I believe that we on one hand have the skeptics who want evidence that homeopathy works, and on the other hand we have people where homeopathy is almost a religion.

I suggest you to read this article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610

The article Matej Šapina refer to (Ernst 2010) is based on six Cochrane systematic reviews of studies of homeopathy:

Ernst E. Homeopathy: what does the "best" evidence tell us? Med J Aust 2010; 192: 458-460. https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/192_08_190410/ern11179_fm.pdf

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for and against the effectiveness of homeopathy. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (generally considered to be the most reliable source of evidence) was searched in January 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Cochrane reviews with the term "homeopathy" in the title, abstract or keywords were considered. Protocols of reviews were excluded. Six articles met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Each of the six reviews was examined for specific subject matter; number of clinical trials reviewed; total number of patients involved; and authors' conclusions. The reviews covered the following conditions: cancer, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, dementia, influenza and induction of labour. DATA SYNTHESIS: The findings of the reviews were discussed narratively (the reviews' clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.

That the findings were "discussed narratively" means that the "discussion" reports the personal opinions of the author, not objective evidence.

@Paolo Bellavite

What is your answer on the question: Is homeopathy more than just a placebo?

No, certainly is not (only) a placebo, as shown by laboratory models. It is true that in humans the homeopathic approach exploits "placebo effect" (I mean spontaneous healing) much better than allopathy because it is addressed exactly to enhance (not to suppress) natural healing power. That homeopathy is not (only) a placebo, is shown also by hundreds of clinical studies, if read with unbiased mind. Actually, the (few) meta analyses cited by Ernst DO NOT demonstrate the placebo hypothesis, but only suggest that the evidence is too small to draw sure conclusions. Moreover, showing some methodological defects (THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED IN ANY SCIENTIFIC STUDY, homeopathic or allopathic, as reported by 2005 Shang's review) does not automatically mean that these studies are false. Absence of definite proof does not mean defintie proof of absence. These are the big confusions that are repeatedly raised by the "discussions" and the "conclusions" of homeopathic opponents. Those people should dedicate more efforts to original experimental studies than to the easy task of criticizing other's studies with apparently rigorous opinions and personal conclusions.

Best regards Paolo

Dear Paolo,

I would like to know if you can show evidence which can support your claim on the potential effects beyond placebo? I agree "that the absence of definite proof does not mean definite proof of absence", but I am pretty suspicious how a solution diluted that much can have any healing effect (maybe rehydrating?) on the human body, besides placebo.

There is a lor of literature see For example in My rg account.

paolo

@Paolo

If homeopathy is more than placebo; how can we explain the effect?

Impossible to explain in a blog! I wrote two review papers "High dilution effects revisited -1 and -2" in the indexed Journal "Homeopathy" in January 2014, they can be read or downloaded from my "contributions" in Research Gate. I attach here the original second one. Sorry but really I haven't time to explain here this complex matter, best regards

Paolo

Dear Paolo,

Thank you very much. I will study your articles with great interest.

Best regards,

Geir

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have released their draft review of the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy (just in time for World Homeopathy Awareness Week). This is a very comprehensive review;

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/your_health/complementary_medicines/nhmrc_homeopathy_overview_report_october_2013_140407.pdf .

Conclusion?

See also;

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/complementary-medicines/homeopathy-review .

And; > http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/medical-group-no-evidence-support-homeopathy/2225217/ .

Paul.

This report suffers from the defect of drawing subjective conclusione from apparently objective analyses. I mean apparently because opinions on the "quality" of papers are Always affected by opinions of the "judge". The worst case Here is that we do not Know the judge, the report is from a profit company.

Hi Paolo,

The National Health and Medical Research Council is not a "for profit" company;

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/

.

I would respectfully suggest that judging claims of scientifically proven efficacy for any medical treatment demands exactly the same criteria regardless of the treatment modality.

Scientific evidence is not a subjective measure "like beauty".

If homeopathy really can produce reliable and repeatable benefits beyond those associated with sham treatment, it should not be difficult to demonstrate this.

