Homeopathy has raised controversy as alternative medicine for the last decades. While the principles of homeopathy might contradict traditional medicine and pharmacology, and clinical trials have not shown clear answers, the fact of the matter is that certain homeopathic remedies work well for specific clinical conditions such as post-op pain or swelling (e.g. arnica montana). My limited experience suggests that certain patients respond better than others. Also bear in mind that these remedies should be taken on an empty stomach.

Thanks Dr. Fernando for your valuable input. Unfortunately I also have the same understanding for the homoeopathic medicines as you have. Uptill now I am unable to find any scientific justification based on acceptable standard for all other types of health treatment modalities. Though there are reports as well as example wherein homoeopathic medicines have shown miraculous results. But I believe if the results are not replicable in different environments and conditions, then these lose the scientific worth . That is a why i have put this question to know the facts behind this treatment mode which is widely accepted by technically advance countries like Germany and is practised in many parts of this globe.

Although I have doubts, for some authors, a possible explanation is that at higher dilutions increases the so called "water memory" through the formation of molecular clusters greater than those that are thermodynamically predicted and that would be formed at lower dilutions.

Samal S, Geckeler KE. Unexpected solute aggregation in water on dilution.

Chem Commun 2001;21:2224-5.

Montagnier L, Aïssa J, Ferris S, Montagnier JL, Lavallée C. Electromagnetic

signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA

sequences. Interdiscip Sci 2009;1:81-90.

Thanks Dr. Salvatore, I have also gathered similar information that highly diluted medicine enhances efficiently of medicine due to availability of more reactive sites of molecules. But this plea by homoeopathic practitioners seems plausible but I am still confused, because this phenomena must be universal and applicable to all sorts of medicine either herbal, biochemic or Allopathic etc.

This is true in principle, but the administration of a conventional drug, in order to be also a homeopathic medicine, must also simulate, in healthy individuals, the same illness that you should treat. The side effects of a conventional drug can not be considered a simulation of the disease. Therefore, even if diluted, conventional drugs can not work as a homeopathic medicines.

Thanks Dr. Salvatore for your valuable opinion. Let us pray some colleagues give solid justification to approve or disapprove dilution philosophy enhancing potency of homoeopathic medicines.

In order to participate in this discussion, we would say that we are not homeopaths. We are parasitologists. We use animal models well known in parasitological studies to test highly diluted substances in well controled experiments. We have data showing the effect of these substances. We have published four articles and many communications in congress. W related the papers below.

We share with you the search for an explanation of the mechanisms by which these substances act. It seems quite logical that this phenomenon is more physical than chemical, since in dilutions from a certain point no longer exhibit more molecules.

ALEIXO, Denise Lessa ; FERRAZ, Fabiana Nabarro ; Ferreira, Érika Cristina ; de Lana, Marta ; Gomes, MoMônica Lúcia ; de Abreu Filho, Benício Alves ; ARAUJO, S. M. . Highly diluted medication reduces parasitemia and improves experimental infection evolution by Trypanosoma cruzi. BMC Research Notes, v. 5, p. 352-367, 2012.

FERRAZ, Fabiana Nabarro ; Simoni, G K ; Anélio DN junior ; Melo, C. S. ; ALEIXO, Denise Lessa ; GOMES, Monica Lucia ; SPACK, Miguel ; ARAUJO, S. M. . DIFFERENT FORMS OF ADMINISTRATION OF BIOTHERAPIC 7dH IN MICE EXPERIMENTALLY INFECTED BY Trypanosoma cruzi PRODUCE DIFFERENT EFFECTS. Homeopathy (Edinburgh. Print) , v. 100, p. 237-243, 2011.

PUPULIM, Áurea Regina Teles ; ARAUJO, S. M. ; Toledo, M. J. O. ; GOMES, Monica Lucia ; KANESHIMA, Edilson Noboyushi ; Cuman R K N ; AMADO, Ciomar Aparecida Bersani . Canova medication modifies parasitological parameters in mice infected with Trypanosoma cruzi. Experimental Parasitology , v. 126, p. 435-440, 2010.

ALEIXO, Denise Lessa ; FERRAZ, Fabiana Nabarro ; MELO, Carolina Sundin ; GOMES, Monica Lucia ; TOLEDO, M. J. O. ; KANESHIMA, Edilson Noboyushi ; AMADO, Ciomar Aparecida Bersani ; ARAUJO, S. M. . Changes of profiles of RAPD of Trypanosoma cruzi II under the effect of the Canova medication and Benznidazole. Homeopathy (Edinburgh) , v. 97, p. 59-64, 2008.

@Thanks Dr. Silvn for the thought provoking opinion supported by research articles. I will study the articles and will come back to share my input. You are absolutely true that we are not homeopath. But my question may kindly be seen in general principles and practices commonly accepted world wide which depict direct relationship between concentration and response.

To understand Homeopathy you need to throw out all of your preconceived ideas about how medicine is practiced. Western (Conventional) medicine is allopathy meaning treating by opposites: antibiotics for infection, antihypertensives for hypertension, antineoplastics for neoplasms, etc. Homeopathy is "like treating like" so an incredibly dilute amount of a substance that causes similar symptoms to what you are trying to treat. Samuel Hahnemann created the term "homeopathy" around 1800 after observing chinona bark (contains quinine), used to treat malaria, causes symptoms similar to malaria when given to a healthy person. He then developed the theory that dilution increased the strength of the treatment. He suggest 30C as the ideal dilution or dilution by a factor of 10 raised to the 60th power. To give perspective, 1/3 of a drop of a substance dissolved in all the water on earth gives a dilution of 13C. Clearly, the original subtance has no effect but the theory is the molecular imprint remains in the solute and that imprint is what gives the effect. A potent homeopathic remedy contains none of the original substance. There are a few studies that infer an effect as mentioned above. Another is Frenkel M, et.al. Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 36: 395-403, 2010 showing cytotoxic effects of a homeopathic preparation of carcinosin on breast cancer cell lines. I think a better interpretation of what makes homeopathy work is that it is a form of energy medicine. it is putative energy as opposed to veritable energy and the effect is due to the expectations of the homeopath. Read these articles: Tiller W. On Understanding the Very Different Science Premises Meaningful to CAM Versus Orthodox Medicine: Part I—The Fundamentals THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Volume 16, Number 3, 2010, pp. 327–335. Part 2 is in the next issue. I am not saying I agree with Tiller but there is more that goes on in medicine and the treatments of patients than what a biochemical equation predicts. That is why I love practicing medicine. I believe the best doctors have a theraputic relationship with a patient that aids healing. Perhaps it is why homeopathy helps some people.

Our family has been using homeopathic remedies for more than 15 years now. It works. To be able to explain why it works we need to go more into the other or deeper aspects of nature and human beings, to the realm of subtle and subtler aspects and energies/information system. We need consider the property of substance, that beyond the physical there is the non-visible subtle aspects, and that there is polarity. The more subtle or dilute, the more this polar property is expressed. We can't explain it if we don't go into quantum physics realm. We are in that realm now. Science has evolved and old science simply cannot cover many phenomena that our indigenous peoples have been tapping and experiencing a long time ago.

It is quite clear, that dilution and potency of homeopathic medicines is inversely proportional. A mother ticture is firstly diluted and then succussed 10 times consequently; Q-potencies are succussed 100 times between the dilution steps. It is assumed that the power of the succussion steps is used to develop photons with increasing frequencies, with increasing power which means increasing healing power.I measured the photons of Argentum met CMf and Cantharis CMf (Fincke-Method) at frequencies of 2,06 MHz and about 6,9 MHz.

1) Lenger Karin, Homeopathic potencies identified by a new magneticresonance method. Homeopathy – an energetic medicine. Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine 2006, Vol15, Nr. 3:225-243

2) Lenger K, RP Bajpai, Drexel M, Delayedluminescence of high homeopathic potencies onsugar globuli.Homeopathy2008; 97, 134-140

3) Lenger Karin, A new biochemical model ofhomeopathic efficacy in patients with chronicdiseases. Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine 2010, 19(3), 9-41.

Thanks Karin, I am studying this phenomena and will do go through the articles you have cited.

In several books of homeopathy for humans we find references about it.

In studies using plants have not observed this phenomenon. However a linear response does not occur according to the potency of homeopathic medicines. It is observed in an up and down response of drugs in plants.

It is important to remember that “the effect of homeopathic remedies is not related to the dilution of the drug, or the amount of active ingredient”. The effect of the homeopathic remedy must be related to the wavelength and / or frequency of the field emitted by the drug. This explains the results unrelated among the potency of homeopathic remedies.

Currently some articles were published by Luc Montagnier who can bring some meaningful information.

I hope I helped in some way.

@ Bruno? I will be obliged if you kindly provide a link to the Luc`s article.

i can send by e-mail

Thanks a lot in anticipation dear Bruno.

This is the link for Luc Montagnier download https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6iqeswmrvsqdl2y/XI1nrY78B9?m

thanks a lot Dear Dr. Bruno. I have also received your email with attachments.Best regards,

For a lighter view of Homeopathy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgxzSUxxRzE

Thanks Dr. Larry for posting the link.

