. Homeopathy is a scam, designed to take money from the ignorant and willing such as yourself.

Are drug companies innocent? Certainly not. But with proper oversight and the right pressure, they can be balanced. I don't like spending $60/mo on my wifes anti-siezure meds, but I can tell you, without a doubt, that she would sieze without them.

Homeopathy depends depends upon diluting the active ingredient to a point that it is gone from the solution. It is BUNK. Show me the evidence that it works.

you do ealize i suppose many people are known to die fom their use of allopathic medicine....? dont think anyone has from using Homeopathy. andyes i have been aware of people who claim Homeopathy has worked for them

Also, another important point. For allopatic medicine to even be accepted involves the abuse of millions of animals--so-called animal-testing. which is an obscenity, AND is fraudulent too

read The Slaughter of the Innocents

Homeopathic "medicine" is often just water, duendy. I'm not surprised few have died from it, lest they choked.

And of course people "claim" it works. This is how pseudoscientific and paranormal things propogate among humans: anecdote and testimony. The various cults and religions of the world a based upon this vehicle. There are also those that think scam artists like John Edwards and Van Praagh are "really channeling the dead." People believe a lot of shit. But when it comes to showing the cards, only science and medicine have the upper hands -homeopathy is but a bluff.

But, to date, homeopathy has not yielded results whereas modern medicine that undergoes the rigors of scientific testing has.

Has nobody looked at the article I linked to? Nobody? I'm not saying that the principles of homeopathy - like cures like and dilution makes stronger and whatever - always work. But this experimenter claims that this particular solution had a measurable effect.

I was hoping for an intelligent discussion here, but it seems http://www.badscience.net/?p=170 already has a more thorough one.

I was hoping for an intelligent discussion here, but it seems http://www.badscience.net/?p=170 already has a more thorough one.
Thanks for the link, Zephyr. Wo-of, what a heated discussion!
Funnily, the comments there show the same lack of understanding (or desire for it?) between the two camps as we observe here.

Why does the coin "scientifically implausible" scare people from the "scientists" camp so much?

A couple of sources I have found on PubMed:
"Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials"
Klaus Linde MD, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez DPH, Dieter Melchart MD, Prof. Florian Eitel MD, Larry V Hedges PhD and Dr. Wayne B Jonas MD
Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9081 , 20 September 1997, Pages 834-843

Whoever here has a full-text access to Elsevier, please check it out. It is an impressively well organized statistical study.


The basic conclusion the authors make is as follows:
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo."

Ironically, there is a recent article in the same magazine with an almost identical title:
"Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy"
Aijing Shang MD, Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD, Linda Nartey MD, Peter Jüni MD, Stephan Döriga, Jonathan AC Sterne PhD, Daniel Pewsner MD and ProfMatthias Egger MD
(Volume 366, Issue 9487 , 27 August 2005-2 September 2005, Pages 726-732)

It is a very similar study, yet this time the conclusion is not in favour of homeopathy. It reads:
"Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak , but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is ."

(O-ops, I thought the whole point was to eliminate placebo-linked error. So how could it be that actual "evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies", though "weak" is still "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects" :confused: )

Yet, the editors are very quick to jump in with an editorial titled no less as "The end of homeopathy"! Of course, the former study was left without such attention (which also means it has been assumed scientifically sound, since no major corrections have been made, right?). I can only suppose that it left the respected "peer-reviewers" numbed from awe for the whole 8 years ;) .

The ineffectiveness of homeopathic 'drugs' was well demonstrated by the failure of a mass suicide by homeopathic sleeping tablet overdose. The link is here (http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#8) , but for those of you with a deluded world view that you're not ready to kick just yet I'll post the quote below:

Another highlight was the successful failure of a Homeopathic Mass Suicide. Before the convention, we marched into a Sydney Pharmacy, yes, a pharmacy, and bought almost $100 worth of worthless sleeping pills. Then, as you can see in the photo, Prof. Colin Keay, Dr. David Brookman, myself, Barry Williams, Dr. Phil Plait, Peter Bowditch and Dr. Steve Roberts (not pictured) took the lot. We ate enough sleeping pills each that we should now all be dead. The point, apart from showing once again that this stuff is rubbish, was to also remind the audience that some parents actually try to vaccinate their babies with "Homeopathic Vaccines". This could indeed have deadly consequences.

If you are feeling up to joining the modern world you could do worse than to follow the link and select 'commentery archive'.

A couple of sources I have found on PubMed:
"Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials"

The basic conclusion the authors make is as follows:
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo."