I personally do not oppose people accessing alternative or complementary treatments. I do object to public health funds being spent on treatments for which there is no credible evidence base.

The studies that purport to demonstrate an effect are low powered and unreliable, and the results cannot be replicated by other researchers. The conclusion of every credible review is that, at this stage, there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy beyond placebo for any of the conditions it is claimed to treat. It is not evidence of a 'prejudicial thesis" to honestly state this.

Paul.

There are over 200 clinical trials demonstrating that Homeopathy works better than placebo (see Shang 2004 meta-analysis) and the evidence is very similar to that of allopathic approaches. But those trials are "judged" of too low quality to be thought as "sufficiently" "credible" by opponents of Homeopathy. Please go to Cochrane site and look at the criteria for judging a clinical study and you find the possibility to find defects in ANY paper. This is obvios because in science nothing is perfect (perhaps you can find certainty in mathematics, in the scholarly mathematics, not in nonlinear models). Moreover, due to uncritical adhesion to the "placebo paradigm" most homeopathy opponents prejudicially dismiss observational studies. The recent Australian report was not written by NHMRC experts, but by a private Company and we do not know who are those presumed experts. From what they write, certainly they are not homeopaths. I am not maintaining that science is not useful and can't provide advancements toward truth (I am a scientist), but its a powerful instruments should be used "cum grano salis", not as a dogma.

The motive and intent of someone presenting research is very important. That's why researchers are supposed to reveal conflicts of interest. The NHMRC leaked a memo last year stating that "It is unethical to practice homeopathy". They quickly withdrew this after a storm of protest. They did this before doing any research. This latest rigged "research" where they cherry picked studies demonstrates that the NHMRC is just a propaganda surrogate of the medical/ pharma cartel.

Here is my opinion of that organization:

http://hpathy.com/medical-cartoons/nhrmc-pull-report/

The question of whether homeopathy is "placebo" is moot, since hundreds of millions of people benefit from it. Also, historical records show that it successfully treated some of the worst epidemics of the 19th and early 20th century.

Producing a study claiming homeopathy doesn't work is like claiming that the light bulb or internal combustion engine are "not feasible".

The politics of medicine have tried to suppress progress many times throughout the years and this is just another example of that.

Hi Alan from Homeopathy-dot-com.

You wrote;

>

Could you please provide us with some sort of reference or citation for this astonishing claim?

Regards,

Paul.

Hi again Paolo, You refer me to Shang et al 2004?

They wrote;

Why do I say homeopathy is based on unscientific dogma?

Firstly; In his 1803 essay "On the Effects of Coffee from Original Observations", Hahnemann claimed that many diseases are caused by coffee. see; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5LhLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA391#v=onepage&q&f=false .

He later abandoned the coffee theory in favour of the theory that disease is caused by "psora", (although the list of conditions Hahnemann attributed to coffee was remarkably similar to the list of conditions he later claimed were caused by "psora").

"Psora" (itch) is claimed in his writings as the cause of many diseases, although it is not defined clearly at any point in Hahnemann's writings.

In later editions of his "Organon" Hahnemann develops an immaterial, vitalistic view of disease. In it, he describes all human diseases thus; >

These mystical explanations of the aetiology of disparate diseases are contrary to any modern, scientific understanding of illness and health. (This is perhaps quite understandable, as Hahnemann was writing long before the microorganisms responsible for many infectious diseases were discovered and long before scientific trials and epidemiological studies ushered in the age of modern medicine).

Secondly; Hahnemann's procedure of successive dilutions cannot produce a pharmacologically active compound, and there is no credible experimental evidence or scientific explanation for any way that water structure could be informed or modified permanently by this process, (let alone modified in a way that could produce any reliable and repeatable therapeutic effect).

Both the theory and praxis of homeopathy are contrary to the consensus of current scientific knowledge.

Finally; Hahnemann's homeopathy theories are fundamentally unscientific, because any theory that posits a causal role for a property (such as "psora" or "vital force") that is not defined clearly and cannot be detected or measured by objective means is not falsifiable and it is therefore not a scientific theory.