In my (and other's) experience there is NO inverse relationship. The dose-response (better: dilution and dynamization-response) patterns are of non-linear and showing alternating peaks of activity and not activity. This shape is very reminiscent of chaos and fractals and is comnpatible with most recent theories and evidence presented at the GIRI symposium in Florence http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/issue/view/93

Thanks for your kind comments. But why we don't employ this technique in allopathic medicine or day to day occurring chemical reactions in industrial sector where high concentration and efficacy demands use of more concentrates?

Dear Ahmedan it is a 220-year old story!i the science of high dilution cannot be directly applied to "allopathic" medicine because they are based on different conceptual frameworks. Allopathy goes "against" the mechanisms of our defence systems while high dilutions actually are employed by "homeopathy" (similia rule) which tries to restore and regulate them in a positive way by exploiting internal "life energy" (that means the complexity of homeodynamics. BUT: if the science of high dilutions gains credibility and followers (especially in the scientifically developed countries and academic circles), possibly in the near future we will assist to many applications to mainstream medicine (that is different from "allopathy",) to agriculture, veterinary and to environmental sciences,

Thanks Prof. Paolo for your kind reply and describing the two phenomena. What I perceive from your reply is that the homoeopathy is distinct course of medication where the common principles of biometry, pharmacology and pathology are not applicable.

Dear Ahmedani what you are perceived from my post is not corresponding to what I believe neither to my experience! Possibly due to need of synthesis my post could be misunderstood. The homeopathy is clearly distinct from "allopathy" but NOT from mainstream science. On the contrary, homeopathy is the field where the most recent and exciting discoveries of science including pharmacology and pathology (see neuroimmunoendocrinology, epigenetics, systems biology, biophysics, quantum electrodynamics and so on) are applied. I dedicated myself and my group to this field after a profound revision of the current pathological views. The "simile" principle is perfectly compatible with physiology and pathology and represents an advancement of current theories. The lack of linearity of dose-response relationship is a common finding in toxicology, immunopharmacology, neuology, psychology etc. Finally, the need of individualization of therapy (a point that is particularly emphasized in homeopathic methodology) versus application of common protocols is recognized by most dedicated clinicians. Homeopathy is a frontier of medical science!

G'day folks,

Homeopathy theory does indeed contradict everything we know about medicine and physics.

http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/infinitesimals.html .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Evidence .

The most common attempt to provide a theoretical framework is the assertion that the "successing" process of repeated dilution and shaking fixes a memory of the molecular shape in the water. There is no evidence that this is the case. >

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/18/36/S09/

http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(07)00055-0/abstract

If water could retain a "memory" in this way, wouldn't other molecules accidentally get imprinted in water? This is why one of my friends likes to say; "If water has a memory, then homeopathy must be full of sh*t"...

I work in the drug and alcohol field, and many of my clients are heavily-dependent injecting users of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine. I can assure you that if the process of dilution and shaking employed in homeopathy actually worked, these people would have worked this out for themselves long ago and would be spending a lot less money on their drugs.

The National Council Against Health Fraud published this comprehensive report way back in 1994; http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html .

Whenever homeopathy has been subjected to independent scientific study, it has been demonstrated to produce no effect beyond placebo and return-to-the-mean. This is why most medical professionals and most scientific researchers are skeptical or dismissive.

"Well researched success stories" about any treatment modality are anecdotal testimonials. They come from a biased sample- ie those who feel the treatment helped, not those for whom it was useless or indeed harmful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Efficacy .

Homeopathy is particuraly likely to produce placebo responses simply because of the amount of time the practitioner spends with each patient. "Real doctors have significant other pressures which restrict their time with the patient. Because homeopaths are charging what ever they like they can sit with the patient and actually listen and I personally think that it this that adds to the placebo effect of the "treatment" - the patient leaves feeling like they have been listened to.".

Kind regards,

Paul.

However I must say that homeopathy is harmless in the "worried well", or as an adjunct to appropriate evidence-based-treatment.

Homeopathy may be harmful if the practitioner encourages the patient to discontinue needed medical treatment, or misdiagnoses symptoms as a "healing crisis", or discourages the patient from seeking mainstream medical treatment when they really need it.

http://www.1023.org.uk/whats-the-harm-in-homeopathy.php

.

An often neglected issue is that some products sold as homeopathic preparations actually do contain active ingredients. Allegedly homeopathic medicines have been found to contain adulterants;

(eg: Morice (1986, pp. 862-863) reported that a homeopathic remedy called "Dumcap" appeared to be effective in treating asthma. Although labeled as containing "nux vomica" (strychnine), arsenic album (arsenic trioxide), Blatta onentalis (cockroach extract), and stramoni folic (stramonium), analysis revealed that the product was adulterated with therapeutic levels of the antiasthma, steroidal drugs prednisolone and betamethasone).

Some samples of homeopathic products have also been found to contain mixtures of herbs in active doses- including things like ephedra and St John's Wort. Finally, some tested samples contain toxic contaminants such as heavy metals and strychnine.

These sorts of adulterants are obviously not the fault of homeopathy theory.

They are the product of a poorly-regulated industry mass-manufacturing commercial products. However these incidences of misrepresentation or contamination highlight the fact that allegedly homeopathic preparations, bought over the counter at a pharmacy, may not always be harmless.

It is not because homeopathy theory contradicts our understanding of medicine (and indeed physics) that it is not accepted by mainstream medicine and science. It is because homeopathy has not been able to produce consistent, repeatable results greater than placebo in double-blind trials. If homeopathy could be demonstrated to be effective in this way, no scientist would argue that it didn't work. Instead, we'd all start excitedly trying to work out how it worked.

Paul.

Both theory and evidence are necessary for advancement of science and these are in progress also in homeopathic science. Even though people are still influenced by the 2005 Lancet affair, no consistent evidence of equivalence Homeopathy=Placebo has been provided. Laboratory studies showed the reality of the high-dilution-dynamization effects and a recent review may help to skeptical views.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23088629

Hi Paolo,

The paper you link to provides an alternative explanatory theory for the effectiveness of homeopathy. (If my quick reading of the abstract is correct, the theory is that homeopathic solutions contain nano-particles that are interpretted by the immune systemn as foreign and so activate the bodies natural defences against illness?)

However the paper you have linked to is not a study that actually provides evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Here are some studies that show no effect beyond placebo, including several from the Cochrane Collaboration. This is the gold standard of evidence based medicine. Unless someone can produce independent peer-reviewed metastudies of similar statistical power, that show homeopathy works, it's kind of pointless to discuss how it might work...

McCarney, Robert W; Linde, Klaus; Lasserson, Toby J (2004), McCarney, Robert W, ed., "Homeopathy for chronic asthma", Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD000353, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000353.pub2, PMID 14973954

McCarney, Robert W; Warner, James; Fisher, Peter; Van Haselen, Robbert (2003), McCarney, Robert W, ed., "Homeopathy for dementia", Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD003803, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003803, PMID 12535487

Smith, Caroline A (2003), Smith, Caroline A, ed., "Homoeopathy for induction of labour", Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (4): CD003399, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003399, PMID 14583972

Long, L; Ernst, E (2001), "Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review", British Homoeopathic journal 90 (1): 37–43, doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0449, PMID 11212088

Ernst, E (1999), "Homeopathic prophylaxis of headaches and migraine? A systematic review", Journal of pain and symptom management 18 (5): 353–7, doi:10.1016/S0885-3924(99)00095-0, PMID 10584459

Walach, H; Lowes, T; Mussbach, D; Schamell, U; Springer, W; Stritzl, G; Haag, G (2001), "The long-term effects of homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches: one year follow-up and single case time series analysis", The British homoeopathic journal 90 (2): 63–72, doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0473, PMID 11341459

Whitmarsh, TE; Coleston-Shields, DM; Steiner, TJ (1997), "Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine", Cephalalgia 17 (5): 600–4, doi:10.1046/j.1468-2982.1997.1705600.x, PMID 9251877

Harris, L. F.; Jackson, RT; Breslin Jr, JA; Alford, RH (1978), "Anaerobic septicemia after transrectal prostatic biopsy", Archives of Internal Medicine 138 (3): 393–9, doi:10.1001/archinte.138.3.393, PMID 204264

Before we embark on elaborate theories of HOW homeopathy works, I would prefer to establish WHETHER it does anything. Based on the available evidence, I tend towards the view that homeopathy's alleged effects are actually produced by placebo responses and the natural return-to-the-mean.

The importance of the social element of a consultation, (of what psychologists and counsellors call "the therapeutic relationship") in a patient's feeling of well being is enormous in treating some disorders. However if I have a flail chest and collapsed lung, I'm going to call for paramedics and an experienced emergency thoraic surgeon, regardless of how gruff and brisk their bed-side manner is. If I have an inoperable brain tumour diagnosed, I'll be taking my chemotherapy over a dose of water or sugar pills anyday.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/3/130.full

.

Paul.

homeopathic medicines are produced by dilution steps e.g. 1: 10, 1:100 or 1: 50 000 (called Q-potencies) according to HAB (Hahnemann's presciptions) between each dilution step , the dilution is succussed (potentized) 10 times concerning C and D-potencies, 100 times concerning Q-potencies. Also K-potencies (Korsakovian-potencies) are succussed 10 times between each dilution step. This succussion might be the energy which enables a higher potency to be more effective. I suppose that the frequencies of the remedies go from the visible light to MHz-region caused by the succussion steps. I have some unpublished data. I educated as a biochemist but am a homeopathic practitioner too and I have a lot of content patients accompanied by their lab-values converting to normal health values during my homeopathic treatment.