Interestingly enough, you quote-mine this article with some efficiency. Such that you omit the very next sentence: "[ b]ut there is insufficient evidence from these studies that any single type of homoeopathic treatment is clearly effective in any one clinical condition."

Indeed, Linde et al point out that the largest, most reliable study involved in their meta-analysis was also the one that demonstrated the most significant negative result, whereas the smaller, less reliable studies were the ones that demonstrated positive results. Moreover, their meta-analysis was far too broad and encompassed a wide range of alleged treatments -too wide to narrow in on any real trends.

It [Shang et al 2005] is a very similar study, yet this time the conclusion is not in favour of homeopathy. It reads:
"Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak , but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is ."

Shang et al also concluded with, "[o]ur results confirm these hypotheses: when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no convincing evidence that homoeopathy was superior to placebo, whereas for conventional medicine an important effect remained. Our results thus provide support for the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy, but not those of conventional medicine, are unspecific placebo or context effects."

I would say that, while Linde et al was obviously hopeful about the prospects of homeopathy, both Linde and Shang agreed that studies with appropriately large sample sizes and solid methodologies showed no significant positive result for homeopathy beyond placebo expectations.

(O-ops, I thought the whole point was to eliminate placebo-linked error. So how could it be that actual "evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies", though "weak" is still "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects" :confused: )

I don't understand your confusion. Very clearly, homeopathic medicine has effects comparable to placebo and this is what both authors were stating their meta-analyses found. In other words, people think they are being treated and respond as if they are. But with allopatric medicines, there is a significant positive response that far exceeds the placebo expectation.

Yet, the editors are very quick to jump in with an editorial titled no less as "The end of homeopathy"! Of course, the former study was left without such attention (which also means it has been assumed scientifically sound, since no major corrections have been made, right?). I can only suppose that it left the respected "peer-reviewers" numbed from awe for the whole 8 years ;) .

I think the error is in your reading of the study. I read both and my copy of the 1997 Lancet has two editorial comments about the meta-analysis by Linde et al. Moreover, I came away from reading Linde et al with the understanding that they found no significance in homeopathic remedies over placebo but remained hopeful that further study would be more revealing. It would seem that, in 2005, it is.

References

Linde, K.; Clausius, N.; Ramirez, G.; Melchart, D.; Eitel, F.; Hedges, L.; Jonas, W. (1997). Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. The Lancet 350(9081), 834-843

Shang, A.; Huwiler-Müntener, K. and Nartey, L et al. (2005). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy, The Lancet. 366 (9487), 726–732

Hmm, not sure if this belongs in parapsychology but I've seen it mentioned here so *shrugs*

Is the university of Leipzig reputable, and can anyone here read the German original of this article? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.uni-leipzig.de/presse2003/homoeopathie.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.uni-leipzig.de/presse2003/homoeopathie.html%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D Google translation is all very well but it doesn't really flow. Other websites (http://www.quantec.ch/english/biocommunication/biocommunication_homeopathy_quantec.html) referring to the same person say that she's proven a homeopathic effect though.

Since the criticism that none have actually read the article you linked to and are simply commenting on the status of homeopathy in general is a fair one, I went back and re-read the article in both its translated as well as its original German. Being a press-release (and perhaps an article of popular media), there are some things missing: notably the methodology and the data. So I went to the Leipzig Uni site and poked around for a publication title ... nothing. The author has some published works in mainstream journals, but nothing on the topic at hand that I noticed.

I would question whether the study was double-blind in nature and what sort of data sets were used. This is something that, if done correctly, the author should have insisted upon in the press release, I know I would have insisted on a short sentence that said something like, "double-blind study of 118 rats." But nothing of the sort was mentioned. If the sample size was very small, and the researcher conducting the experiment new what outcome was expected, then confirmation bias creeping in must be expected.

Remember, the beladonna solution that was used was diluted to the point that no molecule of beladonna remained. That means that it was either the solvent (water?) which was affecting the rat intestines or an error on the part of the researcher. And if proper controls were used and the intestinal reactions were random, this researcher would have known which solvents were controls and which were the alleged "dilutions."

Its all poppycock. I'm betting that once the paper is produced (if it ever is), there'll be major flaws in double-blinding and data-sets (the controls).

I think the error is in your reading of the study. I read both and my copy of the 1997 Lancet has two editorial comments about the meta-analysis by Linde et al. Moreover, I came away from reading Linde et al with the understanding that they found no significance in homeopathic remedies over placebo but remained hopeful that further study would be more revealing. It would seem that, in 2005, it is.


