Highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos; that statement is by no means new and has been discussed here so many times that it hardly needs repeating. It follows that those who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, claim that such remedies are efficacious for any condition or symptom are misleading the public.
What, in the realm of homeopathy, could be worse?
The answer is fairly clear, I think: those who promote homeopathy for immunizations; i.e. those ‘experts’ who advocate HOMEOPROPHYLAXIS; they are clearly worse, much worse.
On this blog, I have repeatedly warned consumers of this nonsense (see for instance here, here, here, here and here), yet the Internet remains full of promotion of this dangerous quackery. Few charlatans are as despicable as the author of this recent article:
…Energy medicine is becoming more sought after and used. Homeopathy is one such form of energy medicine used by over 500 million people worldwide. Within homeopathy is the practice of a safe and natural disease prevention method called homeoprophylaxis, or “HP.”
HP involves the safe use of either diluted and potentized disease products or materials from animal, mineral, or vegetable sources to elicit an immune response in order to educate the immune system before encountering a disease. Due to the ultra-high dilution, the final product contains no molecules of the original source, rendering it completely harmless. It is energetic instead of material and operates by way of its frequency.
Energetic Medicine
This energetic frequency “educates” the immune system to recognize a disease when met in the environment and effectively mount an immune response in the most natural way. As Albert Einstein once said, “Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. This is not philosophy. This is physics.”
Just like cell phones receive a radio frequency, interpret it, and deliver it to the user in a form that can be understood, HP delivers the energetic spectrum of a targeted disease. The human body, just like the phone, is able to receive and respond to the energetic signature and produce a beneficial response.
This signature is delivered on tiny sugar pellets, by mouth, one disease at a time, and is devoid of adjuvents, preservatives, or antibiotics of any kind. It is not grown on foreign mediums, but contains only the frequency of the disease.
This is how illness occurs in nature. Pure and simple. The developing immune system contracts a disease, mounts an immune response, resolves the illness, and is left with lifelong immunity to a specific virus. No chemicals, no confusion, no system overload! HP confers all of the benefits with none of the risks…
Is HP for Me?
With any aspect of your health, or the health of your children, it’s essential to do your homework and carefully gather all the information you can before making choices. HP is not a “replacement” for vaccination. It is a conscious method to enhance immunity that employs energetic principles. Applications for epidemics and childhood diseases are based upon sound homeopathic principles and common sense. It is utilized and appreciated by many people around the world and shown to be safe and effective…
The time will come when we recognize that trying to eliminate disease is an infantile attempt to declare superiority over other lifeforms. The human body is 9/10ths bacteria, viruses, and other organisms that live symbiotically within us. Living in harmony with these organisms is the only answer to the survival of our species. HP honours this relationship. More people are finding it as they seek a better way…
END OF QUOTE
And here are the facts about HP:
- there is no reason why it should work; it is not biological plausible,
- there is no clinical evidence that it does work,
- the stories HP-fans tell us about epidemics where HP has been employed successfully are unconvincing nonsense,
- this means that HP is not evidence-based,
- to mislead people into thinking otherwise is criminally irresponsible, in my view,
- such bogus claims could cost the lives of millions, if HP truly became wide-spread.
I cannot think of anything in the realm of homeopathy that is more irresponsible than the promotion of HP.
219 Responses to Let’s be blunt: homeopathy is bogus – but homeoprophylaxis is worse, much worse!
Leave a Reply to Björn Geir Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thanks Ernst, I really enjoyed this. Some of my favourites: “sound homeopathic principles and common sense”. But this is the cherry on the cake: “The developing immune system contracts a disease, mounts an immune response, resolves the illness, and is left with lifelong immunity to a specific virus. No chemicals, no confusion, no system overload!”
No chemicals ? Antibodies, Cytokines, Cell signal proteins ? Yeah, no chemicals. There is no overload ? Tell that to the millions of victims of the spanish flu who died of a cytokine storm, which is a massive overload of the immune system.
I just picked this up (http://www.thestar.com.my/metro/community/2016/09/02/antivaccine-groups-on-the-rise-preventable-diseases-on-the-increase-for-children-in-malaysia-because/)
Malaysia Homeopathy Association Council President Zainul Azmi Ahmad said there is no such thing as homeopathy vaccination.
He said homeopathy is an alternative treatment and the medication provided can in no way replace the vaccinations provided by the Health Ministry.
Zainul said medical conditions that require surgery, acute conditions, as well as the prevention of contagious diseases, cannot be treated by a homeopath.
“There is no medication or product under homeopathy which is labelled as a vaccine, and if a homeopath insists there is such a vaccination, it is better to check out the background, and the qualification of that homeopath.
“Even in India where homeopathy is advanced, they have never claimed to have vaccinations.
Acoustic frequencies that propagate through fluids and solids, such as sound waves, propagate their energy in a quantized manner known as phonons.
Electromagnetic frequencies that self-propagate (even through a vacuum), such as radio waves and light waves, propagate their energy in a quantized manner known as photons.
We have a wide variety of extremely sensitive instruments for detecting phonons, photons, and gravitational waves that can easily detect frequencies in the range from nanohertz to zettahertz.
Frequencies of circa 700 terahertz (Ultraviolet A) and beyond have photon energies above 3 electronvolts (eV): classified as being definitely carcinogenic because 3 eV is more than sufficient energy to damage the molecular structure of DNA.
Given the above, it would be a trivial task to detect and quantify the energetic frequency or frequencies claimed to be deployed in “Energetic Medicine”. The reason why this has never been detected and quantified, by the plethora of proponents of energy-based medicine, is not because it cannot yet be detected and measured, it is because the proponents are pretending to know things that they don’t know in order to maximally exploit the vulnerable members of society. It is a thinly-disguised form of outright health fraud.
Retrieved from Wikipedia 2016-09-03: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
At least there’s no mention anywhere of ‘vibrations’.
Frank,
“This energetic frequency…” is referring to the frequency of the ‘vibrations’!
If, by any chance, you enjoy reading truly mind-warping levels of pseudoscience, anti-science, and magical thinking, then peek into the alternative-to-reality domain of modern radionics. Some of the machines are claimed to provide more than 10,000 ‘treatments’, which include:
Acupuncture
Allergies
Bioresonance Therapy
Color Therapy
Emotions
Flower Essences
Food Stuffs
Gem Stones
Homeopathy
Naturopathy
Organs
Subtle anatomy
Symptoms
Teeth
These machines are claimed to be able to project the treatment (that has been selected by the fully-trained radionics practitioner) to the intended patient; irrespective of the location within the universe that the patient happens to be at the time. This claim of “distant healing” [aka “absent healing”] is exactly the same core tenet of: distant reiki; faith healing; intercessory prayer; spiritual healing; et al.
A ‘good’ radionics machine costs circa 15,000 USD and it requires a digital image of each patient because: ‘the digital camera captured, and its digital image permanently stores, photons that are in bioresonance with the patient, therefore, the machine can establish a direct quantum link to the patient wherever they are located within space-time’.
http://skepdic.com/radionics.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery
@Pete Attkins
Yes, I know that, but in the usual pseudo-scientific diatribes that involve energies, the word ‘vibrations’ usually appears explicitly, and more than once. I was merely picking up on its absence in the nonsense in the OP.
I’m fascinated by the radionics machine (I’d not heard of it before). Distant healing, like ‘remote viewing’, is traditionally held to be the result of selected individuals’ unusual ability to send and receive ‘vibrations’ (as you pointed out, frequency always unspecified). If a mere machine can now do this, how much longer will we need a human being to intervene at any stage of the process? Surely AI software will soon take the place of ‘the fully trained radionics practitioner’ and we can expunge the gurus entirely from the healing process?
People with special sensitivities, unique knowledge of ‘energies’ that pass from healer to healee (our reiki friend Len Thomas springs to mind) must be having sleepless nights at the prospect of radionics machines.
Indeed. Typical absurdity, using something they don’t understand in the least – cell phone technology – to promote the use of something else they don’t understand in the least – homeopathy (let’s be clear, homepaths don’t understand how homeopathy “works”, nor do they care to – they simply believe that it does, and wish to convince others, since that makes the belief more real, right? Plus it generates $ of course).
And guess what, there are people who understand how cell phones actually work (because they *do* work, and they didn’t get built by blindly following ancient manuscripts).
And there are people who actually understand how diseases really work. Because – amazingly! – that turns out to be the best way to go about treating them. Even if it’s a great deal of actual work to gain that understanding.
And there are people who really understand how homeopathy *actually* “works” – behavioral psychologists.
And then… there are homeopaths.
Ernst
“Let’s be blunt: homeopathy is bogus”
I have not seen your response to Dr. Hahn’s statement that “Ernst tampered with data because of IDEOLOGICAL bias”, other than the “ad hominem” attack.
“there is no reason why it should work; it is not biological plausible,”
You are confident that you know everything about the biological behavior of the human body that there is to know when it comes to medical reactions?
Have you come across soft tissues acting as magnets and how do they acquire their magnetic properties?
We already addressed this issue of Dr Hahn’s oddball eccentricies He is well known for the most bizarre ideas like having memories of his own former life for which he thinks he found proof in a medieval document or the notion that shaken water may contain healing powers despite every known fact of reality saying it can’t. Some people just do not conform with reality and Dr. Hahn has developed an exceptional antipathy for sceptics who easily point out flaws in his fantasies. It is little wonder he dislikes the professor ferventlym 🙂
Magnetic tissues!? I wonder where you get your eccentric ideas from Iqbal? They get more and more bizarre with every round.
“…biological behavior of the human body that there is to know when it comes to medical reactions?”
Please read as:
..biological behavior of the human body that there is nothing left for you to know when it comes to medical reactions?”
Iqbal: there are in fact three main problems with homeopathy.
First, there is no reason to suppose it should work. Hahnemann’s doctrine of similars is based on a single false inference related to cinchona bark, which we now know cures malaria by killing the plasmodium parasites that cause it. There is no credible evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure.
Second, there is no way it can work. The doctrines of homeopathy are inconsistent with well understood facts of human biochemistry (e.g. the law of mass action). They are also at odds with the laws of thermodynamics and all relevant knowledge of physics and chemistry. And there are no objectively testable effects to offset this: remedies do not result in specific and testable changes in vivo.
Third, there is no proof ti does work. All available evidence is fully consistent with the null hypothesis, and there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.
@Guy Chapman on Sunday 04 September 2016 at 17:41
“First, there is no reason to suppose it should work. Hahnemann’s doctrine of similars is based on a single false inference related to cinchona bark, which we now know cures malaria by killing the plasmodium parasites that cause it. ”
Hahnemann was not the ONLY prover of homeopathic remedies. There are over 2000 remedies in the homeopathic materia medica. Many doctors are also named for their provings.
“There is no credible evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031022061728.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297497/
Effects of Homeopathic Arsenicum Album,Nosode, and Gibberellic Acid Preparations on the Growth Rate of Arsenic-Impaired Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.)
“Second, there is no way it can work. The doctrines of homeopathy are inconsistent with well understood facts of human biochemistry (e.g. the law of mass action). They are also at odds with the laws of thermodynamics and all relevant knowledge of physics and chemistry.”
The allopathic system cures nothing. It tries to kill the illness producing bacteria. In the process, while there is no clarity if it is able to completely remove ALL the infecting parasite, it surely has an adverse effect on many organs of the body: mainly liver. After some time, the parasite becomes resistant and creates a new illness.
At other times, it simply removes the sign of disease: tumor (See outcome of removal of tumor: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-there-a-reproducibility-crisis-in-biomedical-science-no-but-there-is-a-reproducibility-problem/ ).
The laws of physics and chemistry most times do not work inside the human body.
@Iqbal
Among your many hilariously ignorant comments on this blog, Iqbal, I think this one must take the record for stupidity.
“The allopathic system cures nothing.” Pure cock.
“It tries to kill the illness producing bacteria. In the process, while there is no clarity if it is able to completely remove ALL the infecting parasite, it surely has an adverse effect on many organs of the body: mainly liver. After some time, the parasite becomes resistant and creates a new illness.” I hope you never get a serious infection to put this piece of nonsense to the test, Iqbal. And for your information, not everything that is metabolized in the liver damages the liver.
“The laws of physics and chemistry most times do not work inside the human body.” This comment beats everything else ridiculous you’ve ever posted into submission, Iqbal. It shows you lack any credibility and your lunatic ravings are beneath contempt. What century are you living in?! Do you think the mass of microscopic cells that make up your body (easily observable with a magnifying lens) are propelled by earth, wind and fire?! Moved by mysterious spirit forces? Function with ‘vibrations’? And please do enlighten us as to which times the laws of physics and chemistry do work inside the human body. On Friday afternoons, perhaps? During prayer?