Dear Paul and others, as the clinical effectiveness is concerned, there is a vast literature, about half of papers provide positive evidence, one quarter no evidence, one quarter uncertain evidence. Sceptics remain sceptics and devoted homeopathic doctor continue their work , uninterested to these “scientific” uncertainties. The situation is not very different from what we can read in Cochrane reviews for many current “orthodox” and widely adopted therapies. In any case, since here it is impossible to deal with all the matter, I attach a my own paper were I discuss the problem of clinical evidence with “open-minded” perspective along with rigorous evaluation of methods and results.

A Plea for Scientific Openness

I have systematically reviewed this question for internal reviews of several evidence-based authorities, here and in the EU and AU/NZ, and found that the weight of the evidence base of solely robustly critically appraised RCTs does support some clinically significant positive benefit from homeopathic interventions in a small but non-trivial number of conditions and disorders. Yet despite a significant body of positive benefit, we often have intemperate assessments of both the claims to efficacy, and the underlying rationales of homeopathy, such as this recent conclusion: "Through the laws of physics, homeopathic medicines appear to have zero chance of containing any biologically active component" [David Robert Grimes, FACT/Focus Compliment Alt Ther, 2012], in contradiction to the methodologically robust evidence of benefit of some homeopathic interventions from "gold standard" authoritative sources such as one Cochrane Review (see below) and several methodologically robust RCTs, and collectively suggesting a need for objective distance and strict evidence-based scrutiny of the issue to accept that there is an obvious dissonance between the hyper-skeptical claim of the lack of any scientific foundation for homeopathic medicine on the one hand, and the indisputable fact of demonstrable and robust evidence of benefit of some homeopathic interventions, carving out a place for a rationale middle ground of suitable nonnegotiable demands that such interventions must meet rigorous standards of evidence-based methodology of at least strong RCT level or better (meta-analysis and/or systematic review), while keeping an intellectually open receptiveness without hostility towards any such evidence should it arrive, as it has done (see below).

So we have upon systematic review and critical appraisal both positive as  well  as  negative  "dueling" clinical  trials. There are several negative clinical trials such as the German study from Wallach and colleagues of the homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches [Br Homeopath J. 2001], the Friese et al. RCT of homeopathic treatment of adenoid vegetations in children [Eur J Gen Pract. 2000], and the Lewith double-blind RCT of ultramolecular homoeopathic immunotherapy on lung function and respiratory symptoms in asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite [Br Med J 2002] among many others.

But against these there are also numerous positive clinical trials such as the RCT and review of four trial series of homeopathy for perennial allergic rhinitis [Taylor et al., Br Med J 2000], the RCT of homeopathic treatment of pediatric acute otitis media [Jacobs et al, Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001], the RCT of homeopathic intervention (TRAUMEEL S) in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis [Oberbaum et al., Cancer 2001] among dozens of other confirming RCTs. And although again we have some negative systematic reviews and meta-analyses [Ernst, Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002, and in particular over two dozens others from this same author (Edzard Ernst at Exeter)], these are countervailed by several positive ones, including a meta-analysis of 93 RCTs on the efficacy of homeopathic intervention in a wide spectrum of disorders which concluded that there was positive treatment effect in eight disorders (childhood diarrhea, fibrositis, hayfever, influenza, pain (miscellaneous), side-effects of radio- or chemotherapy, sprains, and upper respiratory tract infection) [Mathie, Homeopathy 2003], as well as a collaborative meta-analysis between the British Homeopathic Association, Duke University Medical Center, and the University of Glasgow [Mathie et al., 2013, unpublished/private communication (Version 1: 25 Jan, 2013)], and also a Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis/systematic review [Kasssab et al., Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, updated 2010] of eight controlled trials (total of 664 participants) of homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments, which concluded in support of the efficacy of topical calendula for prophylaxis of acute dermatitis during radiotherapy and Traumeel S mouthwash in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis.

In closing, I should add one point in favor of a more inclusive and expansive view of evidence than just the strict adherence to level I RCT data. In this I am joined by the eminent David Sackett [as quoted in Bornhöft et al, Forsch Komplementmed 2006, and also in Bornhöft et al, Springer 2011 (book)], one of the leading pioneers and most rigorous proponents of evidence based medicine and the most robust level of methodological integrity (his text remaining the leading EBM textbook to date), who has also expressed serious concern about investigators who consider randomized and double-blind trials (RCTs) as the only means of determining the efficacy of an intervention, for as he notes, to hold this view, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures are "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have ever undergone randomized double-blind trials and hence rarely have even an approximation of Level I evidence.

Constantine Kaniklidis

Director of Medical Research,

No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation (NSBCF)

European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)

Thanks Paolo,

Unfortunately you have provided no links or references to "the vast literature" you describe, so there is no way for me to know how representative of the published literature your review is. Nor can I see how many of the positive papers are based on small sample sizes, and how many on robust metastudies, or if there are any issues with the methodolgy or with the interpretation of these studies, for myself.

Leaving that point aside, you write that >.

So, on average, the studies you have chosen to review can show no effect, n'est pas?

Publication bias affects all peer-reviewed research. As most studies take p = 0.05, even if studies have rigorous methadology 1 in every 20 positive results are actually down to random chance. If a journal is presented with 19 articles that demonstrate nothing, and one that appears to show an effect, guess which one tends to get published? Unless the result can be repeated in subsequent studies, it's likely to be a statistical artifact not a real "positive".

“no positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators”

Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, et al. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies — a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med 2007; 15 (2): 128-138

Constantine, I do strongly agree that randomized and double-blind trials should not be considered the only measure of effectiveness. However I also agree with Constantine when she writes that we need >

As I said above, I would actually be quite excited by such evidence, if it can be produced. Thanks very much for those references Constantine- I have some reading to do!

I am as yet unconvinced that the evidence for an effect beyond placebo and return-to-the-mean has been repeatedly verified for any truly homeopathic treatment. Neither is the author this article from the MJA that reviews all the Cochrane collaboration artilces til 2010;

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/homeopathy-what-does-best-evidence-tell-us

Please read this article. The author lectures in complementary medicine, and most of the articles he reviews were written by practicing homeopaths, yet he finds that there is no evidence of an effect beyond placebo.

Paul.

Paul:

Thanks for the insightful feedback, Paul! Much appreciated. However, I maintain that the facts are precisely as I have concluded, above, and not materially changed by the review of Cochrane meta-analyses you cite, a review well known to and appraised by me, from the flowing pen of Dr. Edzard Ernst at Exeter (cited by me above).

But first let me clarify that there is a bit more to Dr. Ernst than the mild description suggests: he is self-admittedly the leading and most ferociously dedicated critic of homeopathy (in my last internal review of the efficacy of homeopathy interventions, of 290+ references, over half are authored or co-authored by him, to say nothing of the dozens of edited books, interviews, conferences, as well discussions in the popular media that show a palpable hostility to all things homeopathic). He is well-known as "the scourge of alternative medicine", a mantle he has not disputed when assigned in interview (The Independent, 22 April 2008) - one indeed he finds some delight in as multiple interviews and public statements suggest. He begins axiomatically with the declared conviction that " Homeopathic remedies are placebos and thus can be neither effective nor cost-effective", viewing that "Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine" [Baum & Ernst, Baum M, Ernst E (November 2009). "Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy?" Am. J. Med. 2009] and continues to reinforce his perspective of the axiomatic bankruptcy of homeopathy in further declaring that "To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine . . . is therefore not an option. We think that a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an open mind. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work . . . ", and even goes so far as to talk of conspiratorial influences, in explaining that "There are powerful organisations which attempt to mislead the public about this fact [that homeopathy cannot work]" [see for example "Is homeopathy value for money?" on the Edzard Ernst blog he maintains [http://edzardernst.com/2013/02/is-homeopathy-value-for-money/,14 Feb 2013. I will show below a variant of this axiomatic approach (namely "a denial of pedigree argument", wherein it is argued that since homeopathy is a placebo level intervention, any instance of an apparent efficacious homeopathic intervention must not be in fact homeopathic. (And by the bye, Paul is right that Dr. Ernst lectures in complimentary medicine, but I would add as does also the eminent David Sackett (and as do I and others), but David, like myself takes the evidence where he finds it and also like me and many other evidence-based researchers, goes where the evidence leads, absent ideologically or discursive preconception). Here, we have a divergence of approach and a specific disagreement of fact (see below), but Dr. Ernst, now retired, remains an exceptional and gifted medical professional, and as always, reasonable professionals can differ reasonably.