SkinWalker, appreciate your criticism, thank you.

Well, I tend to think that there is some mild "quote-mining" involved in your analysis as well ;) . Because what Linde et al are saying, as I understand them, is that after trying to eliminate all possible biases, the result still came out positive for homoeopathy actually having an effect above placebo. One of the authors is restating this in a comment in a subsequent issue:

"The meta-analysis showed overwhelming evidence of benefit from homoeopathy over a wide range of conditions, an effect that is over twice the benefit of placebo therapy." (Patterson C, 1998)

The effect may be milder compared to the strong response to allopathic medicines, but there aer no side effects in involved (it is a safer therapy), and also it is in the nature of any holistic medicine by definition, to produce a more harmonious change in the organism's totality, not a
dramatic effect on a particular part of it at the expense of all the rest of the body as is often the case with allopathic medicines.

IMHO, the Bayesian approach is really the source of the problem, isn't it? Is it necessary, that is the question that we need to face. Truth or paradigm - what do you prefer?

References
Paterson C. (1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. The Lancet 351 (9099), 365-366

Well, I tend to think that there is some mild "quote-mining" involved in your analysis as well ;) .

Perhaps. But quite unitentionally and with the purpose of demonstrating that even Linde et al didn't side completely with the homeopathic hypothesis.

One of the authors is restating this in a comment in a subsequent issue:

"The meta-analysis showed overwhelming evidence of benefit from homoeopathy over a wide range of conditions, an effect that is over twice the benefit of placebo therapy." (Patterson C, 1998)

Sorry, but I think I missed the credit of the Linde et al paper where Charlotte Patterson is one of the authors. Perhaps you have Patterson's letter confused with Linde and Jonas on pp 367-368.

But I think it's important to note that there were nine comments in that issue of Lancet regarding Linde et al. In the interest of quote-mining, here are some more:

"I feel that all the data in Linde's report should be carefully checked, since his group's prejudice in favour of homoeopathy is obvious, and will be largely used by homoeopathic drug companies." (Page 365, Marcel-Francis Kahn).
.
"Surely the argument must be for further research to be urgently undertaken because there is too much at stake to deride the evidence, too much evidence for it yet to be ignored, but not enough to decide one way or the other. Ultimately it may be found that homoeopathy does not have an effect above placebo, but progressing physicists' hypotheses and additional evidence in favour of homoeopathy would lead science to uncharted territory,[...]" (Page 366, Aaron K Vallance and Kim A Jobst).
.
"One should keep in mind that the publication of scientific work has two aims. First, the publication credits the work of the researcher and second, even more importantly, it should provide a sound basis for future research in the same field.

Because a simple table with the primary results of the contributing trials has not been included, even the simplest additional questions the reader might have (and that might be investigated with the aid of a pocket calculator) cannot be addressed." (Pages 366-367, A Koch).
.
"The commentaries (Vandenbroucke 1997; Langman 1997) on the meta-analysis by Klaus Linde and co-workers3 are a clear-cut example of circularity. It is claimed that results supporting the activity of homoeopathic dilutions are “impossible” and must stem from “unknown and unidentifiable sources of bias” because plain common sense tells us that plain water and high dilutions are the same thing. Thus the latter cannot possibly produce any effect." (Page 367, J Benveniste).
.
"We do not share the enthusiasm about the data reflected in the comments by Charlotte Paterson and Aaron Vallance and Kim Jobst. The evidence is not overwhelming, and has not (yet?) been shown to be independently reproducible." (Pages 367-368, Klaus Linde and Wayne B Jonas).
.
"The commentaries (Vandenbroucke 1997; Langman 1997) accompanying Klaus Linde and colleagues' meta-analysis3 list reasons why the results are not to be believed. This approach seems paradoxical. [...] Neither of us are enthusiasts of homoeopathy but an aftertaste remains: are not double standards being used here?" (Page 368, Martin Bobak and Anna Donald)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Benveniste, Bobak and Donald. I think the commentaries they criticized raised some very important points. One of them being the fact that of the studies included in the meta-analysis of Linde et al, the largest and most strictly controlled of them produced results negative to the homeopathic hypothesis (Langman 1997). I found this statement profound as well: "[a] randomised trial of “solvent only” versus “infinite dilutions” is a game of chance between two placebos (Vandenbroucke 1997)."

and also it is in the nature of any holistic medicine by definition, to produce a more harmonious change in the organism's totality, not a
dramatic effect on a particular part of it at the expense of all the rest of the body as is often the case with allopathic medicines.