Iqbal Krishna, you have the intellectual acumen of a damaged horseradish and the biomedical knowledge of a troubled cockroach. I’m sorry to make such a blatant ad hominem, but the rules of this blog were not designed to cope with someone displaying ignorance on an Iqbal order of magnitude.
@Frank Odds on Wednesday 07 September 2016 at 18:38
“And for your information, NOT EVERYTHING that is metabolized in the liver damages the liver.” So you acknowledge that many drugs do? Have you seen results of the basic antibiotic on liver: pencillin?
” I hope you never get a serious infection to put this piece of nonsense to the test,”
Like which? Our extended family with cumulative age of over 1200 years has not used any allopathic drug for a period spanning 90 years. What is left?
Why not define some laws of physics and chemistry that work inside the body. The funny part of the allopathic system is that many procedures started based upon PHYSICS & CHEMISTRY are stopped after audits show that these did more harm than good. In about 100 years of scienctific medical period, there is not one drug available without adverse effect when the only reason for most drugs to be recalled is adverse effects.
“Iqbal order of magnitude.”
It is time to take away the blinkers, and widen your medical view. My brother is a homeopathic doctor. Many allopathic doctors, in the government hospital in which he is posted, consult him for their personal ailments. They do not bother about the theories of physics and chemistry as long as they are rid of their ailments.
If you are not a child, and are considered of sound mind, nobody is forcing you to take antibiotics. Nobody is preventing you from dying in pain and ignorance, confident that your liver has not been damaged by these evil antibiotics, if that is your choice. In fact, if you would decide not to use antibiotics, you would be doing your victims a favour, since your early demise would protect from the harm you are causing them. So:
Go for it! Refuse the antibiotics!
Interesting. Would you prefer drugs to be recalled for beneficial effects instead?
Interesting statement. What is its basis?
delusion?
Could well be. I can’t help but think that it must indeed be some type of psychiatric disorder which is not well understood and has not been fully investigated. I find it highly disturbing.
What if such lunatics make it into the ranks of those we vote into office to make decisions that matter to all of us? This type of insanity kills people. Lots of people.
Which would be the best treatment for blood pressure if Ohm’s law is followed?
Which law of physics you know that works inside a human body?
ALL OF THEM!
you tell us which law does not work inside the human body.
Ohm’s law for fluids that was the basis for Alpha beta blockers.
Interesting. Could you provide more information?
I looked for
on Google and got exactly three results. Not very many, for such important information.
These are the results:
https://www.usmle-rx.com/proposed-errata-and-suggestions
https://quizlet.com/78530332/n311-cardio-drugs-pulmonary-flash-cards/
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-3294-5
Not one of them suggests a relationship between “Ohm’s law” and “alpha-beta blockers”.
Maybe you have information that is denied to me? Please do provide it. It could help me in my job.
“Not one of them suggests a relationship between “Ohm’s law” and “alpha-beta blockers”.
First read about Ohm’s law.
http://www.cvphysiology.com/Hemodynamics/H001.htm
Then check logic for reducing high blood pressure. Why should Beta blockers work when theoratically Alpha Beta should have worked.
Iqbal, first of all, this is NOT Ohm’s law. Ohm’s law is only a simplification so that people without engineering education (like MDs) easily understand the mechanics. Pressure within tubes or vessels behaves according to Darcy-Weissbach. If you look at the Darcy-Weissbach equation the difference and rationale behind apha-beta blockers and beta-blockers becomes immediately clear.
“Ohm’s law is only a simplification so that people without engineering education (like MDs) easily understand the mechanics”. Not simplified enough for a homeopathist like Iqbal!
” If you look at the Darcy-Weissbach equation the difference and rationale behind apha-beta blockers and beta-blockers becomes immediately clear.”
Where do you find straight pipes in the human body? And explain the reason for reducing blood pressure with Darcy-Weissbach equation.
I checked wikipedia: no mention of blood pressure reference. Can you provide reference to link blood pressure to Darcy-Weissbach equation.
why do you insist on waffling about stuff you don’t comprehend? is it some type of illness?
Iqbal, the Darcy – Weissenbach equation applies to ALL, and I repeat ALL vessels, tubes, whatever. They can be straight, spirals, s-turned, or …. BLOOD VESSELS.
Wikipedia is mostly your friend but in this case a solid engineering education trumps wikipedia.
However, to put is simply for you:
Alphablockers relax the smooth muscle cells, thus widening the diameter of the blood vessels, thus leading to a reduced drop in blood pressure. That in turn signals the brain to reduce heart rate. Taken together these two actions result in an decreased blood pressure. In other words, they act on the Diameter D of the blood vessels.
Betablockers inhibit catecholamine uptake in brain cells, thus leading to a reduced heart rate which in turn reduces the input V into the system. The result is again a reduction of blood pressure.
Heck, is the Darcy-Weissenbach equation really THAT difficult ?
Alpha-beta blockers do BOTH. It can’t be that difficult, can it ?
Iqbal Krishna wrote: “I checked wikipedia: no mention of blood pressure reference. Can you provide reference to link blood pressure to Darcy-Weissbach equation.”
Likewise, the Wikipedia page on Ohm’s law makes no mention of hemodynamics, and the page titled Hemodynamics makes no mention of Ohm’s law. Why? Because they are NOT related.
Iqbal Krishna, The article that you referenced (Cardiovascular Physiology Concepts by
Richard E. Klabunde, PhD) was using an analogy.
analogy [noun]: a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Only a nincompoop would keep insisting that changing the electrical conductivity — the basis of Ohm’s law — of the blood has anything whatsoever to do with hemodynamics, or fluid dynamics in general.
Thomas Mohr on Friday 09 September 2016 at 12:41/Pete Attkins on Friday 09 September 2016 at 14:05
“With fD being the Darcy friction factor, rho being the viscosity of the fluid and D being the hydrodynamic diameter of the tube. In your simplified equation R = fD*rho/2 and F = V²/D.”
You do not even understand the basic of physics? If you have numerous diameter pipes in your body, with one heart pumping, with this equation you will have a back flow situation because of pressure gradient on account of diameters!!!!!!!
So, the use of this equation for blood pressure explanation is foolish and the reason Richard E. Klabunde, PhD did not refer to it.
“PS: Please don’t fuss around with me with physics. i am an food and biotechnology engineer and fluid dynamics is essential in this field.”
Your lack of knowledge of basic science is amply demonstrated in this application. Forget PHYSICS. You are required to go back for a refresher course on the basic understanding of using equations in science.
Iqbal, the blood circulatory system has valves to prevent backflow. Aside that you STILL owe the explanation why this law does not apply in the body.
@Iqbal: Quote Wikipedia re Hagen Poiseuille equation:
“Normally, Hagen-Poiseuille flow implies not just the relation for the pressure drop, above, but also the full solution for the laminar flow profile, which is parabolic. However, the result for the pressure drop can be extended to turbulent flow by inferring an effective turbulent viscosity in the case of turbulent flow, even though the flow profile in turbulent flow is strictly speaking not actually parabolic. In both cases, laminar or turbulent, the pressure drop is related to the stress at the wall, which determines the so-called friction factor. The wall stress can be determined phenomenologically by the Darcy–Weisbach equation in the field of hydraulics, given a relationship for the friction factor in terms of the Reynolds number.”
In other words, Dacy Weisbach is a phenomenological description of the Hagen-Poiseuille law. For the validity of Hagen Poiseuiile (and thus Darcy-Weisbach) in the vaculature, see YOUR OWN source: http://www.cvphysiology.com/Hemodynamics/H003.htm
I told you not to fuss around with me. Frankly, you are a complete Idiot, iqbal.
@Edzard on Thursday 08 September 2016 at 11:05
“ALL OF THEM!”
Lack of basic knowledge in capital letters!!!!! Two small every day science problems:
Continuing with blood pressure: Which science is behind doctors recommending avoiding/reducing salt intake during high blood pressure?
Or the science behind prescribing temperature reducing drugs during febrile condition?
I can bet in advance you have no answer. At best an “ad hominem” attack from a lackey.
your arguments are, in my view, way too stupid to honour them with a response.
Exactly in line with the prediction.
Continuing with basic politeness: when are you going to answer the questions you still owe us an answer to?
I will take a hint from the Sheliak:
Intelligent converse is impossible. You do not discuss, you gibber.
“In other words, Dacy Weisbach is a phenomenological description of the Hagen-Poiseuille law. For the validity of Hagen Poiseuiile (and thus Darcy-Weisbach) in the vaculature, see YOUR OWN source: http://www.cvphysiology.com/Hemodynamics/H003.htm”
Do you read carefully and complete paper?
“In the body, however, flow does not conform exactly to this relationship because this relationship assumes long, straight tubes (blood vessels), a Newtonian fluid (e.g., water, not blood which is non-Newtonian), and steady, laminar flow conditions.”
What is non-Newtonian fluid and why?
“Nevertheless, the relationship clearly shows the dominant influence of vessel radius on resistance and flow and therefore serves as an important concept to understand how physiological (e.g., vascular tone) and pathological (e.g., vascular stenosis) changes in vessel radius affect pressure and flow, and how changes in heart valve orifice size (e.g., in valvular stenosis) affect flow and pressure gradients across heart valves.”
Theoratically, alpha beta blockers should work wonders in conjuction: they don’t. Doctors rely on beta blockers only and use alpha beta blockers as exception.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40755
http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/heart/alpha-beta-adrenergic-blockers.htm
“I told you not to fuss around with me.”
Fuss is wrong choice of word. The correct one is mess: normally you always create it for your self.
why do you insist going on about stuff you evidently haven’t got a clue about?
@Iqbal, first, if you would have one little trace of engineering knowledge you would realize that Darcy-Weissbach extends Hagen-Pouiseuille to non-Newtonain fluids and turbulent flows because Darcy Weissbach measures the *actual* friction factor which corrects for deviations from Hagen-Pouisseille due to non-Newtonian behaviour, non-lineareness and turbulent flow. Your argument that this law does not apply inside the body is utter nonsense. I told you not to mess around with me.
Second, a 1979 review is stone age.
Third, the reason why a drug might not work as theoretically predicted is simply that the body has other regulatory mechanisms that may overrule the drug effect. THat has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your claim that laws of chemistry and physics are suspended in the human body.
Finally: You still owe us a convincing example. Alph-betaa blockers are NOT.
@Edzard on Sunday 11 September 2016 at 07:27
“why do you insist going on about stuff you evidently haven’t got a clue about?”
Why do you present incorrect information in your blog?
I have worked along with German colleagues for over 10 years. The many things I liked about them was:
Data should be respected other wise it comes back to trouble you.
Never provide wrong information.
Why are you different?
@Thomas Mohr on Sunday 11 September 2016 at 09:52
“…. Darcy-Weissbach extends Hagen-Pouiseuille to non-Newtonain fluids and turbulent flows because Darcy Weissbach measures the *actual* friction factor which corrects for deviations from Hagen-Pouisseille due to non-Newtonian behaviour, non-lineareness and turbulent flow.”
This is what you wrote on 09.09.2016
Alphablockers relax the smooth muscle cells, thus widening the diameter of the blood vessels, thus leading to a reduced drop in blood pressure. That in turn signals the brain to reduce heart rate. Taken together these two actions result in an decreased blood pressure. In other words, they act on the Diameter D of the blood vessels.
Betablockers inhibit catecholamine uptake in brain cells, thus leading to a reduced heart rate which in turn reduces the input V into the system. The result is again a reduction of blood pressure.
I also knew this: Together they should work great: that was the basic science: Physics.
Now you contradict yourself: “… the reason why a drug might not work as theoretically predicted is simply that the body has other regulatory mechanisms that may overrule the drug effect.”
What is this OTHER REGULATORY MECHANISM ?
The chemist using this theory to define the drug development was not aware of this OTHER REGULATORY MECHANISM? I thought theories of science are universal: Law of g works every where on earth!
If the theory stops working inside the body because of this OTHER REGULATORY MECHANISM, what would be the agreed result?
“Your argument that this law does not apply inside the body is utter nonsense.” See your own statement above.
“I told you not to mess around with me.” I believe I said, you create the mess for your self.
“Second, a 1979 review is stone age.” Antibiotics of 1949 are not? When did the stone age end?
“Finally: You still owe us a convincing example.”
How many more examples would you want? We will take an example after end of stone age.