As to the review in question, it is not my intent here to offer a comprehensive critical appraisal, and I will focus solely on the one and only Cochrane Review I did cite [Kasssab et al., Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, updated 2010] of eight controlled trials of homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. It should be remembered that this systematic review / meta-analysis concluded in support of the efficacy of topical calendula for prophylaxis of acute dermatitis during radiotherapy and Traumeel S mouthwash in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. So what is Dr. Ernst objection? I'll take the case of Traumeel S but there is applicability to both agents. Dr. Ernst does not dispute the existence of "good evidence" (his words) - it is not disputable - for Traumeel S (based on the Israeli RCT from Menachem Oberbaum and colleagues at the Center of Integrated Complementary Medicine (Jerusalem) [Cancer 2001] but rather bases his rejection solely on the claim that "the two remedies supported by good evidence were not highly diluted" [Med J Aust 2010]. This claim is in error: Traumeel S (Traumeel) is a mixture of highly diluted (10(exponent:-1)-10(exponent:-9) extract of 12 botanical and two mineral substances, although not beyond Avogadro's number [see for example, Porozov et al., Clin Dev Immunol. 2004, among others, whose demonstration of Traumeel's inhibition of cytokine/chemokine secretion of IL-1beta and TNF-alpha provide a preclinically plausibly explanation of its observed anti-inflammatory activity; re the highly-diluted status of Traumeel, also Singer et al., BMC Clin Pharmacol 2010]. There is no requirement that the high dilution of homeopathic agents exceed Avogadro's number (some do some don't) to be considered highly diluted and Dr. Ernst himself in his own works acknowledges the range of homeopathic interventions to include highly diluted formulations. And I will also note that the efficacy of Traumeel S in the same population type (bone marrow transplantation patients) for the same application (mucositis) was subsequently confirmed by the São Paulo systematic review conducted by Patrícia Ferreira and colleagues [Acta Paul Enferm 2011] of 22 studies of 14 topical and systemic interventions for mucositis which found eight of these, including Traumeel S, having statistical significance for the reduction of mucositis. Despite therefore Dr. Ernst claims to the contrary, Traumeel S is both highly diluted homeopathic intervention and with robust evidence of efficacy.

Given the multiple sources of evidence I briefly marshaled above (only a sketch, as there is more that a fuller review could bring forward if absent space constraints) in my previous post (including the Cochrane Review cited in supportive oncology homeopathic interventions), the weight of the systematic reviewed and critically appraised evidence aggregated to date continues to support some clinically significant positive benefit from homeopathic interventions in an albeit small but non-trivial number of conditions and disorders. This in no ways lessens the absolute demand of demonstrable standards of robust evidence-based methodological rigor for any proffered claims of efficacy - and safety, I need add - for homeopathic interventions, a level of methodological integrity that regrettably has been only rarely in evidence in the homeopathic literature (although unfortunately not always in evidence even in traditional medicine), and my plea for a non-axiomatic openness to what the evidence determines and where the evidence leads us, taken as we find it without barriers of preconception, remains.

I again thank Paul, and Ahmedani who introduced this important theme, along with the many wise observations in the contributions above, for a high-quality dissection of the many complex and nuanced issues associated with homeopathy.

Constantine Kaniklidis

Director of Medical Research,

No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation (NSBCF)

European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)

Thanks for that comprehensive response Constantine. This is greatly appreciated by me.

Paolo wrote >.

To which I replied;

I am quite open to the idea that supposedly subclinical dilutions of some substances might have subtle effects on nervous function, might interact with cytokines and modulate immune function, etc etc.

I am skeptical in the extreme of assertions that any isolated studies of a possible therapeutic effect from possibly homeopathic solutions vindicate the entire corpus of homoepathic theory and practice.

I am not oppossed to CAM. Willow bark was used in folk medicine for thousands of years before anyone knew what salicylic acid or aspirin were. Ma Huang was a TCM for thousands of years beofore anyone isolated ephedrine. Poppys are one of the oldest cutivated plants on earth, largely due to their pharmacological, not their nutritional, benefits. This does not mean that the various pre-scientific theories different cultures developed to expalin the therpauetic effects of these herbs are the best or most useful explanation of their action.

I would respectfully suggest that claiming Hahnemann's theories are the best explanation for any positive effects homeopathy patients may report is doing a diservice to scientifc method, and quite likely to be actually detering sound research into whatever is really happening when people report benefits from this type of treatment.

Cheers again for the links you have provided.

Regards,

Paul.

Dear Ahmedani,

one of an possible explanation is finding in this study:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491610000548

I agree with the study of Paolo:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570304/

I think not all kind of diseases can treat by homeopathy and actually all explanations are thesis. But, these findings are a first step, because now we know there are particals. Before that everyone said, there are nothing (material), which is the cause of an possible effect.

It´s perhaps the beginning to understand homeopathy.

Best Regards

Jens

Hi Jens,

Thanks for your comments.

However, I'd suggets that if these studies can be replicated, it won't be the "beginning of understanding homeopathy", because classical homeopathy is just a folk remedy method that Hahnemann developed, and then created unevidenced theories to jusitfy. Homeopathy, as originated by Hahnemenn, is a non- or pre-scientific belief systemn, not a body of scientific knowledge. A scientific viewpoint will incorporate new evidence as it emerges. A belief systemn will continue asserting the same dogma regardless.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee28/CMKDMartin/religionvsscience.jpg

.

In my experience Homeopathy advocates are not that great at assimilating new and conflicting data.

To the specific article-

If ( and this is still a very big, totally unconfirmed if) nanoparticles can have this kind of effect in some circumstances, then studies that demonstrate this will open up all sorts of research. But they are very unlikely to challenge mainstream science, or to vindicate homeopathy, simply because the core tenants of homeopathy were invented and written down by one man based on his own subjective observations, intuitions and/or preconceptions about two hundred years ago, and have not changed to accomodate the incredible proliferation of scientific knowledge since. Science, on the other hand, will happily and voraciousley consume any new insights that homeopathy practitioners can manage to demonstrate in a consistent and objective fashion.

Thinking that these studies might help us to "understand homeopathy" is a bit like thinking that the Biblical flood is confirmed by this paper; http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/657397?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101911394077

And indeed some people do exciitedly seize on anything that they think confirms their preconceptions;

Ross, Dr. Hugh, Lost Civilization beneath the Persian Gulf Confirms Genesis History of Humanity, http://www.reasons.org/articles/lost-civilization-beneath-the-persian-gulf-confirms-genesis-history-of-humanity

Sanford, Ward E. (1999), Thoughts on Eden, the Flood, and the Persian Gulf, http://www2.wheaton.edu/ACG/news/news0701.html,

If these studies can be reliably repeated, AND if it can be demonstrated that these particles have a therapeutic effect ( and please acknowledge that neither the paper you link to, or Paolo's study, actually show any clinical effect whatsoever of the detected nano-particles) then this will demonstrate that some particles with a critical length scale of under 100nm can interact with the nervous systemn in unsuspected ways, or can induce or inhibit hormonal or cytokine responses. This will be very exciting, and almost certainly open up whole new realms of research, but it won't confirm Hahnemenn's theories, or help us to "understand homeopathy". It will just help us to understand life. That's medical research.

The bottom line, really, is that even if nanoparticles have been found in homeopathic remedies, the remedies they were allegedly found in have not been demonstrated to have any therapeutic effect. I'm sure there are nanoparticles in the breakfast cerael I eat every day. So what?

I am not trying to be offensive, and I hope you do not interpret my words as being confrontational or oppositional. I am open to evidence of things I don't expect. I do want to encourage dispassionate critical thinking and respect for the scientific method.

However, before you get too exicted by that article, perhaps you should read this response to it;

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathy-and-nanoparticles/

.

Paul.

This author is VERY sarcastic, but I think you should read this article (titled "respectful insolence") anyway, because the scientific critique of the paper (the one you have linked to) is as sound as the pound...

>

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/18/measuring-contaminants-and-concluding-th/

.

Respectfully yours,

Paul.

Hello Paul,

I should specify my answer.

The study of metal nanoparticles said nothing about organic or herbal homeopathic drugs. Also nothing about clinical benefit or treatment effects. They only find some nanoparticles.

I understand the critic. I said its a first step, perhaps of hundred or thousand steps to explain homeopathy, if there are something to explain. The problem of the studies in the past are, they had no idea of the mechanism, which can be the base. Now perhaps we have an idea. So next steps in my opinion must be, repeat the study with this metals, test also air, and also test how many aurum is in the cupper drug and so. Also, test the manufactoring of it. If you get the same result, take other drugs like herbals and organics and look, what kind of nanoparticles do you find their. And then take drugs with nanparticles and try it in studies to treat people.

I don´t think, that all things of the organon are right. Hahnemann couldn´t know the mechanism, he saw something and generalize. Perhaps he generalize too much. so it can be, the possibility, that in some drugs you have this mechanism and some other drugs are "placebo". Also the different concentrations can be part of it, because of the shaking, its not a good method, to get a homogenic concentration in all drugs, also not homogenic for nanoparticles. But yes, the technic is very old. So perhaps now we can transform it to a better way. This happened with other drugs and medicine technics, too.

So, I think, perhaps we have the possibility, to explain "the potency" of high dilution. But we need more studies to be sure.

Best regards

Jens

Hi Jens,

I agree that some homepathic medicines almost certainly produce no effect beyond placebo. And I agree that some may actually produce an effect because they contain ingredients in active doses, despite the dilution. This basically means that homeopathy doesn't appear to do anything that waving a crystal over someone can do, (if by the word "homeopathy" we mean the whole theory and praxis developed by Hahnemann).