Really? Its in "the nature?" What study did that bit of specific information come from? Or is this just the esoteric rhetoric of the holistic medicine crowd, used to explain the lack of apparent response to homeopathic medicine. And let us not forget that we are discussing homeopathy specifically, and not holistic health as a whole. The latter has many facets, some are completly groundless (Rieki & echinacea), others show promise (acupuncture).



References

Paterson C. et al(1998) Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials: correspondance. The Lancet 351 (9099), 365-368

Vandenbroucke, J.P. (1997) Homoeopathy trials: going nowhere, Lancet 350(9081), 824

Langman, M.J.S. (1997) Homoeopathy trials: reason for good ones but are they warranted?, Lancet 350(9081), 825

Sorry, but I think I missed the credit of the Linde et al paper where Charlotte Patterson is one of the authors. Perhaps you have Patterson's letter confused with Linde and Jonas on pp 367-368.


my apologies, you are right re: Paterson C.
I got confused with PubMed mentioning that it was an 'author reply'.
Also all the other comments either were inaccessible via PubMed, or were linked to the sampe comment by the notoriuos Charlotte Paterson :confused: , so can't comment on those

Yet another article, - a review -
recommended to all interested in the question 'Does homoeopathy work?', and looking for scientific proofs (but not explanation, please).

"A critical overview of homeopathy"
Wayne B. Jonas, MD; Ted J. Kaptchuk, OMD; and Klaus Linde, MD
http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf

The cool and objective tone of the paper will definitely benefit the over-heated atmosphere in this forum (and neighboring forums, too, actually).

BTW, disclaimer: i am not a homeopath, nor have i ever been treated with homeopathic methods. i do not really trust the idea that a 'sugar pill' will heal me. nor i am inclined to trust a 'medical system' created by a 19th century Western European after just a few observations. call me open-minded. :cool:

Mr. phlogistician probably thinks that he is being scientific referring to BBC news :D .

The second link discussed the publication of an article in 'The Lancet', which I don't subscribe to. It is however, a reputable medical journal. The BBC are also quite reputable. What was your point? How one discovers information? You have a problem with a reputable soyurce citing another?

Well, I would not trust your opinions, since they are apparently biased by mainstream knowledge.

At least it's knowledge, and not belief.

Why wouldn't you believe at least something like <a href="http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm">this</a> information?

I do believe what they say;

"There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome
measure,"

ie, homeopathy is ineffective, by their own admission.

Your right.My bad!! We could all go and 'look it up', but then what would be the point in belong to this 'community'? If i am an idiot in your eyes, a genius such as yourself should have no prob's in explaining...im sure youd be able to explain far better than any

i could do. :eek:

Put your ego down and pick a book up, please.

Are you saying that staying wantonly ignorant is what you bring to this 'community'? So more educated people can waste their time explaining things to you?

Well, I'm not your teacher,. and that's not why I come here. I come here to debunk woo-woos.

....hahhh. kno your reply would be such. you are verypredictable mon capiTAN

no. what i MEAN isss. what IS....IS it? whatactually is it meaning? medical science dont know sos i thought i'd ask you seeing you seem t know itall.

Duendy, we were discussing the 'placebo effect', not cause of that effect. But, yet again, you draw the debate off on a tangent in a petty attempt to score points.

See duendy, we don't understand the cause of gravity exactly, does that mean you don't understand the effect? ;-)

Duendy, we were discussing the 'placebo effect', not cause of that effect. But, yet again, you draw the debate off on a tangent in a petty attempt to score points.

me::::i am not here to score points as such but to dis-comfort you materialistists from your smugness........

See duendy, we don't understand the cause of gravity exactly, does that mean you don't understand the effect? ;-)
which is? breakin one's neck if not watchin what one is doing?

whati am revealing is how materialists (i have stopped complimenting you'll wit te term 'skeptics' now and will here on in refer t you'll as materialists. see other thread for explanation) throwaway their derogatory term 'placebo' without really understanding what it ACTUALLY MEANS. as neither does medical science..!!!!!!!!!

Duendy, we're talking about homeopathy, not discussing the placebo effect. It's it not a derogatory term, either.

Homeopathy has been proven to be ineffective. Proven. I know this erodes a comforting mystery, and brings you closer to reality, but that's the truth of it.

Like I said, I understand the term 'placebo', even if I don't know how it works. Seems you are incapable of separating the two issues!