Hahnemann's previous held belief, (that coffee caused many diseases) was at least a testable, and therefore scientific, theory, (even if it was, with the benefit of hindsight, obviously not true- see Sweden's "first randomised clinical trial"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_III_of_Sweden%27s_coffee_experiment .

Regards, Paul.

I believe that we on one hand have the skeptics who want evidence that homeopathy works, and on the other hand we have people where homeopathy is almost a religion.

Tjena Geir!

I concur.

Regards,

Paul.

RE: historical records show that it successfully treated some of the worst epidemics of the 19th and early 20th century>>>

Paul said: Could you please provide us with some sort of reference or citation for this astonishing claim?

Harris Coulter's book Divided Legacy is one, but there are many more. You need to do some the work yourself. Everything is quite available.

Let me take this conversation to another level. Imagine there's a group of people sitting at a table on which lies a man's hat. They are debating whether there is an apple under the hat. The debate grows heated and each side provides research to prove their opinion. Pretty absurd when you consider they they could just pick up the hat.

Homepathic remedies are sold throughout the world and people with just a little knowledge can learn to use them successfully for acutes and injuries. All that it takes to settle the debate is to TRY THE REMEDIES. PUT THEM ON YOUR TONGUE.

Those who consider them placebo should have no worry about doing that.

I have never heard a skeptic say : I've tried well selected remedies and they didn't work. You just never hear that. So if you an honest skeptic, just do that.

@Alan Schmukler

I have experienced that homeopathy worked in some cases, but I still don't know why it worked. Therefore, the question: "Is homeopathy more than just a placebo?"

Alan, You wrote; >

I have had a quick look at Coulter's massive tome, which appears to be light on actual data- it is a historical overview in the form of an apologetics for homeopathy, chiropractic. and naturopathy. I have no intention of reading it cover to cover in search of any evidence to support your assertion.

You have made an extraordinary claim, viz that there are "historical records" which are "quite available" which prove that homeopathy "successfully treated some of the worst epidemics of the 19th and early 20th century".

It is not my responsibility to "do the work myself", if by "do the work" you mean search all of the world's historical records for evidence to support or refute your claim.

You are the one claiming to have evidence to support this assertion. If it is "quite available" it should be no problem for you to provide a reference or a link. Please produce it.

You will note that in this conversation, whenever I have suggested something or made a statement I have kindly provided links to documents directly supporting my statements. Please adhere to the same standard of conduct, or else admit that you are not actually engaging in a scientific discussion. you are simply making unsubstantiated statements of opinion.

Now I'm off to have a nice cup of coffee!

Regards, Paul.

No

¡hola! José,

That is a very concise answer to the question.

Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions

Oliver Wendell Holmes

1842

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

.

Commentary by James Randi

May 2014

Scroll down to "The Dilution Dilemma"

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-05-14/

Regards,

Paul.

"Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council assessed studies on the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating 68 different conditions, including asthma, arthritis, cold and flu, chronic fatigue syndrome, eczema, cholera, malaria, and heroin addiction, and concluded that either the homeopathic treatment was no more effective than placebo or that there was insufficient evidence to suggest the homeopathic cure was more effective than that." http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39703/title/Australia-Officially-Debunks-Homeopathy/ Unfortunately the NMHRC website is down this weekend as it is transferred to another site - but check it later next week to read the study itself.

Australian report is done just to demonstrate their prejudicial opinion.

Hi Paolo,

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has released the final report of its review of evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions;

NHMRC Statement on Homeopathy and NHMRC Information Paper - Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions;

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02

>

Regards,

Paul.

RG won't let me post the OPTUM review of the evidence that was commissioned by the NHMRC and that informs their statements- it's too big.

If you'd like to see the review , just cut and paste this address into your browser and you can download the full text;

www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02i_homeopathyoverviewreport140408.pdf

Paul.

NHMRC final report is worst than the preliminary release. They use science for confirm their prejudicial opinion. They skip or refuse refuse evidence.