As you suggest, perhaps Hahnemann DID observe something and then developed his erroneous theory to explain those observations, leading him to base his systemn on his theory, not on his actual observations.

But a simpler explanation would be that perhaps he made up his theory and practices, and then only saw the things that seemed to confirm his theory. Writing long before modern statistics and epidemiology were developed, this would not be his fault.

The Roman physician Galen wrote of one of his medicines, back in the first centruy a.d.-

“All who drink of this remedy recover in a short time, except those whom it does not help, who all die. Therefore it is obvious that it fails only in incurable cases.”

Galen thought it self-evident that his remedy was effective, and would save any patient that could be saved.

Yet he never considered the possibility that his remedy did nothing, and that those patients who recovered might have done so without taking the medicine at all ("return-to-the-mean").

Nor did he consider another interpretation; perhaps some (or all) of the patients who died would also have recovered without treatment, and Galen's remedy was actually poisoning people.

Without a control group, and without independent evaluation, we are all subject to this kind of selection bias, where we take note of any data that marignally supports our preconceptions, and blind ourselves to alternative explanations.

"We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are." ~ The Talmud

"Do not seek the truth. Simply try to stop cherishing your opinons."

Jianzhi Sengcan (or Seng-Ts'an, or Sosan) 3rd Patriarch of the Zen school of Buddhism, ~600AD.

Zen teachers say that seeking truth can be a game, complete with a new identity as a truth-seeker, fueled by new ideas and beliefs. But ceasing to cherish illusions is no game; it’s a gritty and intimate form of deconstructing yourself down to nothing. Get rid of all of your illusions and what’s left is the truth. You don’t find truth as much as you stumble upon it when you have cast away your illusions.

Sorry to depart into what is ussually viewed as mysticism, but this attitude is really the essence of the modern scientific method.

“Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves”. Richard Feynam.

So, with that in mind, re-read the paper which identifies nano-particles of metals in homeopathic soloutions, with Occam's razor in your hand.

As the particles identified;

A- Haven't been demonstrated to have any clinical effect for good or ill,

and as

B- Their controls were laboratory quality distilled water, that had been filtered through sub-micron filter membranes and de-ionised.

and as

C- Their "active" samples were purchased from commercial manufacturers

which hypothesis is more likely-

1- That the nano-particles of metals were "bound" into the water by the process of succusion, (in some way that is not understood), and that this unconfirmed result might be the missing link to explain the (as yet unproven) effects of homeopathic solutions?

or

2- That the metals were simply trace contaminants in the water that the manufacturers used?

Paul.

>

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/18/measuring-contaminants-and-concluding-th/

Wow.

I've never had someone "vote down" my answers before, and now it's happened to every one of my answers in this one discussion. (And they haven't even posted here to tell me what is wrong with my answers, or engaged with the content of any of the critical papers I've linked to).

I am not trying to be offensive, and I hope no-one interprets my words as being confrontational or oppositional. I am open to evidence of things I don't expect. I do want to encourage dispassionate critical thinking and respect for the scientific method.

Have a nice day folks,

Paul.

At the risk of accrueing a bunch of negative votes myself I'm going to be quite blatent here.

I do not think that homeoapathy works above placebo. Not because I am against homeopathy or because I'm against the idea of testing homeopathy in fair trials against other treatments but because the prevailing scientific evidence proves that homeopathy doesnt work above placebo. Paul Dessauer has given very comprehensive answers to explain why this is the case and many RCT's and systematic reviews confirm that homeopathy is only as effective as placebo.

What shocks me here is how many so called medical professionals who should have been trained in the principles of evidence based medicine have bought into this homeopathic garbage. I think if you have to invoke quantum mechanics to explain why a treatment may or may not work then you have to have a really long hard look at why you still believe in that treatment option. I use the word believe here because to me homeopathy is like a religion in that inspite or the prevailing sound scientific evidence homeopaths still hold onto their beliefs in their "treatments". Scientists and true medical professionals will let go of a belief in a treatment or a theory when the balance of scientific evidence tips against it. No matter what evidence is presented, homeopaths will never let go and they start pursueing other more rediculous theories each one more rediculous than the next.

For instance stating that water has a memory of the compound that was disolved in it but now no longer exists there and the remenant energy somehow confers a medical benefit. Well if water has memory and I drink a glass of water why am I not imbued with all the negative energy of all the rectal columns that that water has passed through? All water on earth has been recycled and therefore every glass of water will contain water molecules that were at one time or another inside a rectal column - or in a sewage plant.

But wait every homeopathic practicioner will tell you that they have hoards of satisfied customers. If you practice homeoapthy and your deluded patients tell you that your reccomended "treatment" has cured them - thats not evidence that is anecdote. Anecdotes are not enough to change medical opinion because they aren't fair tests. Additionally you as a practicioner will probably only take note of those individuals that keep coming back and giving positive comments. Its simply human nature to be polite and positive. The ones that didn't have a good treatment either won't come back or will be too polite to tell you to your face that it didn't work. And why you may ask do your customers seem satisfied - the placebo effect and return to the mean. Plus they are paying you a rediculous amount of money to listen to their woe's and worries and they leave feeling valued and listened to. Something real doctors don't always have the time to do.

Personally I think homeopaths can offer some benefits because they have the time to listen to people and to make them feel valued and listened to. Something that real medicine could learn from. But homeopahts should be honest with themselves and stop selling pseudo-science. By all means provide council for your customers give them an ear to listen to and when you eventually give them a treatment just tell them they are taking nothing but sugar pills but the act of taking sugar pills can in itself help. Stop buying into pseudoscience and start selling honesty - I bet it will work just as effectively.

A scientific viewpoint will incorporate new evidence as it emerges. A belief systemn will continue asserting the same dogma regardless.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee28/CMKDMartin/religionvsscience.jpg

.

Q1. Is Homeopathy scientific?

The Roman physician Galen wrote of one of his medicines, back in the first centruy a.d.-

“All who drink of this remedy recover in a short time, except those whom it does not help, who all die. Therefore it is obvious that it fails only in incurable cases.”

Galen thought it self-evident that his remedy was effective, and would save any patient that could be saved.

Yet he never considered the possibility that his remedy did nothing, and that those patients who recovered might have done so without taking the medicine at all ("return-to-the-mean").

Nor did he consider another interpretation; perhaps some (or all) of the patients who died would also have recovered without treatment, and Galen's remedy was actually poisoning people.

Without a control group, and without independent evaluation, we are all subject to this kind of selection bias, where we take note of any data that marignally supports our preconceptions, and blind ourselves to alternative explanations.

"We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are." ~ The Talmud

"Do not seek the truth. Simply try to stop cherishing your opinons."

Jianzhi Sengcan (or Seng-Ts'an, or Sosan) 3rd Patriarch of the Zen school of Buddhism, ~600AD.

Zen teachers say that seeking truth can be a game, complete with a new identity as a truth-seeker, fueled by new ideas and beliefs. But ceasing to cherish illusions is no game; it’s a gritty and intimate form of deconstructing yourself down to nothing. Get rid of all of your illusions and what’s left is the truth. You don’t find truth as much as you stumble upon it when you have cast away your illusions.

(Sorry to depart into what is usually viewed as mysticism, but this attitude is really the essence of the modern scientific method).

Q2. If you are confronted or offended by the posts that David or I have made (above) please explain why?

“Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves”. Richard Feynam.

Paul.

Oh my! Nano particles! Really? Did any one look at my post that 1/3 drop dissolved in all the water on earth is only 13C? Hanemann recommended 30C which makes the discussion about nano particles absurd. Our finite minds can't grasp dilutions of this magnitude. The dilution of homeopathic preparations is to the point where none of the original substance is in the final product. For those of you that believe in homeopathy, the material in the original substance is not part of the effect, that option is not open to you. The effect needs to be explained in some other manner.

Hi Larry,

You write; >

At least 5 people did. But one of them voted it down...

Paul.

I am literally amazed of how to falsify such concepts and scientific evidence! Homeopathy is plausible and scientifically proven. It is not true that "there is nothing inside", this is a popular view but false for two reasons: the first is that the majority of homeopathic medicines contain molecular doses of active ingredients because the dilutions are low, the second reason is that there is much evidence that even highly diluted medicines have special chemical and physical properties of solutes which render plausible the permanence of information biologically active. In the face of so much prejudice and ignorance in the face of this argument, someone like me who has devoted many years to the serious and rigorous research in this area is uncertain whether it is worth continuing to argue with people who think in slogans or worse only in according to their own prejudices.

Hi Larry, hi David,

I think, we have some trends here to see or to interpret homeopathy.

First, you can say: the Organon is the homeopathy. Okay, now you can like all things in it or be questioning. Second, you can say, homeopathy is a method, with its roots at the organon, but with a development in our knowledge.

I prefer the second view. Nothing in medicine from the 19th century is today the same. Today chinese look to europe and to america to learn something about acupuncture. And today acupuncture or tcm (some methods of it) is part of the conventional medicine because we know something about where it works and why (not all).

What I can´t like in science is the thing too say: That can´t be. -> This is religion!

Everything is possible, but you can´t say it for all things definitely. And now, we can´t say it definitely for homeopathy.