Duendy, we're talking about homeopathy, not discussing the placebo effect. It's it not a derogatory term, either.

me:::so you say. but you materialists use the term 'placebo' s a way of saying....what then? exlain wht you mean when you use that term?

Homeopathy has been proven to be ineffective. Proven. I know this erodes a comforting mystery, and brings you closer to reality, but that's the truth of it.

me:::but this is just YOUR opinion surely. where in this thread have you proven this 100%

Like I said, I understand the term 'placebo', even if I don't know how it works. Seems you are incapable of separating the two issues!
how can you understand it if you dont know how it works....?

Homeopathy has been proven to be ineffective. Proven. I know this erodes a comforting mystery, and brings you closer to reality, but that's the truth of it.


Come on, people, how come are you so sure???

"Is the Homeopathic Remedy More Effective than
Placebo?
Four comprehensive, independent systematic reviews
or meta-analyses have examined the question of whether
homeopathic therapies behave like placebo in randomized,
placebo-controlled trials. These have comprehensively
searched for all clinical trials and have used standard
methods for quality evaluation and analysis of clinical
trials. These reviews have found that, overall, the quality of
clinical research in homeopathy is low. When only highquality
studies have been selected for analysis (such as those
with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size, and
other methodologic criteria that limit bias), a surprising
number show positive results. For example, Kleijnen and
colleagues (28) did a detailed quality evaluation of 60 homeopathic
clinical trials and concluded that they “would
be ready to accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible.” "
[bolding mine. - F.-l.]
(Jonas et al. A Critical Overview of Homeopathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:393-399.) see at http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf

Look, if homeopathy were effective, there's a simple test. Anyone who drinks water should never get ill!

It's simple. As there is a finite amount of water on the planet, and homeopathy relies on dilution, that finite amount of water, over time, will have been exposed to pretty much every 'remedy' known to homeopaths, and diluted in the oceans.

It evaporates, precipitates, we drink it, and we should therefore never get ill.

But we do? Why? Why does the contact and dilution not cure all our ills, by merely drinking regular water? By what mechanism is the memory of the cure lost?

So, please let us know, how some water prepared on dilution one way, is allegedly more efficatious that water prepared another!

Oh, and the linked .pdf? Quite simply a biased article in a biased journal, that has been proven false by more recent clinical trials.

Oh, and the linked .pdf? Quite simply a biased article in a biased journal, that has been proven false by more recent clinical trials.

Ha-ha :cool: , alright, bro. I can see that even Jesus Christ or Albert Einstein or Galileo (you choose) would not break the opinions that you've got in your head just because you've got 'em.

So what power do I have?

If I understand you correctly, according to you an unbiased research is the one that proves that homoeopathy does not work. Maybe you should double-check your views on scientific truth.

Just to remind you, something that you do not believe exists will still exist if it already does, not depending on your invaluable opinions.

Look, if homeopathy were effective, there's a simple test. Anyone who drinks water should never get ill!

Why does the contact and dilution not cure all our ills, by merely drinking regular water? By what mechanism is the memory of the cure lost?

So, please let us know, how some water prepared on dilution one way, is allegedly more efficatious that water prepared another!


Well, :eek: this just says that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) A homoeopathic dilution is not just a dilution. It is a potentized dilution.

2) The way of its action is not chemical. There are different theories about its possible mechanism, for example the water memory theory (http://www.aquatechnology.net/electromagneticeffects.html).

3) Even if there were no theories yet, the fact that it seems to be working is already sufficient. If you want more articles, I can easily come up with them. But

4) You won't believe anything like that, unless you experience it yourself, right? So next time when you happen to be sick with something, go and try it. I gotta do it myself, actually.

So good luck in your reality quest for truth, man! :cool:

Well, :eek: this just says that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) A homoeopathic dilution is not just a dilution. It is a potentized dilution.

OK, how is a 'solution' (I hate using the term, because a solution of a substance should actually contain the substance!) become 'potentised'? Because despite having read various methods for making remedies, while thet are referred to as being 'potentised', apart from the claim that more dilution means more potency, their isn't actually an action in the preparation that 'potentises' the product.

2) The way of its action is not chemical. There are different theories about its possible mechanism, for example the water memory theory (http://www.aquatechnology.net/electromagneticeffects.html).

From that very web site;

"World-class biochemists and othes versed in the science of photochemistry understand that water stores "photons" or "packets" of energy. These are basically the same types of "photons" which we see on Star Trek which destroy other spaceships."

Uh huh. A very scientific 'Star Trek' reference! Of course, what they miss, is that photons are packets of _moving_ energy, so quite how they are trapped in water is not mentioned,....