Iqbal, I can only say, oh my God. A general concept of the body’s physiology is redundance of important regulatory circuits. Regulation of blood pressure *is* an important regulatory circuit and there are *several* mechanisms know to regulate it. That means if you block the catecholamine receptor on smooth muscle cells, thus relaxing them, other regulatory mechanisms (such as the NOS circuit) might kick in resulting in ineffective drug action.That has nothing to do whatsoever with fluid dynamics or physics, that simply is how our body is wirde. These regulatory circuits are uncovered step by step, therefore your 1979 review is outdated. That is as if you would like to descrbe quantum physics with papers from the thirties.
Iqbal, every time you comment on body physiology you are ending up looking like an idiot. Doesn’t that tell you something ?
Iqbal, you wrote: “The chemist using this theory to define the drug development was not aware of this OTHER REGULATORY MECHANISM?”
Many times one discovers alternative mechanisms exactly this way. A drug should theoretically work but does not. The prime example is antiangiogenic therapy in cancer. Do you have *any* knowledge on drug development ?
Quote: “I thought theories of science are universal: Law of g works every where on earth!”. So what ? You are confusing the applicability of a law and knowing it. Until Kepler astronomers believed that the sun revolves around the earth. I will not comment on the part “I thought” because this you clearly did not.
@Thomas Mohr on Sunday 11 September 2016 at 09:52
“Finally: You still owe us a convincing example.”
http://www.worldactiononsalt.com/salthealth/factsheets/bloodpressure/
Do you understand the rationale: this is simple chemistry. Does it work inside the body?
Iqbal, of course I understand the rationale. The fluid retention caused by Sodium ions leads to a higher V² which in turn leads to a higher blood pressure. Everythin in accordance with Darcy-Weissbach. I doubt you understand the impact on your claims. You have claimed that the laws of fluid dynamics are suspended in the body. The influence of salt on blood pressure has NOTHING TO DO with fluid dynamics. Heck, blood vessels are living vessel which react to chemical and physical stimuli. Again, where are laws of physics and/or chemistry suspended in the body and how does that enable homeopathy ?
Are you really that thick or are you just simulating ? In any case, given your obvious lack of knowledge in physiology I hope you do not treat actual patients
@Thomas Mohr on Monday 12 September 2016 at 08:30
“That has nothing to do whatsoever with fluid dynamics or physics, that simply is how our body is wirde.”
The statement was: Physics and chemistry laws that you know: DO NOT WORK INSIDE THE BODY. Because the body is wired!!! Do you understand this?
“These regulatory circuits are uncovered step by step, ”
Which regulatory circuits and why step by step? This is what you wrote: Darcy – Weissenbach equation applies to ALL, and I repeat ALL vessels, tubes, whatever. They can be straight, spirals, s-turned, or …. BLOOD VESSELS. Now a new wiring has cropped up that you all missed!!!!!
“..therefore your 1979 review is outdated.”
This is NOT my review: It is to inform you of the stupid people who continue to state: the rules of physics and chemistry will have to be re-written if homeopathy is valid, without realising the this science has no validity inside the human body. We are looking at an age old issue: hypertension, no clarity yet after so many years of work.
Thomas Mohr on Monday 12 September 2016 at 08:47
“Many times one discovers alternative mechanisms exactly this way. A drug should theoretically work but does not.”
If the theory applied is correct, it ALWAYS WORKS. If there was no outcome, the theory or science applied was wrong.
“Until Kepler astronomers believed that the sun revolves around the earth.”
Don’t be a child and waste time.
@Thomas Mohr on Monday 12 September 2016 at 16:07
” of course I understand the rationale. The fluid retention caused by Sodium ions leads to a higher V² which in turn leads to a higher blood pressure. Everythin in accordance with Darcy-Weissbach.”
Most doctors agree to this scientific rationale as you do. This is simple science and as you say ” The fluid retention caused by Sodium ions leads to a higher V² which in turn leads to a higher blood pressure.”
But is it correct? http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000167.abstract
“I doubt you understand the impact on your claims.”
Do YOU?
“In any case, given your obvious lack of knowledge in physiology I hope you do not treat actual patients.”
Which new theory of physics and chemisty that you know would you use to justify this? And what were the many idiots ” justifying use of science” doing all this while? And killing patients with lack of sodium.
Ready for another science miss inside the body?
oh, yes please – you are hilarious!!!
Iqbal, maybe you get it this way. A redundant regulatory circuit works like a street network. If one street is blocked other streets may take over the traffic. That has nothing to do with the resistance of a street which is largely defined by it’s width. You simply do not understand how regulatory circuits in the body work and think that this inavlidates laws of fluid dynamics. A regulatory circuit has nothing to do with fluid dynamics.
As for your sugar thingie, most likely *both* are responsible for hypertension (you probably should read the paper properly) since glucose as well a Sodium ions are – sloppily expressed – hygroscopic, i.e. attract water.
And yes, bring another example how basic laws of physics are suspended in the body. Me and my students could need a hearty laugh.
@Thomas Mohr on Monday 12 September 2016 at 20:57
“A redundant regulatory circuit works like a street network. If one street is blocked other streets may take over the traffic………. A regulatory circuit has nothing to do with fluid dynamics.”
Of course I understand. Explanations, explanations,……You seem better qualified to be a 3rd grade politician.
“As for your sugar thingie, most likely *both* are responsible for hypertension (you probably should read the paper properly) since glucose as well a Sodium ions are – sloppily expressed – hygroscopic, i.e. attract water….
Explanations……. “…….the arguments in this review are that the benefits of such recommendations might have LESS to do with sodium—MINIMALLY related to blood pressure and perhaps even INVERSELY related to cardiovascular risk—and more to do with highly-refined carbohydrates. It is time for guideline committees to shift focus away from salt and focus greater attention to the likely more-consequential food additive: sugar.”
“And yes, bring another example how basic laws of physics are suspended in the body. Me and my students could need a hearty laugh.”
In India, there is a saying that translates into: “when the teacher is blind, the student knows not what to do. When a blind person pushes another bind person, both end up in a ditch”.
I pity your students. The best teaching is that opens up the students’ minds and allows them to discern correctly between 2 opposing arguments. Not doggedly pushing in the information you store in your head. Most of it would be junk anyways. Recall your 1979 stone age argument.
Ready for the next check of physics and chemistry used in scientific medicine and the effect?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101
Iqbal, this is the difference between you and me. You read *one* – often outdated – review and believe it. I try to understand the key data of the entire literature. The Na – BP connection is pretty well established. Anyway, is that paper your “proof” about laws of physics and chemistry not valid in the human body ? You should probably read it.
Quote from the abstract: ” Further, hospitals often re-assign scarce staff and emergency care was available during all of the strikes. Finally, none of the strikes may have lasted long enough to assess the effects of long-term reduced access to a physician. Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.”
Iqbal, your posts are like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH0hikcwjIA
I just love the scottisch accent
@Thomas Mohr on Tuesday 13 September 2016 at 09:12
” You read *one* – often outdated – review and believe it. I try to understand the key data of the entire literature. The Na – BP connection is pretty well established.”
After 50 years of pushing scientific Na-BP connection the news is: LESS to do with sodium—MINIMALLY related to blood pressure and perhaps even INVERSELY related to cardiovascular risk—and more to do with highly-refined carbohydrates.” (BP is a major reason for cardiovascular risk)
You can prove the other way round with studies dated later rebutting the claim.
You should know about the food industry: Sugar in particular: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0
The effect of physics and chemistry based medicine: These should normally work because these are based upon science but the human body is wired and each body is wired differently:
Lucine Leape: 1996: Death by medicine: 184,000 in USA
Barbra Starfield: 2000 Death by medicine: 225,000 in USA
Martin Makary: 2016 Death by medicine: >250,000 in USA
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=384554
https://therefusers.com/is-us-health-really-the-best-in-the-world-barbara-starfield-md-mph/
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/
Not only the deaths: see the trend.
“Quote from the abstract: ” Further, hospitals often re-assign scarce staff and emergency care was available during all of the strikes. Finally, none of the strikes may have lasted long enough to assess the effects of long-term reduced access to a physician. Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.””
“We identified 156 articles, seven of which met our search criteria.” ALL articles defining mortality went down during doctors striking work!
“The articles analyzed five strikes around the world, all between 1976 and 2003. The strikes lasted between nine days and seventeen weeks. All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike.” IMPRESSIVE- this is real science. NO IFS and BUTS.
“None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods.”
TO BE EXPLAINED BY YOU, if POSSIBLE.
“Most importantly, elective surgeries are curtailed during strikes.” As if the surgeries were being done to kill patients!!!!!!!!!!!
“Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.”
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDICINE BASED UPON PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY. NEED I SAY MORE.
Iqbal, the paper explains it in the abstract. Read the damned thing. Aside that 1kg of feathers still weights the same as 1kg of steel.
Aside that, someone who begins to quote the New York Times in matters of science….. oh my God.
Finally you still owe us some examples where the laws of physics and chemistry are suspended in the body. So – for the last time – where is your evidence ? Do you have it now or not ?
@Thomas Mohr on Tuesday 13 September 2016 at 16:55
“Aside that, someone who begins to quote the New York Times in matters of science”
The article was NOT written by a NEWS correspondent. It was picked up from a medical journal and written by a SCIENCE JOURNALIST. This little you can understand.
“Finally you still owe us some examples where the laws of physics and chemistry are suspended in the body. So – for the last time – where is your evidence ?”
Medical article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00011-003-1242-0
Explained below as a newspaper article: if you do not understand.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/mar/15/technology2
Iqbal, I knew that Belon would come up. The problem is that there seemed to be a slight problem with replicability, to express it euphemistically. Have you heard of the prior probability ? Apparently not. In order to prove your claims you have to come up with something more substantial.
@Thomas Mohr on Wednesday 14 September 2016 at 15:22
“The problem is that there seemed to be a slight problem with replicability, to express it euphemistically. Have you heard of the prior probability ? Apparently not.”
I purposely put in the newspaper explanation.
” In order to make sure no bias was introduced into the experiment by the scientists from the four laboratories involved, they were all “blinded” to the contents of their test solutions. In other words, they did not know whether the solutions they were adding to the basophil-aIgE reaction contained ghost amounts of histamine or just pure water. But that’s not all. The ghost histamine solutions and the controls were prepared in three different laboratories that had nothing further to do with the trial.
The whole experiment was coordinated by an independent researcher who coded all the solutions and collated the data, but was not involved in any of the testing or analysis of the data from the experiment. Not much room, therefore, for fraud or wishful thinking. So the results when they came were a complete surprise.
Three of the four labs involved in the trial reported a statistically significant inhibition of the basophil degranulation reaction by the ghost histamine solutions compared with the controls. The fourth lab gave a result that was almost significant, so the total result over all four labs was positive for the ghost histamine solutions.
The result, shortly to be published in Inflammation Research, was the same: histamine solutions, both at pharmacological concentrations and diluted out of existence, lead to statistically significant inhibition of basophile activation by aIgE, confirming previous work in this area.
“Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy,” says Ennis, “the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings.” She is at pains to point out that the pan-European team have not reproduced Benveniste’s findings nor attempted to do so.
Jacques Benveniste is unimpressed. “They’ve arrived at precisely where we started 12 years ago!” he says. Benveniste believes he already knows what constitutes the water-memory effect and claims to be able to record and transmit the “signals” of biochemical substances around the world via the internet. These, he claims, cause changes in biological tissues as if the substance was actually present.
The consequences for science if Benveniste and Ennis are right could be earth shattering, requiring a complete re-evaluation of how we “UNDERSTAND THE WORKINGS OF CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS,BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGY.”
Based upon your messages, I had hoped you would understand English for sure.
“In order to prove your claims you have to come up with something more substantial.”
Patents would vanish from the medical business. Cost of medicines would drop 90%. Patients would be CURED. No requirement to take medication daily until death. This is SURELY SUBSTANTIAL.
Ernst will not repeat “How much did ‘Big Pharma’ pay for my soul”. He will stop getting paid(!).
And you????? I hope you will get a new theory to teach your students if you could understand this.
Iqbal, Ennis herself backpedalled in 2010. There are still massive problems with reproducability. Aside that you do not understand how science works, especially with regard to hypothesis testing. You also do not know how the p-value works and you do not know how the prior probability of the hypothesis fits in.
The problem with prior probability is that even if you get a low p-value that does NOT mean that your hypothesis is true. A p-value only measures the probability that your data fit to the null hypothesis, i.e. that there is no difference. So, if you have a highly unlikely alternative hypothesis you have to present a ton of evidence. Ennis herself admits that the tests are poorly standardized and give a small effect. This combination alone is a recipe for false positives. Iqbal, I have a lot of lab experience (25+ years as a scientist with a publication list) and I have seen the weirdest things.