Now to your answers: Yes, in the organon you have to solve in a lot. And if you solve it really, there can´t be something in it. Only a little bit "energy" perhaps. But you don´t solve it really, because you have rules to solve it. To shake it on leather in one direction. So it can be, that you don´t solve and mix it consistent. And so you get more parts in the next "solution".

What can be the conclusion of that:

First: the traditional homeopathy perhaps don´t work, if you really solve it

Second: perhaps Hahnemann find out, that nano particles have an effect

Third: If you want to have homeopathy that works, you don´t have to produce with the rules of the organon, you should produce and research with nano particles.

All of that is a big PERHAPS. That´s it, if nano particles are the answer. Perhaps we have energy or perhaps there is no system. I don´t know. But you can´t say it is NOTHING, today. That´s the difference, I think, that we, scientists, often forget this in our discussion.

I attended this amazing debate about homeopathy. Sincerely, I only believe on the possibility that liquid water may have some puzzling and still hidden property able to compel research to review and reappraise some concepts about solution chemistry and, possibly, some fundamental chemical-physical laws in cell biology. However, yet an hypothesis. In many of my papers, some of which in press forthcoming, I frequently criticized the intrinsic difficulty of homeopaths to approach with hard science; they are used to fly off quite aghast from a fair debate about solution chemistry, from Avogadro’s-Loschmidt’s constant role in physics, from an excellent research on the possibility that water may be informed, at leat according their suggestion. Ideas in science are always welcome but they need to be experimentally addressed. Homeopaths still employ concepts and methods rising to the Middle Ages, sometimes they introduce concepts from modern physics without any serious demonstration. In the meanwhile, homeopathic remedies are sold….

Calcium ions have many vital roles in the living body, including the support to cognitive and affective processes in the brain. They operate on water solutions guided by proteins (please read Mentré P (2012) Water in the orchestration of the cell machinery. Some misunderstandings: a short review. J Biol Phys 38:13–26). Changes in water configurations may affect the actions of calcium ions. Aditionally, these ions are ruled by the laws of quantum theory and may get entangled (there is no proof that isolation or cooling is needed for entanglement). This would be a theoretical basis for homeopathy, but - of course - it is not a proof that homeopathy is efficient.

Thank you very much Alfredo for your precious suggestion. I got the article. Very interesting.

Thanks again

Salvatore

Very recently, some people from Italy are in an uproar and gnashing of teeth because of the cumbersome ethical issue if parents of children with heavy wasting pathology, often caused by genetics or congenital defects, do have right to access to cure with stem cells according to the Stamina method. This occurrence strongly recalls the “Di Bella case” for alternative cancer therapy and raises de facto the big concern of people’s freedom in choosing the way to cure themselves and their dearest siblings. The bioethics of this issue involves the role of medicine in public health and raises questions about those related responsabilities called in ensuring and warranting both safety and helthspan for every citizen. If any free choice performed by a single may have repercussions on the community, ethics and politics in public health must intervene.

As in the case of the Di Bella’s approach, which showed a recent revival, yet people are anthropologically bewitched by whatsoever occurs as a minority outcry. A modern society funded on civil rights, more than civil duties, awaits for anyone can fulfil his expectation, even when most of people should express a forthright disagreement. The misunderstanding pertains exclusively to cultural beliefs. Thinking according to the majority might be considered not merely a mature standpoint of the modern civilization but an hallmark of the ethical, financial or political establishment, which, in turn, is prompted to limit one’s own freedom. This behaviour, and a more general opinion about, is built by people being informed collectively through press and mass media and by too expanded debates involving non experts, who often express their opinions on personal convinctions and generally accepted points of view, not necessarily based on the scientific ground. In a scanty populated or quite desert field of experimental and clinical evidence, amounting to less than 1.0%, homeopathy addresses its strenght on being a neglected minority within medical science, thus eliciting people to take up arms for freedom, i.e. freedom of health care, freedom of scientific investigation. Most of the crowded debates within homeopathy are related to these facts and considerations. Homeopathy stakes most of its success on modern people’s anthropological attitude. Sugar globuli sustain indirectly the expectation of a soft, sweet, natural medicine, a specular transposition of the same idea of health. The brief message is that while taking harmless sugar to care yoursef, sugar that contain the promise of a recovery, you are merely taking a bright hope on you, you are taking merely the simple expectation to solve your trouble. The psychological landscape appears to be the only ground on which people make their decision about health when information is shallow and is of the utmost importance during a dramatic challenge with the so-called “last chance”. As a consequence, people are rarely inclined to accept a polite, thorough and refined overview of the problem and its related solutions, involving science, when they are holding on tightly in defeating their rights, especially if concerning health, life, death and free thinking. Broadly speaking this is an ethical standpoint to restart for the building of a constructive debate but it needs fundamentally that scientific research gives its answer without shallow and slovenly attempts and that press be more cautious in maddening a civil discussion. This asks for a deep renewal in the way with which the scientific debate about homeopathy must be expanded to public.

Correct information about the nature of homeopathic medicine deserves, therefore, particular attention. While the suggestion to describe a synthetic, summarizing pathway to the final product on labeling is a possible solution, this finds much criticism among homeopaths, who claim the respect to the traditional Hahnemann’s procedure but a more convincing reason of their disagreement could be the impact of labeling on the placebo effect. Furthermore, homeopathic medicine want not to be considered a subgroup of herbal medicine but most of practitioners do not succeed in distinguishing each other during their expertise and consultation. These facts lead to the conclusion that homeopathic medicine are not clearly identified on the ground of health practice and, in this sense, behave as like as illegal immigrants in a foreign country, an issue that raises bioethical concern and asks for an urgent thorough review by experts and politicians.

Dear Prof Kumar, I am fully in agreement with your comment. Whatever is coming from hard science and regards water structure and/or water anomalies, is welcome to discuss about the fascinating hypothesis that liquid water may bear a complex information, including biological, aside from molecular mass. This would open a window on the odd landscape of homeopathy. Yet it cannot explain homeopathy. The chemical and molecular origin of life shed a light on the model about a living form possibly existing elsewhere in the Universe, but it cannot be used to demonstrate tout court the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

I will read your papers: you intrigued me.

Scientist can describe GRAVITY in great details but what gravity is remains elusive , so why denounce homeopathy if our present knowledge fails to understand how it works . The greatest evidence homeopathy works is clinical and not sponsored research .Homeopathic treatment of animals is the most positive proof that it works defying placebo effect ( no published work to prove placebo effect in animals ) !All sceptics are cordially invited to my clinic and watch how large and small animals are cured with minute doses of homeo drugs which conventional medicine could not !

Using rigorous laboratory studies we and others definitely demonstrated that homeopathic medicines have pharmacologic activities different from placebos. End of placebo story. Of course, CLINICAL demonstration of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments (in humans, animals, and plants) is an enterprise which is still at its beginning. Suitable methods should be used and much more research of good quality should be published to trace the borders of the practical utility of homeopathy. Given the rationale of similia principle and the emerging develpments in physics and chemistry, the promises are enormous for mankind.

The papers which Bellavite refers to are represented solely by an in vitro experimental report of mine (Chirumbolo et al Inflamm Res 2008) and the group of tesearch papers on behavioural models in mice. A huge bulk of criticism followed the latter, due to numerous bias and misleading interpretation of the results. The sentence "end of placebo story" is unappropriate in a context where Bellavite never published any RCT on reliable IF Journals. Homeopathy is a big hoax since its mechanism in clinics is undoubtfully demonstrated. In vitro studies are interesting issues for a debate but they do not represent EBM.

Redundant criticisms came or were inspired by the same person, in any case were shown to be incorrect and falsified. Homeopathy is not a placebo. End of the story and end of my participation to this hoaxed discussion. Best regards and wishes for the new year!

Criticism was raised also by L Cervo and V Torri from the Mario Negri Institute of Pharmacological Science on Psychopharmacology (2011). Therefore, to which story Bellavite wishes for an end? His story? Or simply the end of this year?

There is anything like between the "Stamina case" and the high and mighty behaviour towards the scientific community shown by some "excellent" homeopaths: refusing the experimental "end of the story". Their strenght is represented by the sentimental claim expressed from presumptive healed people, who grows up likewise those crowds crying about a miracle. Where is science? Within comics? Homeopaths spend their best time to collect opinions, reviews, commentaries, overviews, interviews, odd and unusual theories, debates: none about reliable and reproducible experiments. Oscillococcimum is a clear example of this opinion of mine. In the attached Table an evaluation of papers from Bellavite's personal website dealing with homeopathy throughout 20 years of activity. Most of the experimental papers were published on niche journals with IF < 3.0-4.0

Which is more RELIABLE hypothetical experiments or cure of naturally sick animals ? one should come and see how they are cured and reproduce back at home , and if it fails i come come and do it !

Australian Veterinary Association board resolution, 2012, declares Homeopathy "ineffective" ;

http://www.ava.com.au/12057

.

AVMA Resolution:

“Homeopathy has been identified as an ineffective practice and its use is discouraged.”

>

http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Resolution3_2013_Homeopathy_Attch1.pdf

..

Discussion;

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/age-of-endarkenment/

.

Regards,

Paul.