Scientific Criticism in Homoeopathy

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Scientific-Criticism-in-Homoeopathy

In my opinion, homeopathy is just a placebo. But, placebo is powerful...

I have done a little research on homeopathy, involving different animal models like bacteria, fungus, mammalian models like mice, rats, and also human subjects. I am one hundred percent convinced with our research data obtained from our controlled studies that the effects of homeopathic remedies of both low and high dilutions are definitely more than that of the so-called placebo, be it in regard to their anti-radiation activities as evidenced from various cytogenetical protocols used by us and alsoin respect of some biochemical/ enzymatic protocols used. In my research experience in homeopathy spanning over 35 years I have perhaps used the maximum number of research protocols used in a single laboratory including molecular biological, cytogenetical, microscopical, spectroscopical, nanotechnological etc etc and I can firmly state that based on our results only, not to speak of numerous authentic results obtained by some other serious researchers, homeopathy not only is an evidence based scientific system of healing which can be perceived by all open minded researchers if one can perform or replicate some published results with relevant expertise and standardization of the techniques properly rather than trying to criticise research only with an intention to disprove the results by imaginary loopholes. I fully endorse the views expressed by Paolo who also is a serious researcher and has done extensive research in homeopathy and has both expertise and an analytical mind to interpret hi research findings. I personally am optimistic that homeopathy represents an advanced science only waiting for universal acceptance sooner rather than later. The controversy will one day be over like the famous Golgi controversy which was regarded as an artefact before its real ,s entity and functions were discovered. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to take part in this forum and to express my opinion.

as a long-time clinician, specialist of internal medicine, I have treated many thousands of patients. Some of them used homeopathy (high dilutions). The only benefit a few of these users reported was against allergy, hayfever in particular. Animal studies, cell-based in vitro and other experiments, as mentioned by Anisur, are not relevant. The assessment of any treatment must be based on risk/benefit, and the personal experience of the patient. The only risk of homeopathy is that patients may suffer from a serious disease and not receive an adequate treatment, since relying only on homeopathy. The benefit is subjective and hard to prove. The most important rule should be: FIRST DO NOT HARM (Hippocrates). It should also be stressed that homeopathy is not the same as fytotherapy or some other forms of holistic or natural treatments. In essence, homeopathic "medications" do not contain any active ingredients, because of the enormous dilutions. The question wether the diluting water has changed by having been in contact with a particular substance, belongs to the field of metaphysics rather than physics.

Geir Bjorklund ,

Never and i don't think so though people of some societies are claiming this .homeopathic is natural, scientific and realistic. Yes, More research and regulations are required for handling this.

Thanks

Dr. Paolo Bellavite and his team of researchers published many other authentic research papers in other respectable peer-reviewed journals which would clearly support efficacy of ultra-highly diluted homeopathic drugs. The retraction of the said published paper in PLOS one after three long years of accusations, arguments and counter arguments would suggest at best that the issue is still debatable for some people but for many others the said paper contained results which were convincing enough to the learned referees who rigorously reviewed the said paper as well as all fellow researchers working in this field of research. This should attract other researchers in the field to carry out more research to know the truth as overwhelming majority of researchers in this field obtained evidences that the ultra-highly diluted homeopathic drugs act even at the molecular level as well as physiological levels of various model organisms as well as in in vitro system. The critics with technical expertise should better try to repeat the work and verify themselves the results obtained by a team of recognized expert researchers of long standing.

To summarize, critically evaluated no convincing evidence exists that homeopathy is more effective than a placebo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HslUzw35mc

the youtube film underscores the recommendation "make time for the individual again". But time is money.

I am a retired university professor of internal medicine still treating patients and having more time available for them. I always do a physical, so-called propaedeutic examination, palpating and auscultating. Many patients tell me "that they had never been examined before". This classical approach, though being of pivotal importance, is commonly deleted, which explains why so many major diagnostic errors are made.

Diagnoses can possibly be confirmed or sustained by technical testing, but the first and critical initial steps of "old-fashioned" history taking and physical examination remain of enormous importance. It is certainly much more efficient than prescribing homeopathy.