As for the NYT citation. Well, a science journalist wrote it. I am impressed. NOT.
@Thomas Mohr on Thursday 15 September 2016 at 07:37
“Ennis herself backpedalled in 2010.”
Send me the details.
“There are still massive problems with reproducability.”
About what? Trial or homeopathy? Why not check this?
“Is there a reproducibility “crisis” in biomedical science? No, but there is a reproducibility problem.”
“Aside that you do not understand how science works, especially with regard to hypothesis testing. You also do not know how the p-value works and you do not know how the prior probability of the hypothesis fits in.”
The problem is, if it works for homeopathy. there is a problem, other wise it is good.
” Ennis herself admits that the tests are poorly standardized and give a small effect. This combination alone is a recipe for false positives.”
I would prefer you send me the link.
“I have a lot of lab experience (25+ years as a scientist with a publication list) and I have seen the weirdest things.”
This statement is defined as “appeal to authority(?)”. 25 years is of no consequence compared to my experience of 60 years of using homeopathy on self, 30 years on my wife, 56 years on my children, and over 150 years on my parents. I can add brothers and sisters and their families and this will add to over 1200 years.
Let me see the links to Professor Madeleine Ennis denials, back tracking and the explanations.
here is the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129176
In the 19th century homeopathic Belladonna was widely used as a scarlet fever treatment and prevention. Even the best Clinicians of the time (Hufeland f.i.) believed in it and wrote hymns of praise. In his own words:
” I. The proper use of belladonna has, in most cases, prevented infection, even in those instances where, by the continual intercourse with patients labouring under scarlet fever, the predisposition towards it was greatly increased.
II. Numerous observations have shown that, by the general use of belladonna, epidemics of scarlet fever have actually been arrested.
III. In those few instances where the use of belladonna was insufficient to prevent infection, the disease has been invariably slight.
IV. There are exceptions to the above three points, but their number is extremely small.
Well, then some English military doctor ( J Warburton Begbie) looked into a very robust measure, namely mortality. In his own words:
“Vaccination in its effects made itself at once recognized, and the contrast between the ravages of small-pox at the commencement of this century, and the almost entire immunity from that disease in an epidemic form, which now prevails, are facts so plainly recognizable, and so appreciable, as in the instance of that disease entirely to remove the difficulty referred to. It is altogether otherwise with scarlatina; notwithstanding the introduction of belladonna, and its extensive employment, both in this country and abroad, as a prophylactic against scarlet fever, we are not aware that the mortality in either has been reduced; a circumstance which itself militates very strongly both against the prophylactic and the remedial efficacy of belladonna.”
Now guess who is STILL using Belladonna to treat scarlet fever ? Homeopaths. These 19th century observations do not only demonstrate the inefficiency of homepathy, they also demonstrate the learning resistance of homeopaths.
Therefore your 1200 personyears usage impresses me. NOT.
Even I know this one: Homeopathy 2010, 99 (1) 51-16. A paper entitled “Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view”. It begins with the words: “This could be an exceedingly short paper, since in my opinion, from a conventional scientific background, when there are no molecules of the active agent left in solution; there can not be any biological effects.”
Dr Ellis then proceeds to provide an elegantly dispassionate and scholarly review of 20 year’s-worth of studies on basophil activation by high dilutions of histamine. She provides succinct details of the different methods used by different labs to measure basophil activation, explains how variability of results is extreme, even with histamine at measurable concentrations, and goes on to recommend a large, multi-centre study involving standardized reagents supplied externally from an independent laboratory and fully blinded. She lists 7 factors affecting the reproducibility of experimental outcomes that need to be considered and agreed on with a fixed protocol for the tests.
Bottom line is that the assay is particularly sensitive to reproducibility problems. Ennis doesn’t exactly backtrack on her 2004 paper: she describes it among the other, earlier studies which did or didn’t show effects of high dilutions as an attempt to answer the basic question with a well-designed, multi laboratory approach. But, with the benefit of hindsight, she recognizes her study showed only small effects and was still vulnerable to performance variables. Her recommendations are typical of a good scientist who realizes the test still needs to be done better. All totally consistent with what Thomas Mohr said, in fact.
One just has to look at Table 1 in the original 2004 paper. In some laboratories the test works very well, in others one sees nothing. Quote: “At the highest concentration of anti-IgE tested, histamine dilutions caused a slight increase in degranulation in laboratory 1, had no effect in laboratory 2, caused an inhibition at 1 concentration in laboratory 3 and were inhibitory at all concentrations in laboratory 4.”
This tells the entire story.
@Thomas Mohr on Friday 16 September 2016 at 10:40
“here is the link:”
Let me spend some time with this.
“In the 19th century homeopathic Belladonna was widely used as a scarlet fever treatment and prevention. Even the best Clinicians of the time (Hufeland f.i.) believed in it and wrote hymns of praise.”
As usual, you HAVE LITTLE INFORMATION. No 2 epidemics are the same. Disease continues to evolve. Read the portion of the information between 1799 and 1808. http://www.homeobook.com/prophylaxis-in-homeopathy/
“Well, then some English military doctor ( J Warburton Begbie) looked into a very robust measure, namely mortality. In his own words: ”
In view of the above information, the doctor, like you, was not fully informed.
“Vaccination in its effects made itself at once recognized, and the contrast between the ravages of small-pox at the commencement of this century, and the almost entire immunity from that disease in an epidemic form, which now prevails, are facts so plainly recognizable, and so appreciable, as in the instance of that disease entirely to remove the difficulty referred to.”
This is another disaster of the allopathic system. Many repercussions come much later. (Dr. Blaser has, after 70 years of use of antibiotics, linked its use to the increasing cases of cancer, obesity, asthma, diabetes etc. I believe a lot has yet to come.)
Vaccination is against the benefit logic of diseases. Each disease prepares the body’s immune system to counteract against the disease in future as also associated diseases. When small pox was eradicated, it was replaced with HIV-AIDS epidemic. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/did-smallpox-vaccine-limit-hiv-10-05-18/
Now the world will be staring at a new situation: HIV AIDS AND small pox. http://www.livescience.com/2403-climate-threat-thawing-tundra-releases-infected-corpses.html
“Now guess who is STILL using Belladonna to treat scarlet fever ? Homeopaths.”
Please read more of homeopathy. http://treatment.hpathy.com/homeo-medicine/homeopathy-scarlet-fever/ How many possible remedies do you count? Belladone continues to be one of the many.
“These 19th century observations do not only demonstrate the inefficiency of homepathy, they also demonstrate the learning resistance of homeopaths.”
In view of above, HOW WOULD YOU EAT YOUR WORDS?
“Therefore your 1200 person years usage impresses me. NOT.”
POOR LEARNING BEHAVIOUR. And you blame homeopaths?
So you confirm that belladonna is used by homeopaths to treat scarlet fever ? A remedy which has been proven not to work over 150 years ago ? Thank you for confirming my point that homeopaths are indeed learning resistant.
homeopaths are by definition resistant to true learning – otherwise they would have learnt and gone out of existence
@Thomas Mohr on Friday 16 September 2016 at 15:25
“So you confirm that belladonna is used by homeopaths to treat scarlet fever ?”
Yes. I do. And this is the beauty of homeopathic medicines. If the strain of scarlet fever that was seen by Hahnemann, was to resurface, Belladonna, produced homeopathically, will still work. For new strains, there are other remedies.
” A remedy which has been proven not to work over 150 years ago ?”
What result would you expect of a test done by an poorly informed doctor trained 150 years ago? What era of medicine was this, if 1979 was stone age? About 100 years ago, during Spanish flu, orthodox doctors killed more American soldiers is USA with Aspirin than Germans managed to kill on the battle field.
“Thank you for confirming my point that homeopaths are indeed learning resistant.”
Please offer my condolences to your students along with a copy of Catch 22. If they learn what you teach, they are dead meat for the scientific world. If they refuse to learn, I expect you will make sure they never move up. Dead either way.
One can only say Oh my God.
Quote: “Yes. I do. And this is the beauty of homeopathic medicines. If the strain of scarlet fever that was seen by Hahnemann, was to resurface, Belladonna, produced homeopathically, will still work. ”
Well, Belladonna did not work. Not in Hahnemanns time and not now.
“About 100 years ago, during Spanish flu, orthodox doctors killed more American soldiers is USA with Aspirin than Germans managed to kill on the battle field.”.
First of all, a tu quoque argument NEVER works. second, yes there have been deaths due to high dose Aspirin therapy. The toxicity of Aspirin was not yet understood. That is the beauty of science based medicine. This therapy was given up as soon as the toxicity became evident. In homeopathy that is different. Although Belladonna (and many others) proved not to work it is NOT abandoned.
As for the basophil study, unstable test systems like the basophil activation will *always* produce (false) positive results in some instances.
Quote: “What result would you expect of a test done by an poorly informed doctor trained 150 years ago? What era of medicine was this, if 1979 was stone age?”
Your argument is moot. If a therapy prevents or treats a disease, mortality goes down. With the introduction of small-pox vaccination mortality due to small-pox plummetted. With the introduction of Belladonna prevention for scarlet fever it remained essentially the same. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to concude that Belladonna does not work.
Up to this day drug “development” in homeopathy does NOT include test whether the drug actually works. Homeopathic drugs are developed as it was done in Hahnemanns time, i.e. take dilutions and record symptoms, even the most ridiculous ones such as that the constant babbling of the mother in law suddenly causes anxiety. Then the symptom complex is entered into the books and therapy starts. No efficacy testing whatsoever. Homeopathy has not progresse one little bit in over 200 years.
Additionally, please do NOT talk about science. You and science is a love-hate relationship. You might love science, but science hates you.
@ Thomas Mohr on Friday 16 September 2016 at 13:22
“One just has to look at Table 1 …………….. inhibitory at all concentrations in laboratory 4.”
This tells the entire story.
Does it? Even for English language, you read what you want from the paragraph: The activation of human basophils by ultra-high dilutions of anti-IgE is discussed. The majority of the paper describes the inhibition of basophil activation by ultra-high dilutions of histamine. The results from published papers are described and discussed. After over 20 years research trying to find out if high dilutions of histamine have a negative feedback effect on the activation of basophils by anti-IgE, what do we know? The methods are poorly standardized between laboratories – ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS TRUE FOR CONVENTIONAL STUDIES.
“Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies.”
Where is the back peddling? It is in her interest to get positive results. So she insists for others to do it. She does not wish to spend the rest of her life in China. Courtesy the Pharma industry (One thing however seems certain. Either Benveniste will now be brought in from the cold, or Professor Ennis and the rest of the scientists involved in the pan-European experiment could be joining him there.: Lionel Milgrom- The guardian)
Another thing, Iqbal. For God’s sake quit canting about the BigPharma conspiracy.
First, companies producing homeopathic drugs work *exactly* as any other pharmaceuticl company, with the exception that their profit margin is far higher.
Second, for a pharmaceutical company the profit counts. I can tell you, a working drug with practically no development costs, no FDA regulation and no production costs, sold for a manifold of it’s production value is the wet dream of every pharma CEO. Therefore a pharma company would NOT suppress homeopathy, it would sell it.
The Iqbal quotes Lionel Milgrom.
He is probably the best example of why you can be a chemist or you can be a homeopath but you cannot be both at the same time.
This also reminded me that I was going to buy the book “How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog” by Chad Orzel where I believe he shows Milgrom to be wrong about how homeopathy works. It took all of 10 seconds to purchase in Kindle version.
@Björn Geir on Tuesday 20 September 2016 at 08:22
“He is probably the best example of why you can be a chemist or you can be a homeopath but you cannot be both at the same time.”
Do you have any valid argument other than personal attacks? Earlier it was Dr. Hahn, now Milgrom.
You believe in ad hominem quite seriously.
The correct argument is, chemists CANNOT be doctors. That is the bane of allopathic system.
“How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog” by Chad Orzel where I believe he shows Milgrom to be wrong about how homeopathy works. It took all of 10 seconds to purchase in Kindle version.”
I am sure Orzel’s dog would have learnt a bit of Quantum Physics. Now it is your turn.
read me
@Thomas Mohr on Tuesday 20 September 2016 at 10:1
“For God’s sake quit canting about the BigPharma conspiracy.”
When Ernst states “How much did ‘Big Pharma’ pay for my soul?” what does he state? Big pharma conspiracy?
“First, companies producing homeopathic drugs work *exactly* as any other pharmaceuticl company, with the exception that their profit margin is far higher.”