On water memory from another homeopathy web site (http://www.healthynewage.com/what-is-homeopathy.htm);

"resulting solutions or "potentised medicines," as they are called, may be physically altered to a point where its normal subatomic structure and the telltale electromagnetic signature of that structure has actually been changed. "

So, what are the 'tell tale signs'? They claim to know what the 'signs' are, but somehow, have never managed to demostrate their existence!


3) Even if there were no theories yet, the fact that it seems to be working is already sufficient. If you want more articles, I can easily come up with them. But

Theries abound. But they are based on speculation. There is a dearth of data, however. It's data I want, not more theorising.

4) You won't believe anything like that, unless you experience it yourself, right? So next time when you happen to be sick with something, go and try it. I gotta do it myself, actually.

So good luck in your reality quest for truth, man! :cool:

I'm not saying homeopathinc remedies don't occasionally work. They sometimes do, due to the placebo effect. Wake up, and pay attention! And no, I won't believe it's anything other than that, while clinical trials are telling me exactly that.

Apart from anecdote, what do you actually have on the efficacy of these remedies? Because your own source admitted there was no effect shown in their own trials!

OK, how is a 'solution' (I hate using the term, because a solution of a substance should actually contain the substance!) become 'potentised'? Because despite having read various methods for making remedies, while thet are referred to as being 'potentised', apart from the claim that more dilution means more potency, their isn't actually an action in the preparation that 'potentises' the product.

Ok, let's not call a solution, let's call it a dilution.
From what I know, potentization happens by means of systematic "succussions" following after each dilution.
I agree just knocking or "vigorously shaking" a tube does not sound as a highly advanced methodology (i've never seen it done myself, though) but who knows? Why not admit that it may work?

From that very web site:

Can't comment on water memory yet, lack physics knowledge.
Have you seen Masaru Emoto's "Hidden Message in the Water" though? I found it rather impressive.

Apart from anecdote, what do you actually have on the efficacy of these remedies? Because your own source admitted there was no effect shown in their own trials!
Ok, It is hard to continue the discussion because there is something going wrong with our references. My source (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf) admitted that there is an effect. What source are you talking about?

Ok, let's not call a solution, let's call it a dilution.
From what I know, potentization happens by means of systematic "succussions" following after each dilution.
I agree just knocking or "vigorously shaking" a tube does not sound as a highly advanced methodology (i've never seen it done myself, though) but who knows? Why not admit that it may work?

I've kept an open mind, which is why I've spent time reading about the subject. Nothing I've read is compelling however. The open minded folks who have spent time perfroming clinical trials have drawn blanks too.

Shaking is hardly a precise method, and once the dilution level means that a 'dilution' does not contain a a single molecule of the ingredient, how does this work further? Allegedly, some 'electro magnetic' imprint is then passed on from water to water, by shaking. We should be able to detect this, but we can't. It supposedly has a biochemical property which our body reacts to, but we cannot detect any chemical agent in the resultant fluid. Medical studies show the 'dilutions' to be no more effective than placebos.

Can't comment on water memory yet, lack physics knowledge.
Have you seen Masaru Emoto's "Hidden Message in the Water" though? I found it rather impressive.

Ah, well, I studied physics at University, and worked at a Uni physics dept for four years afterwards. So I recognise pseudo science and techno babble when it's used in such contexts as homeopathy.

Ok, It is hard to continue the discussion because there is something going wrong with our references. My source (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf) admitted that there is an effect. What source are you talking about?

You also linked to http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm

which stated;

"There was no significant difference found in the primary outcome
measure."

and tried to rescue itself with
"A statistically significant improvement in general health score in both
homeopathy groups (p < 0.05) on the SF-36 after 1 year was found."

well, the body can fix a lot of stuff itself, given a year, and given the stress the subjects had been under prior to this test, it's hardly surpising they would report feeling better a year later.

If anyone has an extra $500. I will be happy to make them an aluminum-foil head-mounted device (hat) that will keep out extraterrestial mind control rays.. And if you act NOW, I'll throw in a copper bracelet and a pair of 'Health Magnets' for your shoes! The deal of a lifetime!
Supplies are limited.
Operators are standing by.

Excuse the thread zombification, but I thought some might want to know that Leipzig has retracted the mentioned article.