Thanks Dear Paul for your contribution. When we discuss homeopathy there erupts confusion because both supporter as well those opposing homeopathy are highly qualified, intelligent, experienced and learned scholars. I think time has come to solve this mystery. If this is a valid and authenticated mode of treatment, then it should be promoted across the globe with history of its proven success. I am sure resolution made by the Australian Veterinary Association board is based on some solid grounds, research and experimentation. Unfortunately my personal experiences with homeopathic treatment pushes me to favor the resolution.

Suresh:

When you say "the reductionist and mechanistic frame widely accepted by consensus in science," "reductionist frame of materialistic models and its physicalism," "current physical models and materialistically reductonist approaches in scinentific practice," and "a reductionist frame of materialistic models," do you mean that you don't like science because it doesn't uncritically accept faith-based concepts like spirits, mysterious and undetectable energy, and magic? If not, then what is being "reduced" or oversimplified, and by who? I see in most branches of science today an increasing tendency toward the recognition and the study of the complexity of all sorts of systems.

How ultra dilution of homeopathy works is yet to be explored but it's result can be perceived on sickness !Drugs which fit in this criteria concern more to healer and patient rather then how it works .Let A V A / A V M A say what they think or find right but all sceptic are invited to come to my clinic and see how known and even new diseases not yet classified in terms of aetiology and prescribed treatment are treated successfully with Homeopathy .

Hi Prem,

>

Out of curiosity, what "new diseases" unknown to medicine do you claim to be diagnosing and treating?

>>

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_homeopathy

.

.

The results attributed to homeopathy are easily explained in terms of the placebo effect and return-to-the-mean.

The perceptions of a patient or a "healer" are subjective and unreliable, when compared to peer-reviewed scientific research.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967177-2/abstract

.

Good discussion here;

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/the-lancet-benefits-and-risks-of-homoeopathy/

.

and here;

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/fun-with-homeopaths-and-meta-analyses-of-homeopathy-trials/

.

Regards,

Paul.

Dear Paul,

thank you very much for your answer. In my opinion, placebo is only one of the possibility to explain when (and if) an homeopathic medicine does work, actually. No RCTs dissected the placebo effect by a neuroendocrine or neuro-immuno-endocrine investigation, aside from blinded controls. The issue is puzzling. Controlled blinded trials should avoid the bias due to a placebo effect, actually the only positive effect in high IF journals referred to low potencies, namely herbal mixture containing ponderal doses of the homeopathic medicine. Conversely, the placebo effect was never assessed in any of these reports. Therefore, I think seriously that, while lacking a rigorous scientific evidence about the mechanism by which homeopathy would work, its tenet and demonstration is grounded merely on hypotheses and empiricism, thus placebo has to be interpreted as a "psychological impression", possibly to be falsified, that healing depended on the diluted water. My apologies for the sarcasm but within more than 4800 reports on Pubmed, more than 80% are opinions, discussions, reviews, interviews. "You're nothing but a lot of talk and badge!!", the famous phrase by Al Capone (R. De Niro) on "The Untouchables".... A lot of talk...surely.

Hi Salvatore,

Nice "untouchables" quote.

Medical treatments require data, not anecdote, to demonstrate their efficacy. When Prem says all I have to do is visit his clinic to see results, he is not offering scientific evidence. In my opinion (to quote the same movie) he is "bringing a knife to a gun fight", (and it is a toy rubber knife at that).

I agree that some allegedly homeopathic preparations do have a demonstrable, reproducible effect, simply because some products labelled as homeopathic medicines actually contain active ingredients. (It is only once you get to 26X (aka 13C) dilution, that you are guaranteed that there will be NO active ingredient left in the homeopathic product. Quite a number of products that are labelled as homeopathic have 2X or 10X remedies in them. They still contain active ingredients).

Furthermore, due to poor regulation of production, some products labelled and marketed as homeopathic contain active (medical) doses of pharmaceuticals that do not appear on the label.

In neither instance is such a medication a vindication of homeopathic theory.

Regards,

Paul.

Hi Paul

The animal continues to bloat due to subcutaneous infiltration of air , where from -?certainly not from lungs no pneumo-thorax ,no history of injection , incision , rumen puncture .animal feeds and drink normally but goes on bloating .Surprisingly does not respond to antibiotic , steroids and when multiple incision are given to release air dies due to secondary infection .kindly enlighten me - name of disease , aetiology ,

and prescribed treatment .

memory of water is not my botheration i leave it to super researchers my goal is cure and i invite non believers to witness it .What scientific evidence you expect in a clinic ?

Further are you sure animals have placebo effect ,if it be so please cite it .

"A post antibiotic era means , in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it " said Margret chan while addressing a meeting of infectious disease expert in Copenhagen .She said every antibiotic ever developed was at risk of becoming useless .( March 2012 )

" each year in united states 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infection ." Antibiotic / antimicrobial resistance threat report 2013 -Center for disease control and prevention U.S.A.

A 1998 report published in journal of A.M.A.reported that in 1994 ,adverse drug reaction accounted for more than 2.2 million serious cases and over 1,00,000 deaths , making a.d.r. one of the leading cause of hospitalization and death in United States.

Paul i think you will agree all these drugs must have under gone the rigorous ritual

of peer reviewed P.C.D.B. C.T. !

Drugs used by Hanneman some 200 years back are still as effective as during his days !

Dear Colleague, as homeopathy goes back to about two centuries ago, can you provide us how many people suffered and died from infectious and inflammatory diseases while they were waiting for antibiotics and anti-viral medicines? A good opportunity for you might be coming back to the eighteen century and renew your georgeous clinic with homeopathy to care tubercolosis or other bacterial diseases...how many children you should be able to save? My best wishes....

Hi Chirumblo,

Sure i save more animals suffering from tuberculosis and infectious diseases then my colleagues practicing evidence based medicine.More than 40% of my cases are those which defy antibiotic treatment and i treat them with the same drugs used by Hanneman some 200 years back . Apparently he must have done better than what i do today . One does not need a mirror to see bangle on wrist come and see and than have your say . With regards

Dear Suresh,

there are only few but meaningful criticisms in homeopathy: a) homeopathy yet remains a niche in medicine although its wondrous success shown just before the discovery of antibiotics, sulphas and anti-viral medicines; b) symptoms from people suffering from homeopathy are misinterpreted with the similia effect, this suggests that there is no current scientific review of the Hahnemann's Materia Medica and experimental provings did not elicit any scientific report on Medline, Scopus or other; c) the pharmacological tenet of homeopathy must address the evidence that dilutions into water might reach an asymptotic behaviour; d) plant, mineral or animal raw sources contain a complex mixture of components that are quite never chemically quantified and characterized, before entering the public market; e) labeling lacking of any safety informations about the chemical nature, amount and composition of the homeopathic medicine; f) any molecule is chemically active and shows a linear behaviour only below 1 attomolar, according to the law of mass action (see Gurevich et at, 2003), so suggesting that homeopathy is effecacious only under 6cH-7cH, namely a herbal medicine (see Csupor et al, 2013).

When homeopathy will address rigorously these bullet points, I will care myself with the activated water.

Regards

Hi Prem,

There are a number of antibiotics that strains of bacteria have developed resistance to, partly because these antibiotics have been overprescribed in human medicine, but also mostly because they have been massively overprescribed in veterinary medicine (especially in factory farming of chickens, cattle and pigs). That's evolution.

.

The funny thing is, if we don't use a specific antibiotic for a few years, we are removing the selective pressure, and the resistance tends to disappear from the population of bacteria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702430/

.

That's also evolution (Baby).

Lets have a dance;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI

.

Paul.

Hi Suresh,

This sentence >

doesn't actually mean anything.

Likewise >

(medicine is a laggard? All grammatical and other typographical errors corrected by moi)

True scientific method expects claims to be backed by repeatable independent evaluation. Homeopathy repeatedly fails this test, performing no better than placebo.

Post modernism is just fine with me, in highly subjective fields like literature.

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

>

However in medicine, should I or someone I care about be seriously ill, I would prefer rigorous peer review, and population-based statistical analysis of treatment modalities, to inform my treatment options, not testimonials, anecdotes and mystical critiques of "crude physicalism" (sic).

Homeopathic treatment fails to satisfy any scientific evaluations of efficacy, and does not even met basic measures of scientific plausibility.

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp69.pdf

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

.

You are free to believe in, and to practice, any belief system you find pleasing. But you can't credibly claim that homeopathy has an evidence base to support it in the same way that evidence based medicine does.

There is a word for complementary and alternative medicine that can be proved to work. It's called "medicine".

Regards,

Paul.

Hi Paul ,

I do understand the bacterial resistance which is more due to sub-clinical doses notably from animal origin food rather than over prescribing .This is not a problem with homeo - drugs because they are not aimed to kill viruses or bacteria but to boost body's own defence mechanism ( immunity ) and infection is abated ,That is the reason why homeopathic drugs do not get obsolete even after 200 years of use ! Paul i shifted to homeopathy two decade back and homeo practice is the only source for my lively hood . Owner pay me because they get quick and better result vis-a vis allopathy .Life threatening infection where life or death is a matter of hours homeopathy wins . This no believe or not but hard core evidence which can witnessed in my clinic every day .