The margins of homeopathic medicine companies are higher because of some missing costs:
1.Companies do not have to provide for future liabilities :being sued for deaths and damages. (Vioxx from Merck for killing 140,000 Americans)
2.Freebies and payouts to doctors. (Remember Love and Other drugs by 20th Century Fox)
3.Fraud penalties. (pharma face penalties bigger than armament companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements
“Public Citizen has monitored pharmaceutical Industry criminal and civil actions and penalties for the past quarter of a century, between 1991 and 2015. During that period, 373 settlements were struck between federal and state authorities and major drug manufacturers, totaling $35.7 billion.
The Justice Department pursued violations of the federal False Claims Act and overcharging or bilking the Medicare and Medicaid health care program; the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on price rigging schemes between manufacturers of brand name and generic drugs; and state agencies investigated an array of suspected violations.”
In spite of above, companies like Pfizer make enormous amounts of money by selling great medicines: Viagara for example.
“Second, for a pharmaceutical company the profit counts. I can tell you, a working drug with practically no development costs, no FDA regulation and no production costs, sold for a manifold of it’s production value is the wet dream of every pharma CEO. Therefore a pharma company would NOT suppress homeopathy, it would sell it.”
An antibiotic costs 2 cents to produce, is sold by generic producer at 20 cents, and by the company claiming to develop it, at $2. The patient starts course (20 tablets) that leads to diarrhea, requiring another range of tablets ($2×10). The liver will get affected, leading to liver/skin problem for which visit to the specialist would be required along with a new round of medication ($5×20). The bacteria would in the meantime develop resistance and the patient finally being cured of all diseases dies of infection.
Does it really make sense to sell $3,99 homeopathic medicine that manages to cure the ailment with its placebo effect, or regression to mean, or because the doctor took case history?
Iqbal, Quote: “An antibiotic costs 2 cents to produce, is sold by generic producer at 20 cents, and by the company claiming to develop it, at $2. The patient starts course (20 tablets) that leads to diarrhea, requiring another range of tablets ($2×10). The liver will get affected, leading to liver/skin problem for which visit to the specialist would be required along with a new round of medication ($5×20). The bacteria would in the meantime develop resistance and the patient finally being cured of all diseases dies of infection.”
An homeopathic costs 0.2 cents to produce, has zero development costs (contrary to 500 Mio on average for a real drug) and is sold at USD 5 per pack. Do you know why homeopathic companies are rarely involved in cases dealing with the effect or better “non” effect of their drugs ? Because they do not sell drugs for specific diseases, but under general terms so that there is no fraud. They go at great lengths to phrase their inserts in a way that they are not responsible for the non-effect of the drug.
Further the damage homeopathics do is by delaying state-of-the art therapies – this is extremely difficult to prove – it is always either the patient’s fault or the physician’s fault. You really do not know how the industry works, do you ?
“Third, there is no proof ti does work. All available evidence is fully consistent with the null hypothesis, and there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085232/
ROFL!
The link is to an article about Traumeel, a product originating from the Heel company of Baden Baden in Germany. Traumeel is one of those products where the manufacturer chooses to call it ‘homeopathy’, but which in fact contains measurable quantities of (many) ingredients. (See Table 2 in the paper linked to for details.) There is considerable confusion arising from ‘low dilution’ products like Traumeel being sold as ‘homeopathy’, when homeopathy far more typically involves dilutions above 12C, therefore containing none of the original ingredients.
In the specific case of Traumeel (which may well have pharmacological activity, containing as it does 10 ingredients at concentrations of tens of mg/100 g), the manufacturers were hoist with their own petard. Because they call the product ‘homeopathic’ they were threatened with a class action lawsuit that complains about high-dilution products being worthless. They therefore withdrew Traumeel from the North American market in 2014!
Great example, Iqbal. Well up to your usual standard of evidence.
@Frank Odds on Wednesday 07 September 2016 at 18:18
” There is considerable confusion arising from ‘low dilution’ products like Traumeel being sold as ‘homeopathy’, when homeopathy far more typically involves dilutions above 12C, therefore containing none of the original ingredients.”
Is that ALL you know about homeopathy? The homeopathic materia lists many remedies. See one copy here: http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/ Check for defined dose and let me know how many of the remedies are NOT homeopathic?
“They therefore withdrew Traumeel from the North American market in 2014!”
Some confusion here. My son in USA uses Traumeel and bought from the “North American market in
2014, 2015”.
Please read the many comments from saddened users who can no longer obtain Traumeel in the USA on this thread: http://edzardernst.com/2014/05/homeopathic-manufacturer-to-close-north-american-subsidiaries/
@Frank Odds on Friday 09 September 2016 at 11:04
http://edzardernst.com/2014/05/homeopathic-manufacturer-to-close-north-american-subsidiaries/
You are very naive, and follow a guy who either has no clue about what he writes or has made a practise of purposely providing misleading information.
And you should avoid circular referencing.
Go to Amazon.com USA and ask for Traumeel- NOW. Remember we are in 2016.
@Frank Odds on Friday 09 September 2016 at 11:04
“http://edzardernst.com/2014/05/homeopathic-manufacturer-to-close-north-american-subsidiaries/”
Did you order your bottle of Traumeel from Amazon. usa in 2016?
This link was very interesting: especially “Please read the many comments from saddened users who can no longer obtain Traumeel in the USA on this thread”
A group of users is writing about the enormous benefit of using Traumeel, and a group of jokers is telling them it cannot true!!!! Anecdotes, it is not the animal getting well, but you thinking so, self limiting disease, regression to mean………
And then YOU find out the non-homeopathic contents in Traumeel. (Did you find some non homeopathic remedies in homeopathic materia medica?)
Good idea to improve knowledge. If you plan to write against homeopathy, it is important to first gain knowledge about it. Check homeopathic sites, I am sure there would be many: select one that just not only writes against allopathic medical system (like this). You will be exposed to a balanced treatment modality. This may help you personally in future to make a good decision.
The Traumeel vendor on Amazon.com is based in Germany. The manufacturer of Traumeel remains absent from the North American market, rather than face a class-action lawsuit. Grey or bootleg suppliers can, of course, advertise their products on Amazon.
Boericke and other authors of homeopathic materia medica from the early 20th century were trained doctors and did not follow Hahnemann’s advice about potentizing by dilution and banging the solution against a leather-bound book at each step. While their ‘provings’ are still accepted by homeopaths, the majority of homeopathic products sold nowadays are diluted to at least 6C (10^12).
Placebo effects, self-limiting diseases and regression to the mean remain the explanation for anecdotes of ‘cure’ by homeopathy. The clinical trial data speak for themselves. I wonder why homeopathy seems to offer no cure for the current epidemic of obesity. (I know, that’s a tu quoque, but since homeopathy claims to treat the whole patient, how come it can’t cause a person to lose weight?)
@Frank Odds on Sunday 11 September 2016 at 11:34
“The Traumeel vendor on Amazon.com…
It is available in USA. Traumeel is homeopathic combination remedy.
“Boericke and other authors of homeopathic materia medica from the early 20th century were trained doctors……”
I agree.
“….. did not follow Hahnemann’s advice about potentizing by dilution..
INCORRECT. Check Materia Medica again for potencies of: Bacillinum, Calc carb, Hep sul, Ignatia, Lachesis, Nat Mur,….Tuberculinum.
“While their ‘provings’ are still accepted by homeopaths, the majority of homeopathic products sold nowadays are diluted to at least 6C (10^12).”
INCORRECT. ECHINACEA A, BERBERIS A, HYDRASTIS C, NUX VOM are great choices as mother tinctures and available in USA.
“Placebo effects, self-limiting diseases and regression to the mean remain the explanation for anecdotes of ‘cure’ by homeopathy.”
I defined this earlier. New adjectives are required when a situation cannot be explained with regular words. Magic is missing.
“The clinical trial data speak for themselves.”
You did not like traumeel data? So many customers speaking for it! What about Arsenic A?
“I wonder why homeopathy seems to offer no cure for the current epidemic of obesity. (I know, that’s a tu quoque, but since homeopathy claims to treat the whole patient, how come it can’t cause a person to lose weight?)”
You know the reason for obesity? Dr. Martin Blaser discusses his hypothesis that the overuse of antibiotics, c-sections, and antiseptics has permanently changed our microbiome and are causing an increase in modern diseases such as OBESITY, juvenile diabetes, and asthma.
You would like to lose weight?
Stop antibiotics. Stop eating animals treated with antibiotics. Take a small course of homeopathic remedies to clean effect of drugs. Then move on to Phytolacca Berries (available on amazon). Add a healthy lifestyle.
Medicines are different to allopathic drugs, in that these are to be used during period of sickness only. If you are planning to be eating recklessly, and still avoid obesity, then the remedy is: after eating, be dropped into the Atlantic ocean, 50 kms from the shore and swim back, everyday. If you manage to reach shore, next target is 100 kms.
There’s plenty of homeopaths trying to profit off the obesity epidemic…
Does anyone know off a disease homeopathy does not profer to cure? Or for that matter any silly substance that has not found its way into a remedy and been “proven”??
Idiots who pretend to be able to fly aeroplanes are stopped by authorities whenever possible, why not idiots who pretend to be able to prevent and heal diseases?
YELLOW was a term used in West: early America: to describe people who went back on their word.
They were called out on the street for a gun fight and generally killed in broad day light with the town folk looking on.
I am waiting to see the response from Ernst on why he changed data to get results in line with his belief, as noted by Dr. Hahn in his analysis.
You had agreed to provide this review, if in turn I could define some specific action homeopathic remedies.
I am waiting
oh no, you are not waiting; it’s been there all the time and I have pointed it out many times before. it’s here: http://edzardernst.com/2015/09/how-much-did-big-pharma-pay-for-my-soul/
SO, STOP LYING!!!
I saw this many times. Where do you provide justification of changing data to suit your results?
That was the comment of Dr. Hahn.
I am afraid I cannot help you; this would clearly require more intelligence than your arguments display.
It requires reading, not intellegence. Just show data justification in place of running down a person.
I asked you a question. You replied but you did not answer. Accusing Prof. Ernst of misdeeds he did not commit, is not an answer to my question. It is a mere reply and in this case, it is also slander.
He doesn’t, because he doesn’t.
Hahn, on the other hand, is a crackpot who uses Google Translate instead of proper translators.
@Iqbal, there are two laws named after Georg Ohm, the Ohm’s law refering to electricity and Ohm’s acoustic law refering to hearing. None of it has anything to do with fluidics. I think you do not known what you are talking about. For such cases the famous philosopher Wittgenstein states that one has to be silent.
@Bart B. Van Bockstaele
This “crack pot” seems to know more about data than Ernst.
Please check which laws of physics and chemistry were missed during development of vioxx. Why would a pain killer lead to heart failure? Are you aware of the number of patients killed?
@ Thomas Mohr
“there are two laws named after Georg Ohm…….to hearing. None of it has anything to do with fluidics. I think you do not known what you are talking about.”
The problem with people like you and Ernst is that you do not know much about allopathy, but you claim to know every thing about homeopathy.
http://www.cvphysiology.com/Hemodynamics/H001.htm
“For such cases the famous philosopher Wittgenstein states that one has to be silent.”
I agree. It is better to remain silent and let the world believe you are a fool, than to open your mounth and remove all doubts.
@Iqbal, well, this is NOT Ohm’s law, but a general fluidics principle. Now you need to enlighten us how this law is invaidated in blood vessels resp. how alpha-beta blockers violate this law.
Iqbal, I see. Ohm’s law is merely a simple to understand analogy for medical doctors. For engineers pressure drop in any fluid and any tube is calculated according to Darcy-Weissbach which goes: (p1-p2)/L = fD*rho/2*V²/D. With fD being the Darcy friction factor, rho being the viscosity of the fluid and D being the hydrodynamic diameter of the tube. In your simplified equation R = fD*rho/2 and F = V²/D.
This is *exactly* what is at work in blood vessels and actually *used* by alpha-beta blockers. the alpha part increases the hydrodynamic diameter of the blood vessels by relaxing smooth muscle cells thus leading to a drop in blood pressure, the beta part blocks catecholamine uptake in the brain leading to a slower heartrate and thus to a lower V² , again lowering blood pressure. You see that alpha-beta blocker work *exactly* accoring to fluiddynamics.
PS: Please don’t fuss around with me with physics. i am an food and biotechnology engineer and fluid dynamics is essential in this field.
OMG! That’s hilarious, Iqbal!
Thanks for removing any doubt that remained (not that there was any).
Sound advice. I suggest you take it.
No. That’s why research continues. You may know far more about *how* your ministrations work, but since you have never ever been able to demonstrate even the slightest plausible evidence that they *do* work, you have all the hallmarks of a ruthless swindler.