Google's (not so great) translation from German (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://db.uni-leipzig.de/aktuell/index.php%3Fpmnummer%3D2005425&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Ehe%2Bdie%2BSt%25C3%25A4ndige%2B Kommission%2Bder%2BUniversit%25C3%25A4t%2BLeipzig% 2Bzur%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)
Randi.org's comment (http://www.randi.org/jr/200511/111805setback.html#i1)

Studies in support of homeopathy published in journals

vhan.nl/documents/ScientificReportECHNov04.pdf
ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7
homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2007/10/22/scientific-research-and-homeopathy/
modernhomoeopathy.com/research_and_homeopathy.htm

There was an interesting article about homeopathy in a recent New Scientist - some old geezer called Edzard Ernst I think - it was pretty well balanced and didn't pull any punches - which is unusual for someone from that school of medicine.

If you can't find the article on the web, I'll have a rummage through the library in my toilet where I keep my new scientist (and judge dredd & silver surfer) magazines and post some of it up.

Homeopathy: Micro Doses Mega Results

Homeopathy: Micro Doses Mega Results

Keep diluting until there is only a memory left in the water ? B/s

Homeopathy: Micro Doses Mega Results

OK Nancy, obviously you believe in homeopathy because it's how you shill coin from people to make a living, but how do you reconcile this with the published articles in 'The Lancet' which have shown no significant superiority over a placebo?

You know what Avogadros number is, yes? So how do you explain away the 'infinite dilution' of solutions until it's unlikely that a single molecule from the original solution is in a subsequent dilution? How is that supposed to be effective?

Also, as I have asked on this thread, as there is a finite amount of water on the planet, and it will, over time, have come into contact, or actually have been part of the very plant that is the alleged remedy, why is rainwater not homeopathic? If there is a 'memory effect' why does water forget? What is the 'shelf life' of a homeopathic remedy?

OK Nancy, obviously you believe in homeopathy because it's how you shill coin from people to make a living, but how do you reconcile this with the published articles in 'The Lancet' which have shown no significant superiority over a placebo?

You know what Avogadros number is, yes? So how do you explain away the 'infinite dilution' of solutions until it's unlikely that a single molecule from the original solution is in a subsequent dilution? How is that supposed to be effective?

Also, as I have asked on this thread, as there is a finite amount of water on the planet, and it will, over time, have come into contact, or actually have been part of the very plant that is the alleged remedy, why is rainwater not homeopathic? If there is a 'memory effect' why does water forget? What is the 'shelf life' of a homeopathic remedy?

You know you are wasting time talking to these people, The dumbos, who can be persuaded to believe anything and the practitioners who make money from the dumbos. Your point on memory is well made.

. Your point on memory is well made.

Of course I know the answer. Water only retains an imprint when it's exchanged for cash!

Of course I know the answer. Water only retains an imprint when it's exchanged for cash!

Seriously though, I think we should all stop washing. The idea of water retaining the memory of all those dirty people disgusts me. God, all those people and animals crapping in the Ganges makes my stomach turn.

....hahhh. kno your reply would be such. you are verypredictable mon capiTAN

no. what i MEAN isss. what IS....IS it? whatactually is it meaning? medical science dont know sos i thought i'd ask you seeing you seem t know itall.

An inactive substance against which investigational treatments are compared for efficacy. See also Placebo Controlled Study.
www.viralgenetics.com/inv_glossary.html

a pill, topical, or injection made to appear exactly like a test medication, but without any of its active ingredients.
www.americanhairloss.org/hair_loss_glossary/

An inactive substance or treatment that looks the same as, and is given the same way as, an active drug or treatment being tested. The effects of the active drug or treatment are compared to the effects of the placebo.
www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/key_terms

A pharmacologically inert substance that may elicit a significant reaction entirely because of the mental set of the patient or the physical setting in which the drug is taken.
www.addiction-rehabilitation.com/glossary.html

An inactive substance or dummy treatment administered to a control group to compare its' effects with a real substance, drug or treatment.
www.st-andrews.ac.uk/psychology/teaching/glossary.shtml

A placebo is an inactive pill, liquid, or powder that has no treatment value. In clinical trials, experimental treatments are often compared with placebos to assess the treatment's effectiveness. ...
www.acrohealth.org/glossary.php

(pla-see'bo)- An inactive substance resembling a medication, given for psychological effect or as a control in evaluating a medicine believed to be active. It is usually a tablet, capsule, or injection that contains a harmless substance but appears to be the same as the medicine being tested. ...
www.womens-wellness.com/Glossary.html

an inactive substance or treatment given to satisfy a patient's expectation for treatment. In some controlled trials (particularly of drug treatments) placebos that are made to be indistinguishable by patients (and providers when possible) from the true intervention are given to the control ...
www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101014.html

inactive substances used in experimental blinded drug studies.
www.axcan.com/glossary.php