Oscillococcinum from Boiron elicited an interesting debate on European Journal of Internal Medicine. While I raised criticism about Oscillococcinum lacking any sound scientific evidence (1), a reply from P Bellavite and P Fisher turned the issue on personal comments about this writing author (2). who further replied expressing his disappointment for the total absence of convincing scientific argumentations (3). Conclusions were addressed by S Garattini and colleagues, from the Mario Negri Institute of Pharmacology (4), who dismissed the discussion stating that homeopathy cannot be even used as a placebo.

Without any evidence, Oscillococcinum is no more no less an hoax as stem cell therapy from Vannoni's Stamina Foundation.

(You can find the .pdf articles in my Research Gate)

REFERENCES

1. Chirumbolo S. Oscillococcinum®: Misunderstanding or biased interest? Eur J

Intern Med. 2013 Nov 13. pii: S0953-6205(13)00985-0. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.10.011

2. Bellavite P, Fisher P. Homeopathy: Where is the bias? Eur J Intern Med. 2014

Jan 13. pii: S0953-6205(13)01045-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2013.12.010

3. Chirumbolo S Reply to Paolo Bellavite. Eur J Intern Med 2014 Jan 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2013.12.008

4. Garattini S, Bertele' V, Banzi R. Homeopathy cannot even be used to replace

placebo. Eur J Intern Med. 2014 Jan 13. pii: S0953-6205(13)01040-6. doi:

10.1016/j.ejim.2013.12.007

I understand workers under reference are mostly teachers in university or research labs and perhaps never faced actual sickness ! Evidence can be misleading but clinical results are not because patient wants relief and then only pay .Do you or s Garattini mean I am a super cheat fooling people since last 20 years ?Please quote citations confirming placebo phenomena in animals. Rest when i hear from you .

Dear Prem Sethi,

a placebo effect was reported also for animals (McMillan, FD. The Placebo Effect in Animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 215(7): 992-9.). However, there exist researchers who took a stab at investigating behavioural science without any expertise in the field (Magnani P, Conforti A, Zanolin E, Marzotto M, Bellavite P. Dose-effect study of Gelsemium sempervirens in high dilutions on anxiety-related responses in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010 Jul;210(4):533-45). the fact is that, as human beings, we are grossly thinking that animals may be administered with homeopathic medicine as fully "neutral" boxes lacking any artifactual bias due to ethological causes. Funny. We are fully unable to focus onto the olfactive perception of operators while approacing to animals, and they are quite more sensitive to non verbal signs expressed from the human (see dogs for example...). Homeopaths risk to be considered quite dupe individuals in their consideration about the absence of any "placebo or nocebo" effect while treating animals (mammals) with homeopathy.

Sorry, this is my opinion (Chirumbolo S. Plant-derived extracts in the neuroscience of anxiety on animal models: biases and comments. Int J Neurosci. 2012 Apr;122(4):177-88).

Dear Salvatore

"Although data supporting placebo response in animals is important , the conclusion that the healing or a real therapeutic effect can be consistently induced ( even ) as a conditioned response can not yet be made "

" Identifying placebo effect in veterinary medical studies is problematic .To the author's knowledge studies specifically examining the placebo effect in therapeutic trials have not been reported "

Franklin D MacMillan , JAVMA Vol 215 , No7 , Oct 1 1999

Sir , my shots are not conditioned but certain .I never make a clinical examination of the patient . Moreover the medicine is given per os mixed with feed !

regards

Dear Prem

"Although data supporting placebo response in animals is important , the conclusion that the healing or a real therapeutic effect can be consistently induced ( even ) as a conditioned response can not yet be made..." Sure. Likewise the difficulty to reach such a conclusion like this, you cannot get the conclusion that homeopathy works without any, though supposed, interfering factor caused by ethological issues in animals...

Cheers

Salvatore

Dear Salvatro

So you agree there is no conclusive evidence to prove placebo effect in animals .As i said people pay me because i give them result so where from it comes ...sure not from thin air but intervention of homeo drugs only ! I understand you are not a practicing vet . but you must be having a friendly vet . Ask his experience about treating acute ( staphlo. ) mastitis and i send you the medicine . Witness result , cheer , and inform me .

Dear Prem,

ok. I wish to come along with you "trusting" in vet homeopathy. Then, collect your wondrous results and submit a paoer to a Veterinary Journal (non a niche journal on CAM) describing the evidence you are going to report (and which you are claiming in this blog).

This will be the occurrence where debating about the issue is not a pub chit chat....

Salvatore

"No one doubts—certainly not I—that the mind exercises a powerful influence over the body. From the beginning of time, the sorcerer, the interpreter of dreams, the fortune-teller, the charlatan, the quack, the wild medicine-man, the educated physician, the mesmerist, and the hypnotist have made use of the client's imagination to help them in their work. They have all recognized the potency and availability of that force. Physicians cure many patients with a bread pill; they know that where the disease is only a fancy, the patient's confidence in the doctor will make the bread pill effective"..

Mark Twain.

Hi Prem, You wrote; > The placebo effect is actually well-documented in animals. Gentle handling has a therapeutic effect, and conditioning can induce placebo effects even in non-human organisms, re Placebo effect in animals, see; http://thoreking.free.fr/zetetique/media/press/McMillan_ThePlaceboEffectInAnimals.pdf .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19912522 .

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/37/4/333.abstract .

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33468/title/Rats-Get-Placebo-Effect/ .

Excellent discussion here; http://thebark.com/content/dogs-and-placebo-effect . here; http://news.ufl.edu/2012/11/27/placebo-effect/ .

and here; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-there-a-placebo-effect-for-animals/ .

Placebo-effect-by-proxy is also a significant factor in veterinary medicine, and might explain much of "where from it comes"; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23113523 .

See this article for a comprehensive discussion; http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/11/caregiver-placebo-effects-new-study-shows-that-owners-and-vets-often-believe-an-ineffective-therapy-is-working-when-it-isnt/ .

Examples? Case reports of homeopathic treatment of animals, recorded by frustrated vets who practise evidence-based medicine; http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/case1.html .

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/case2.html .

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/case3.html . http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/case4.html .

Hi Suresh,

I am not a physicist but my understanding of subatomic physics is quite sufficient for me to confidently state that your post (above) is a rote recitation of laughably silly quantum-mystical-nonsense.

You said (above) that it is now "commonplace" for experts in their fields to say that there is no evidence to support the antiquated and non-scientific thinking underlying the theory and practice of homeopathy. You fail to acknowledge that this is because THERE IS NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OR PRACTICES OF HOMEOPATHY.

Saying something that you believe repeatedly does not make it true,, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Please supply some scientific evidence to support your assertions.

Alternatively, you could try to accept that there is no credible evidence to support your beliefs, and hopefully you will, as a result, desist from posting unsupported pseudoscientific gobbledygook on a site intended for serous scientific discussion.

Regards,

Paul.

Or we can all go out and read "The Secret" which is a popular book advocating that if we want something bad enough the whole Universe will respond and give it to us. Easy enough to believe when life is going well but puts blame on anyone who fails because they didn't want it bad enough. Quantum mechanics, frequencies of molecules vibrating in solutes beyond Avagadro's number are example of "an appeal to science" which is a advertising technique to sell something to the unsophisticated. It sounds very scientific so it must be true. It is also an example of Postmodernism which puts personal experience as more valid than knowledge. This has no place in the this website and I agree this conversation has gone on too long.

Hi Larry,

The Secret! Lol. Now all we need is for someone to start quoting Deepak Chopra.

Hell, we can actually randomly generate inspiring nonsensicality;

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

:-)

You'd better be careful though, Larry- someone might vote your answer down!

I've been on RG for more than 2 years, and have posted answers to various questions on more than 400 occasions. In all that time I have never been voted down except in this one discussion, where I have been voted down several times. It's quite revealing that who-ever has voted me down has not once responded to the content of the post that offends them, nor have they responded to the sources I have quoted, or the articles I have linked to.

I do not wish to offend you, dear down-voter(s), but this does seem to be indicative of a deeply closed mind and an inability to participate in a mature discussion.

Who-ever you are, dear down-voter(s), please reflect upon your conduct.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. None of us are entitled to our own facts. This is a site intended for serious researchers and practitioners to compare and share their findings, to bounce ideas off each other, and to help each other find credible sources of information. Most of us are here to learn.

If you are reluctant to encounter information that contradicts beliefs that you hold dear, and if you feel personally slighted or offended when presented with such information, perhaps you should decamp to some other social network where like-minded folk all agree with each-other and reinforce their preconceptions.

Muhammad started this thread with a simple question- he asked whether the theoretical basis of Homeopathy as described by Samuel Hahnemann was contrary to a modern scientific understanding of health and medicine.

Here is a concise answer to Muhammad's question, in three parts...

(1) In his 1803 essay "On the Effects of Coffee from Original Observations", Hahnemann claimed that many diseases are caused by coffee.

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; "...they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power (the vital principle) that animates the human body."

These mystical explanation of the aetiology of disparate diseases are indeed 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).

(2) 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.

(3) 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's_coffee_experiment )

Unless you can provide a reference or link to scientific evidence that supports the physical existence of what Hahnemann labelled 'psora" and "vital principle", you must acknowledge that the theoretical basis of homeopathy is un-scientific (or perhaps pre-scientific).

“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”

Friedrich Nietzsche.

“Science is just what we do to keep from lying to ourselves”.

Richard Feynam.

Kind regards,

Paul.