If it looks like a swindler, if it smells like a swindler, it it behaves as a swindler, it probably is a swindler.
@Bart B. Van Bockstaele on Sunday 04 September 2016 at 04:55
“If it looks like a swindler, if it smells like a swindler, it it behaves as a swindler, it probably is a swindler.”
Evidence? Check with Ernst. I am sure he has available, manufactured data for this statement also.
@Iqbal: I think swindler is a little harsh, as it implies that you know your practices to be fraudulent. Actually the evidence here is that you are impervious to reason and disconfirming fact, so I would instead class you as a cultist.
The law does draw a distinction between those who promote worthless products knowingly, and those who believe they work. That distinction is one of degree, though, not one of innocence or guilt. Promoting bogus remedies is still objectively wrong, and it’s legally permissible only because believers wrote it into the relevant laws when they were written. If you tried to introduce homeopathy now, using the claims normally made for it, it would rapidly be shut down as the scam it undoubtedly is.
Don’t change the question. I asked you for evidence, not Prof. Ernst. Your claim, your evidence.
Having recently undergone a course of antibiotics, I felt compelled to chime in on Iqbal’s ludicrous conspiracy theories.
(There was no “reply” option in that thread.)
My doctor diagnosed a bacterial infection and prescribed 10 days of powerful antibiotics. No diarrhea, no stomach upset, no side effects whatsoever. Most days in the morning I even ignored instructions and took the pill on an empty stomach. The infection went away: total cost for the generic pills? About $10 CDN. The doctor’s visit was covered by my provincial health plan. No one made a fortune on me and I was fixed up in less than two weeks. Big Pharma worked.
Even if I would have gotten diarrhea, what makes Iqbal think a doctor would prescribe another round of antibiotics? When the pills run out, the stomach upset stops. It’s expected and my pharmacist even has a pre-printed sheet with suggestions how to minimize discomfort. No doctor would ever prescribe anything to deal with diarrhea simply as a side effect of antibiotics.
A few months ago I was immobilized by an excruciating back pain. My pharmacist sold me his house brand of Aleve for $4.49 CDN for 24 pills. Within an hour of the first dose (about 40 cents worth at two pills per dose) I was able to move and function reasonably. I haven’t had back trouble since then but the bottle of Aleve is within reach.
What could homeopathy have offered me for a bacterial infection? Or any alternative medicine? I often wonder, when real sciencey medicine works, simply and effectively (and cheaply), what a naturopath or homeopath or chiropractor or acupuncturist would have recommended.
I know: they would all try to get to the “root cause” and line me up for six months of repeat visits, or sell me a truckload of their own supplements. Or put me on a “detox” regime (it’s always the toxins, ain’t it?). No thanks: I’ll stick to real medicine. It’s never failed me.
Of course I must be a shill.
@Woo Fighter on Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 06:32
You do not have to lie, woo fighter. Your name defines you well.
“10 days of powerful antibiotics. No diarrhea, no stomach upset, no side effects whatsoever.
Short term effects:
https://www.drugs.com/article/antibiotic-sideeffects-allergies-reactions.html
Medium term effects:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18704945
Long term effects
http://martinblaser.com/excerpt.html
The list is NOT compiled by doctors from the alternative medical stream.
“Most days in the morning I even ignored instructions and took the pill on an empty stomach?”
It is important to take antibiotics in the correct way. If you do not, this may reduce how well they work. For example, some antibiotics need to be taken with food and others should be taken on an empty stomach. If you do not take your antibiotics in the right way it will affect how much of them get into your body (their absorption) and therefore they may not work as well. So, follow the instructions as given by your doctor and on the leaflet that comes with the antibiotic you are prescribed.
“No one made a fortune on me..”
http://www.pfizer.com/system/files/presentation/2015_Pfizer_Financial_Report.pdf
Page 11. This is one of the Many companies.
“Even if I would have gotten diarrhea, what makes Iqbal think a doctor would prescribe another round of antibiotics? When the pills run out, the stomach upset stops. It’s expected and my pharmacist even has a pre-printed sheet with suggestions how to minimize discomfort. No doctor would ever prescribe anything to deal with diarrhea simply as a side effect of antibiotics.”
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antibiotic-associated-diarrhea/symptoms-causes/dxc-20229977
“A few months ago I was immobilized by an excruciating back pain. My pharmacist sold me his house brand of Aleve for $4.49 CDN for 24 pills. Within an hour of the first dose (about 40 cents worth at two pills per dose) I was able to move and function reasonably. I haven’t had back trouble since then but the bottle of Aleve is within reach.”
Aleve is used to TEMPORARILY relieve minor aches and pains due to arthritis, muscular aches, backache, menstrual cramps, headache, toothache,and the common cold. Aleve is also used to temporarily reduce fever.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: You should not use Aleve if you have a history of allergic reaction to aspirin or other NSAID (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug). Aleve can increase your risk of fatal heart attack or stroke, especially if you use it long term or take high doses, or if you have heart disease. Do not use Aleve just before or after heart bypass surgery (coronary artery bypass graft, or CABG). Aleve may also cause stomach or intestinal bleeding, which can be fatal. These conditions can occur without warning while you are using Aleve, especially in older adults. (What is “older” here? Any objective value?) If the conditions appear, you were old, other wise OK. GREAT MEDICINE.
“What could homeopathy have offered me for a bacterial infection?”
This would depend upon your symptoms. I have never taken antibiotic. My stomach disorders with bacterial infections (?) or other wise, were always resolved with homeopathic remedies.
“I often wonder, when real sciencey medicine works, simply and effectively (and cheaply), what a naturopath or homeopath or chiropractor or acupuncturist would have recommended.”
I cannot be specific of what they will offer. But surely, not something that has a potential to kill or maim you.
You cannot define it as cheap: were you to end up with adverse effects, The cost can be enormous: how much of this will be paid by “provincial health plan” (?) you will know better. What is the cost if you lose a family member. Now you know why health insurance is REALLY required with allopathic drugs.
“I know: they would all try to get to the “root cause” and line me up for six months of repeat visits…”
Root cause elimination is a great idea. Line you up for six months : may not be correct. I know a homeopathic doctor prescribing 12 week course. His waiting list is 12 weeks. If you get well in the meant time, no need to go back.
“No thanks: I’ll stick to real medicine. It’s never failed me.”
From the descriptions above, it does not look real nor medicine. REMEMBER, It has to fail “ONLY ONCE”.
“Of course I must be a shill.”
No just plain stupid and a little lucky. But luck usually has a tendency to run out.
You are truly hilarious. Well let’s see how Hahnemann himself worked:
Quote from his case journals: “0 – t, an actor, 33 years old, married. 14th January, 1843. For several years he had been frequently subject to sore throat, as also now for a month past. The previous sore throat had lasted six weeks. On swallowing his saliva, a prickling sensation; feeling of contraction and excoriation.
When he has not the sore throat he suffers from a pressure in the anus, with violent excoriative pains; the anus is then inflamed, swollen, and constricted; it is only with a great effort that he can then pass his faeces, when the swollen haemorrhoidal vessels protrude.”
I.o.W. a recurring throat infection (common among actors using the wrong technique) and a hemorrhoid 2. Note that the throat infection is likely already resolving (six weeks duration of the previous one, the current is 4 weeks).
The first treatment is Belladonna. Duration 3 days, effect: none. On January 25th the sore throat has almost resolved, likely by itself (duration was six weeks as in the untreated). 5 days later, the throat infection is back, becoming really bad on February 13th. On March 3th the a hemorrhoid prolapsed. Since homeopathy has not developed in any way since these times the treatment would be the same today. I.o.W. not treatment by trial and error, but non-treatment by error.
@Thomas Mohr on Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 14:38
“On January 25th the sore throat has almost resolved, likely by itself (duration was six weeks as in the untreated).”
I often wonder, why sickness resolves “likely by itself in 10 days” with homeopathy against 6 weeks when untreated. With allopathy, the patient with viral infection does what?
It is always good to check what a homeoquack says.
According to the financial document (2015) shown:
Revenue: 48,851 million dollars
Research: 7,690 million dollars (15.74%)
Promotion: 14,809 million dollars (30.31%)
Let’s compare that with Boiron (2015):
Revenue: 607,803 thousand euros
Research: 4,205 thousand euros (0.69%)
Promotion: 136,538 thousand euros (22.46%)
This means that, in relative terms:
Pfizer spent about 1.35 times as much on promotion as Boiron.
Pfizer spent about 22.81 times as much on research as Boiron.
So, while Pfizer spent about 1.93 times as much on promotion as on research, Boiron spent about 32.47 times as much on promotion as on research or 16.82 times as much as Pfizer.
I am not entirely convinced that this indicates much seriousness on the part of Boiron.
Source for Boiron:
http://www.boironfinance.fr/Espace-Actionnaires-et-Investisseurs/Communication-financiere/Information-reglementee/Rapports-annuels-et-semestriels
Thanks for this interesting comparison Bart.
If one gave it some time and research effort, I am sure it would be possible to come to a close estimate of the differences in production costs between real medicine vs. shaken water sugar pills.
I guess it would cost some dollars to get hold of a twig of arnica a morsel of sulphur (treats no less than four different ailments!) or a piece of the Berlin wall (“Murus Berlinensis” in homeospeak 😀 ) to take a few examples of what homeopaths have found useful to make the “mother tinctures” from.
Some stuff is dirt cheap like table salt (“Natr. Mur” I believe is the homeospeak name for it)
Pointing a telescope at Venus and collecting light from it cannot cost much I guess you could borrow a telescope for a night to make a mother load of tincture, right?
A housefly you can get hold of at the cost of a fly swatter. They are sold for a dollar in a store I know, and with just one of them you are set for a lifetime of raw material harvesting for your housefly remedy production.
I know this all sounds like something from Hogwarts school of sorcery. The resemblance is actually not incidental.
Now for the production of the goods from all the different mother tinctures, the process is really very simple and in most facilities it is highly automated so labour cost is minimal.
Alcohol, purified water and lactose/sucrose mixture are all relatively speaking very cheap commodities. Compare the cost per ton of these simple main ingredients of all homeopathic remedies (I mean ALL!) to the average cost of raw materials for say Cefuroxime (a common very effective and useful antibiotic with very little problems if used correctly of course) or Diclofenac (an arthritis medication I take daily for years without problems). The packaging and handling costs are probably a lot higher for real medications but let’s strike that comparison for simplicities sake.
Then add to this the costs for bureaucracy, specialized testing and quality assurance which is many magnitudes lower, in effect virtually non-existent in the production of shaken water sugar pills.
Now, apply the difference in production cost per unit price sold to the information Bart found and I think we will be looking at an even higher difference in revenue 😀
Homeopathy really is a lucrative business. And selling sugar pills involves no risk of liability because they are just that, sugar pills. Nothing less, nothing more.
Thanks for your interesting information, Björn.
I’d like to add this one, my personal favourite: http://homeopathictraining.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cygnus_X-1_THEME_Document.pdf
Black hole, one just can’t make this up.
Nobody said it better than Prof. Ernst when he said that homeopaths tend to be economical with the truth. In the documentary “Sanfte Medizin, Satte Gewinne” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-YAa0z5RS0), one can see the people of Wala, a company that sells homeopathic products, squirm when they are being pressed for information about their finances (they use a construction that allows them to hide this information altogether).
I wonder if one could sue people like this, for example, for causing obesity or diabetes. After all, they all like to claim that their tasteless candy has no side effects. That may be true, but it certainly has a main effect they don’t talk about at all: it causes obesity and potentially diabetes when consumed in large-enough amounts, i.e. its main effect is a carefully hidden one. Not even candy manufacturers are this dishonest.
Yes Bart.
I often contemplate how the prefix “Health-” seems to effectively protect quacks from liability. If you would perform the same tricks with monetary instruments as they do with “remedies” and other instruments of alternative healing, no doubt that the next visitor will be a group of policemen with arrest warrants for fraud, embezzling and probably several other counts of criminal activity.
@Björn Geir on Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 21:37
“Alcohol, purified water and lactose/sucrose mixture are all relatively speaking very cheap commodities. Compare the cost per ton of these simple main ingredients of all homeopathic remedies (I mean ALL!) to the average cost of raw materials for say Cefuroxime (a common very effective and useful antibiotic with very little problems if used correctly of course) or Diclofenac (an arthritis medication I take daily for years without problems). The packaging and handling costs are probably a lot higher for real medications but let’s strike that comparison for simplicities sake.”