An inactive substance designed to resemble the drug being tested. It is used as a control, to increase the chance that differences in results between the groups reflect only the effects of the drug being tested.
www.dcri.duke.edu/patient/glossary.jsp

Originally a Latin word meaning 'I will please'. Now used for inactive substance (sham) given to participants of a research study in order to test the efficacy of another substance or treatment. ...
www.spondylitis.org/patient_resources/glossary.aspx

An inert substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance such as a drug
www.orthovisc.com/gldisplay.jhtml

An inactive substance used as a control in an experiment or test to determine the effectiveness of a medical drug.
student.biology.arizona.edu/honors98/group14/glossary.html

An inactive material in the same form as an active drug, for example, a sugar pill. See double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
search.alz.org/Resources/Glossary.asp

An inactive substance that looks the same as, and is administered in the same way as, a drug in a clinical trial.
www.stlukesregionalheartcenter.org/body.cfm

The sugar pill of research, often used to discourage a mysterious Mr. Hawthorne from making an untimely appearance. In the South, pronounced place-bo.
iis.stat.wright.edu/munsup.seoh/Box3_Bottom/A%20Devil's%20Dictionary.htm

A pharmacologically inactive substance given to a client
www.portal.nelm.nhs.uk/wpresources/DownloadDoc.aspx

an inert compound usually given to a portion of the subjects in a scientific experiment, in order to distinguish the psychological effects of the experiment from the physiological effects of the drug being tested.
www.medaus.com/p/147.html

A substance which is given that has no therapeutic value; often called a 'dummy pill' or 'sugar pill.' Often given to half of the patients in a trial of a new drug, to better assess the effectiveness of the new drug.
www.peteducation.com/dict_alpha_listing.cfm

A fake (sham, dummy, inert) treatment, given to people in a control group so they can't know whether or not they are in an experimental or control group. Placebos are meant to be both useless and harmless, so that they don't have any effect. ...
www.nihs.go.jp/dig/cochrane/cochrane/cngloss.htm

An inactive, harmless substance with no direct beneficial effects. Usually used in clinical studies for comparison to measure the effectiveness of an experimental drug or regimen.
www.ctri.wisc.edu/Home/Glossary.html

A placebo is an inactive substance. In blinded studies it is usually made to look like the active product. It may be considered a "sugar pill".
www.med.upenn.edu/ohr/terms.shtml

An inactive substance or “sugar pill” used in comparative studies. The placebo may be used in screening or washout periods or used as a comparator to determine the efficacy of a medication.
www.lillytrials.com/docs/terminology.html

A "look-alike" dummy pill that does not contain drug; placebos are often used in clinical trials.
www.thebody.com/content/art12696.html

An inactive substance which is administered during a clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of a drug. Patients receiving the placebo serve as the reference for comparison to the patients who received the drug under examination.
envirocancer.cornell.edu/Glossary/GL.index.cfm

an innocuous or inert medication; given as a pacifier or to the control group in experiments on the efficacy of a drug
(Roman Catholic Church) vespers of the office for the dead
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Placebo is an alternative rock band consisting of Brian Molko, Stefan Olsdal and Steve Hewitt. The band was founded in London in 1994 when Brian and Stefan, who went to the same school but apparently never spoke, met again by chance in London and subsequently formed 'Ashtray Heart'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo (band)

Placebo is the self titled debut album by British rock band Placebo, released on the Virgin Records label on July 16, 1996. In 1998 Q magazine readers voted it the 87th greatest album of all time. The album was remastered and reissued on September 18, 2006 for the 10th Anniversary.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo (album)

A placebo is a preparation which is pharmacologically inert but which may have a medical effect based solely on the power of suggestion, a response known as the placebo effect or placebo response. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo (medicine)

An obsolete usage of the word placebo was to mean someone who came to a funeral claiming (often falsely) a connection with the deceased, to try to get a share of any food and/or drink being handed out at the funeral. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo (at funeral)

Seriously though, I think we should all stop washing. The idea of water retaining the memory of all those dirty people disgusts me. God, all those people and animals crapping in the Ganges makes my stomach turn.

Well, quite xD

Homeopathy = The gullible and desperate drinking water.

Probably good to keep yourself hydrated, but curing illnesses? Really.

It may have had something else in it originally, but its been removed. Therefore - it's still just water.

Utter madness.