For a change, I agree with you. Now you can understand, if 30 companies the size of Schwabe, or Boiron started manufacturing homeopathic remedies and competing, the price of homeopathic medicine would drop 50% to about $1 for a vial that would last a month. What do you think will happen to a $10 antibiotic? No one, not one patient will touch it with a flag pole. First pay a large amount and use it “WITH VERY LITTLE PROBLEMS IF USED CORRECTLY: OFF COURSE”.
NOW, HOPEFULLY ALL UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND BIG PHARMA HAVING TO BUY ERNST’s SOUL and spending 30% of their revenue on promotion. Big pharma has to ensure all alternative medicines are kept out of medical world: Insurance, NHS and similar institutions have already been compromised.
That is my question as well. For some reason, society seems to think that protecting people’s money is more important than protecting people’s health. I have a problem with that. I can’t help but think of the discrepancy between Bernie Madoff’s punishment and that of Boiron, both in the US.
You realise that this is slander, don’t you? I do admire quacks for one thing: their shameless lying. I don’t know how you do it. It is abhorrent, but it certainly is a talent.
As their own documents show. As Prof. Ernst says: homeopaths tend to be economical with the truth. Why are you leaving out the fact that Boiron spends 32 times as much on promotion as on research, research it hardly does. Let’s listen to what Boiron says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cA_oGiNTOk&feature=youtu.be&t=8m22s
No it doesn’t. It’s patients who need to ensure it. For their own safety.
Sure. And Obama was born in Kenya, the Americans didn’t go to the moon, George W. Bush is a reptilian from outer space, 9/11 was an inside job …
some quacks seem to stupid to realize they are lying.
Maybe they are applying their very own version of automatic writing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_writing)
@Bart B. Van Bockstaele on Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 18:02
“Pfizer spent about 22.81 times as much on research as Boiron.”
Statistical analysis is a tricky subject. The data should be cross checked. Pfizer spends $7690 m on research. At $500 m per drug development, they should release 15 NEW drugs every year. What is the real output? So, where is the research money going? And if you take into account the little tweaks they do with existing drugs to maintain patents, the numbers drugs introduced every year should be much higher. So, at least 150 NEW and “NEW IMPROVED” drugs in the last 10 years?
The fact is, that most of the research money is spent upon resolving adverse effects of the earlier drugs reported by doctors, that the chemists missed during elaborate RCT costing $500 m and 10 years of testing. The fact is, when you build a house on sand with no foundation, you have to face the long term consequences. The great science based medical edifice is built upon wrong logic. As time passes, it will become more and more expensive to hold it together. R&D expenses and promotional expenses will rise dramatically.
This also justifies their spending 30% of their revenue on PROMOTION: a lot of white color is required to coat blood and black colors. This is many times more than FMCG companies. P&G had 11% advertising expense for 2015.
(http://www.pginvestor.com/Cache/1500090608.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1500090608&iid=4004124)
But this is good news for the likes of Ernst. The cost of soul will continue to increase.
Iqbal: Quote: “Statistical analysis is a tricky subject. The data should be cross checked. Pfizer spends $7690 m on research. At $500 m per drug development, they should release 15 NEW drugs every year.”
Statistical analysis is indeed a tricky subject. Do you know the candidate to drug ratio ? No Apparently not. Otherwise you would not write this statement: “The fact is, that most of the research money is spent upon resolving adverse effects of the earlier drugs reported by doctors, that the chemists missed during elaborate RCT costing $500 m and 10 years of testing. ”
This is blatantly wrong.
You have really no idea how drug development works.
For you, a reality denier, it would be. But it’s also irrelevant. This isn’t statistical analysis, it’s accounting. Since you don’t know that, there is very little I can tell you, except perhaps that someone with a couple of years of elementary school can make this calculation, without needing so much as a calculator. Statistical analysis requires a (much) bigger effort.
@Thomas Mohr on Thursday 22 September 2016 at 16:20
“This is blatantly wrong.You have really no idea how drug development works.”
If you know the subject well, for the benefit of all, explain what did Pfizer do with expense of $ 7690 m in the R&D.
How many new drugs did it send out in 2015?
No Iqbal, first YOU tell us the candidate to drug ratio. That explains the research expenses a real drug company has.
Mostly research that had to be abandoned because it did not lead anywhere. That is, of course, a problem quackorporations don’t have: they hardly do any research, making baseless claims is sufficient for most of their intellectually challenged fans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cA_oGiNTOk&feature=youtu.be&t=8m22s
“Mostly research that had to be abandoned because it did not lead anywhere.”
mostly
Mostly research that had to be abandoned because it did not lead anywhere.
@Thomas Mohr/Bart B. Van Bockstaele on Friday 23 September 2016 at 04:24
“Mostly research that had to be abandoned because it did not lead anywhere.”
This is interesting. Physics is very well known. In chemistry, the knowledge of physical, organic and in organic segments is very well understood. Human body has not changed much in the past 100 years.
I would expect, a fairly good model of the problem can be made and the possible methods to scientifically handle it can be prepared. Theoretically, with 4% cost of inflation, and 10% reduction in cost of development by using past experience and research data, year on year the net cost of development of new drug should come down. Number of positive results over years should continue to increase.
What is the real picture? If, most projects are abandoned, as it led nowhere, what part of science is going wrong? If I remember correctly, science works all the time inside the human body. Pfizer does not use people off the street as development scientists. They definitely know their science. Do these scientists accept your argument that Physics and chemistry works inside the human body?
Then. if one drug is released, once a year, simple accounting shows the development cost is $7.68 billion/per drug.
If I remember correctly, Viagra development started as a remedy for the heart: the Physics calculation went wrong by 30 inches? Then marketing came to the rescue of the company. We see such scenes in 3rd rate companies. First they produce bad material and then expect the sales people to sell it anyways.
” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cA_oGiNTOk&feature=youtu.be&t=8m22s”
I have seen this video earlier. It shows that the promotional money by drug companies is well spent. The pharma companies have “intellectually challenged” simple human beings who now cannot differentiate between drug and medicine and why should there be a requirement of taking a drug until death. And you are a bigger idiot if you believe this proves a point.
Over dose in homeopathy is not gulping down bottles of medicine. Check dosage in any materia medica. No where the quantity is defined. Potencies are. Over dose is, taking a dose regularly under certain conditions. And doctors are made aware, so they do not do it.
Secale to pregnant women. Phosphorous to tubercular patients.(http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/p/phos.htm)
Not like allopathic system where children die with over dose of paracetamol!!
http://patient.info/in/doctor/paracetamol-poisoning#ref-1
Of course it is very difficult to overdose on homeopathy. But not impossible. Toxicology tests on rats show that the oral LD50 (dose at which half the rats succumb) of ordinary sugar is about 30g per kg. That would mean a 70kg human would have to ingest more than 2 kg’s (4.4 pounds) of sugar to have a 50% chance of it killing him. If a bottle of 200C (really strong stuff!) “Oscillococcinum” contains 10 grams of pills (a guess), about 7000 bottles ingested all at once by 100 70kg men would kill about 50 of them.
(The calculations above are just for fun. Rat experiments are only able to give an idea of what might happen. They are seldom generalisable to other species.)
The link Iqbal provides says this about Dosage:
Homeopathy is the epitome of stupidity.
Quote: “Dose.–Third to thirtieth potency. Should not be given too low or in too continuous doses. Especially in tuberculous cases. It may act as Euthanasia here. ” It would be interesting how this would be achieved.
With regard to homeopathy this shows very clearly two things:
1) Homeopathy is based on theory rather than experiment – rendering it essentially useless
2) Homeopathy is a standstill. Boericke died 1929 and his treatments would be done exactly as during his lifetime. with the same results. Contrary to that an MD from the early 20th century would not be able to practice due to the development of medicine.
Taken together homeopathy is hocus pocus and the talk how strong high potencies are is merely to enhance the placebo effect.
@Thomas Mohr on Saturday 24 September 2016 at 17:34
“It would be interesting how this would be achieved.”
You know someone who has suffered from TB of the lungs. No problem if he is ok now. Give him 2 vials of Phosphorous 30c. It probably contains 30/40 pills. 2 pills daily, 2 times a day for about 30 days. Let me know the outcome.
The best forensic expert would not be able to define the cause of death.
The other is Secale C. Try out on your pregnant wife or girlfriend in the same way. Let us test this at your responsibility.
Let me know the outcome… That’s a bit too transparent! You have to tell us what the outcome will be – otherwise there is no way of checking.
This is one good argument for the claim that homeopaths are con-artists. They don’t do any tests, but pester others in doing the tests for them, so they always keep plausible deniability in the eyes of an unsuspecting scientifically illiterate public, regardless of outcome: they *know* their “therapies” are bogus.
Iqbal is one such despicable example.
@Edzard on Sunday 25 September 2016 at 16:05
” You have to tell us what the outcome will be – otherwise there is no way of checking.”
I thought you understood English.
Phosphorous: Third to thirtieth potency. Should not be given too low or in too continuous doses. Especially in tuberculous cases. It may act as Euthanasia here.
Secale: Remember Pagot’s law. “As long as the uterus contains, anything, be it child, placenta, membranes, clots, never administer Ergot”.
right!
you are badly wrong on 2 different levels:
1st you claim that phosphorus at the 13th potency (you failed to mention the scale) can have any effect at all. this goes against all we know about pharmacology.
2nd you recommend giving remedies which – in your idiotic way of thinking – would kill human life. this goes against medical ethics.
why don’t you stop demonstrating what a quack you are; you have long convinced us!!!
“…in your idiotic way of thinking…”
Politeness is a very good thing and enables a better exchange than we sometimes have on this blog.
for recommending to kill humans (in his delusion) IDIOTIC THINKING is still too polite a term, in my view.
Good excuse. Sometimes emotions get out of control.
@Edzard on Monday 26 September 2016 at 07:03
“1st you claim that phosphorus at the 13th potency (you failed to mention the scale) can have any effect at all. this goes against all we know about pharmacology.”
You keep on claiming you know homeopathy. Do you?
http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/p/phos.htm
You may have read the proving process of homeopathic remedies.Why would Dr. Boericke record it?
“for recommending to kill humans (in his delusion) IDIOTIC THINKING is still too polite a term, in my view.”
Are you not being paranoid and contradicting yourself? If this was not possible, you should agree to state that this cannot happen and you take responsibility for such test and go ahead and do it? And if it is possible, then there is a rationale and such test should never be tried. It is clearly stated in the homeopathic Materia Medica to ensure mistake is avoided.
In the allopathic system, killing patients is standard error since as far back as the records are available. In USA alone, doctors killed over 300,000 patients in 2014 as part of medical errors: the other name for scientific learning process. Is it wrong to prove homeopathy with some deaths? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!!
“2nd you recommend giving remedies which – in your idiotic way of thinking – would kill human life. this goes against medical ethics.”
For countries in which abortion is legal? http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/s/sec.htm
You think abortion are carried out by homeopaths? Seldom. Most often, it is the allopath doctors doing so. They have a standard term: Medical termination of pregnancy. With disastrous consequences for the women.
“why don’t you stop demonstrating what a quack you are; you have long convinced us!!!”
It would be correct if you were to either clearly state that you don’t know homeopathy or you have knowingly derided it for ulterior motives all these years.
i give up
Just a guess: because he was a quack?
You should have done long ago. Iqbal doesn’t comprehend ANYTHING.
Hehe… “Iqbal” is mastering the “art” of circular (homeopathic) reasoning. No use trying to push facts in that face. He is showing the world just how harebrained homeopaths can be.
Proposing for example that eating a few sugar pills for a month will kill a (former) Tb patient… I think that one takes home the prize for this year’s childish homeopathy fables. And what proof does he provide? Unsubstantiated fantasies by other “homeodiots”.
Iqbal steams on completely impervious to proven facts and blind to the absurdity of his make-believe medicine. He references “provings” as proof and when upset, parrots childish myths from anti-establishment fanatic falsification sites like Natural News, whale(dot)to and similar repositories of rubbish – like that old, tired fable about doctors killing[sic] 300.000 patients a year.
If you ask him a difficult question there’s no answer, no further discussion of that topic. He simply motors on in another direction and blurbs more standard, immature fallacies.
Iqbal does a good job here of demonstrating how homeopathy is indeed nothing more than a fanatic religion and how it is quite useless to argument with its ‘zombie’ disciples.
I guess the sugar pill pushers will carry on with their Hogwarts-esque shaking of silly dilutions from such imbecilic raw material as rats blood, and skunk-odour as long as the last idiot is alive.
Eliminating homeopathy would involve eradicating stupidity, which I guess will not happen, at lleast not in our lifetime.
As interesting and entertaining as it can be to observe the extents of absurdity to which homeopathy cultists can reach, we are not getting anywhere trying to reason with these cognitively challenged religious fanatics.
The way to minimize the damage such simpletons cause is through providing public education and influencing legislators, not by arguing with the cultists in circle after circle hitting the same thickheadedness in each turn.
@Edzard on Monday 26 September 2016 at 19:41
“i give up”.
The truthful statement should be “I don’t know homeopathy.” But truth is alien to you.
http://homeopathyusa.org/uploads/Research/SebastianErnst.pdf
Dr. Ernst commented, “No power calculations were provided.” Given the above description, this is clearly a misleading criticism because they explicitly stated that the power was calculated with the PESTTM software. It is unclear to me how further details would be helpful in the discussion of this research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998971
“The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).”
“Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) at Exeter University, is the most frequently cited „expert‟ by critics of homeopathy, but a recent interview has revealed the astounding fact that he “never completed any courses” and has no qualifications in homeopathy. What is more his principal experience in the field was when “After my state exam I worked under Dr Zimmermann at the Münchner Krankenhaus für Naturheilweisen” (Munich Hospital for Natural Healing Methods). Asked if it is true that he only worked there “for half a year”, he responded that “I am not sure … it is some time ago”!”
http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/about-my-controversial-qualifications/
“I have no formal ones in alternative medicine, and I have never said otherwise.
I am not even sure that such qualifications existed when I was in my ‘qualifying years’ (late 1970s).”
“The qualification of physicians in homeopathy is regulated since the mid 50’s. Qualifying courses are offered by the DZVhÄ (German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians).”
In April 2010 the German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter where he claimed he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title.”
In Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, it is a prerequisite to have passed an exam by a governing medical council.
“GNAHP: “So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?”
ERNST: “I never completed any courses.”
Began his career at a homeopathic HOSPITAL but never completed any courses in homeopathy in a country that regulates its use?”
Björn Geir on Tuesday 27 September 2016 at 00:03
“…..parrots childish myths from anti-establishment fanatic falsification sites like Natural News, whale(dot)to and similar repositories of rubbish – like that old, tired fable about doctors killing[sic] 300.000 patients a year.”
Once a liar, always a liar.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
The deaths estimated are in hospitals. Add another 25% for people who die at home on account of medical errors. That adds up to over 312000 patients in USA alone for 2014. The data presentation is only 20 years old: started by Dr. Lucine Leape. The great part about it is that it has continued to increase every year. If you extrapolate it for the world, this would merrily cross millions. Dr. Ernst Edzard should help you with figures, adjusted to your liking.
If you have some reservations, check here.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/millions-harmed-each-year-from-unsafe-medical-care/
43 MILLION for 2012?
Great work in the name of scientific medicine with statistical data to support outcome.
If end results were the measure to accept a doctrine, SBM would have been closed down long ago.
Quite predictably “Iqbal”, true to the image I drew up of his character, pulls another obfuscation. This time he probably found it in his friend Mercola’s repository of risible rubbish.
This BMJ article isn’t even a study but an opinion piece based loosely on old estimates and guesswork.
It is an exaggerative opinion piece about the generally sorry state of healthcare in the US. (Remember folks, the US isn’t the world, even if many who live there think so) The title, which refers to medical errors, not homicidal doctors 🙂 , is really enough to refute the “Iqbal’s” argument about doctor being murderous killing machines but here’s a piece well worth reading where this tired myth is refuted in detail.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/
@Björn Geir on Tuesday 27 September 2016 at 17:58
“Quite predictably “Iqbal”, true to the image I drew up of his character, pulls another obfuscation.”
You are a copy of the 10 commandments: Only ad hominem inscribed in your stone (mind?).
“This time he probably found it in his friend Mercola’s repository of risible rubbish.”
And who is Mercola’s? Your bete noire?
“This BMJ article isn’t even a study but an opinion piece based loosely on old estimates and guesswork.”
You want the researcher’s count each body? Not so long back, you were explaining statistics. The data for deaths because of medical errors is statistically derived estimate. 26000 patients killed EVERY DAY.
“It is an exaggerative opinion piece about the generally sorry state of healthcare in the US. (Remember folks, the US isn’t the world, even if many who live there think so).”
You seem to accept that because of the sorry state of health care in USA, this figure is a possibility. I agree with you. This is the reason, when the 3rd world is added, the figure rises to 43 million. This presents the medical science in very poor light. The first dictum of medical oath “I will do no harm” is crucified on the alter of profits. This is the logic of medical science Ernst sells and you buy.
” The title, which refers to medical errors, not homicidal doctors ? , is really enough to refute the “Iqbal’s” argument about doctor being murderous killing machines”
The doctors are not killing machines. If they were, I would accept they were doing a great job, and better still by getting paid for by those who they killed. The doctors are complete idiots, misleading poor patients, who come to them in the hope of getting rid of their illness. Most often, they are responsible for death and new problems of their patients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101
“A paradoxical pattern has been suggested in the literature on doctors’ strikes: when health workers go on strike, mortality stays level or decreases. We performed a review of the literature during the past forty years to assess this paradox………Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.” For forty years doctors go on strike, less people die.
“..but here’s a piece well worth reading where this tired myth is refuted in detail.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/”
This cross reference is so idiotic. David Gorsky refers Ernst and vice-versa. Who are you fooling?
http://hospitalmedicine.ucsf.edu/improve/literature/error_in_medicine_leape_jama.pdf
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=188074
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf
http://www.msreversed.com/PDF/Doctors%20Are%20The%20Third%20Leading%20Cause%20of%20Death.pdf
Ask David Gorsky to find explanation for references provided here, more so as to why the figures for death due to medical errors continue to increase every year.
Iqbal, so far results on the efficiency of homeopathy in serious diseases have no been conducted. There are some studies on the use of alternative medicine in cancer and the results are abysmal for alternative medicine. Therefore your argument about the unsafe treatment of patients by doctors is moot.
Aside that, don’t try to lay a smokescreen. In order to prove your point, you have to present superiority data. Do you have some ? No ?
Iqbal is doing a good job proving my point.
He will have to stop quoting Joe Mercola, Mike “Health Danger” Adams and similar idiots if we are to stop laughing.
To be honest, while I have to admit that I can’t stop a giggle from escaping every now and then, I become increasingly somber when I see people like this. These people are ruthlessly exploiting the ignorance and gullibility of their marks for no other reason than to make money, and our democracy is the main facilitator of their success. We don’t teach critical thinking in our schools, because voters don’t want it. As a direct result, many people are defenseless when faced with quackery. I think this is tragic, not comical.
@Björn Geir on Thursday 29 September 2016 at 14:23
“He will have to stop quoting Joe Mercola, Mike “Health Danger” Adams and similar idiots if we are to stop laughing.”
If you cannot recognize the work of Dr. Lucine Leape of Harvard Medical School or Dr. Barbra Starfield of John Hopkins, I suggest you surrender your medical license and go back to medical school for a proper course.
Iqbal, this is NOT about dangers in health care. This is about YOUR claims how homepathy works, so for God’s sake quit trying to lay a smokescreen. That will not fly with us.
Thomas Mohr replied adequately to Iqbal’s latest display of ignorance. Let me just add that Iqbal does not seem to understand the difference between evidence and opinion or between intentional harm and adverse outcomes. His projectiles are nothing but fizzling duds.
@Thomas Mohr on Thursday 29 September 2016 at 12:32
“.. so far results on the efficiency of homeopathy in serious diseases have no been conducted.”
Which are the serious diseases? The ones created by the allopathic system or the standard old diseases?
“There are some studies on the use of alternative medicine in cancer and the results are abysmal for alternative medicine.”
“Homeopathy to reduce cancer symptoms or treatment side effects
Many people say that homeopathy has reduced their symptoms and helped them to feel better. Some studies have looked at using particular homeopathy remedies to treat cancer symptoms or reduce the side effects of cancer treatment.
A review in 2009 looked at the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic medicines used to prevent or treat side effects of cancer treatments. 8 trials were reviewed and two reported positive results. One trial of 254 people showed that calendula cream worked better than trolamine (a commonly used non steroid cream) for preventing skin soreness due to radiotherapy. A very small trial of 32 people showed that a homeopathic mouthwash called Traumeel S (containing belladonna, arnica, St John’s wort and echinacea) worked better than a placebo to prevent a sore mouth due to chemotherapy. Some doctors and researchers have concerns about the way in which these trials were carried out. So more research is needed to check these results and show whether homeopathic medicines really can help to reduce the side effects of cancer treatments.
2 small studies have suggested that homeopathy may help women with breast cancer to cope with menopause symptoms. But a review of treatments for menopausal symptoms in 2010 found that homeopathy had no effect.
A trial in 2000 showed that homeopathic medicine seemed to help to reduce skin soreness during radiotherapy in breast cancer patients. But this clinical trial was very small and so we need further research to know whether homeopathy really has an effect.
It is not possible to know whether homeopathy can reduce sickness during chemotherapy because studies so far have been very poorly reported.
A very small study was carried out in Germany in 2011. It found that patients with cancer treated with classical homeopathy had a better quality of life and less tiredness (fatigue) than patients who did not have homeopathy. But there were only 22 people in the study and this is too small to show whether homeopathy really had any effect.
A study of 9 patients took place in Chile in 2010. It looked at using a homeopathic injection therapy called Traumeel to reduce pain in patients after breast cancer treatment. The patients had a high level of pain even though they were taking painkillers. The researchers found that all patients had less pain after the injection. They also reported a better quality of life. But this was again a very small study and we need bigger studies to show whether Traumeel really works in this situation.
Homeopathy to boost immunity
In 2010, a study looked at whether homeopathic products could affect the growth of breast cancer cells in the test tube. This is very early research. The scientists studied 4 remedies (Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja) and added them to 2 types of breast cancer cells and 1 type of healthy breast cells. The remedies slowed or stopped the growth of some of the cancer cells and made some of the cells self destruct. The researchers said that the findings show that these homeopathic substances have a biological effect and they recommend further research.
In 2013, a study looked at the effects of 5 homeopathic remedies on particular cells in the immune system called natural killer cells (NKCs). Natural killer cells are important in killing cancer cells. The remedies were Coenzyme Compositum, Ubichinon Compositum, Glyoxal Compositum, Katalysatoren and Traumeel. Some trials looked at the immune cells in the laboratory in test tubes. Other trials measured the cells in the blood of patients with advanced cancer. The researchers found that the homeopathic preparations increased the cell killing ability of the natural killer cells. This study was very small but the authors felt that these homoeopathic preparations could be used to boost the immune system in people with advanced cancer. We need further research to find out the exact effects.
Homeopathy for children with cancer
An Australian study in 2012 looked at the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) in children with cancer at the end of their life. They found that a third of parents used CAMs for their children. The most commonly used therapies were organic foods, faith healing, and homeopathy. Most parents felt that the therapies had helped their child.
A large German study in 2011 looked at the use of homeopathy in children with cancer. It found that the children who used homeopathy were very satisfied. Most of the children said that they would recommend the therapy to others.
Research into homeopathy for health conditions
In March 2015, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia published a report. A working group assessed the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions.
The assessment was based on
An overview of published systematic reviews
An independent evaluation of information provided by homeopathy interest groups and the public
Consideration of clinical practice guidelines and government reports on homeopathy published in other countries
The group identified 57 systematic reviews that contained 176 individual studies. They compared groups of people who were given homeopathic treatment with similar groups of people who were not given homeopathic treatment (controlled studies).
The report concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy works. The NHMRC recommends that homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious.
Side effects
Using homeopathic medicine is generally safe. Some homeopaths warn people that their symptoms could get slightly worse before they settle down and improve. But this does not happen very often. A Swiss meta analysis of homeopathy trials in 2006 found that homeopathy given appropriately by a trained homeopath was safe and had few side effects.”
“Therefore your argument about the unsafe treatment of patients by doctors is moot.”
When allopathic doctors stop attending to patients, the mortality rates go down. What does this signify? It has happened every time during past forty years. Where does it place allopathic medical system in terms of sophistication?
“Aside that, don’t try to lay a smokescreen. In order to prove your point, you have to present superiority data. Do you have some ? No ?”
Let us discuss one type of cancer: Please help me clear the smoke screen a little:
https://www.drugwatch.com/actos/
Actos is an oral Type 2 diabetes drug. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1999. With diet and exercise, it helps control blood sugar. Eli Lilly partnered with Takeda to market the drug, and it became one of the most successful diabetes medications of all time. Before the manufacturer lost the patent on Actos in 2011, its U.S. sales were $3.58 billion in 2010.
According to the FDA, in two additional three-year studies (a liver safety study and the PRO active study) researchers noted a higher incidence of bladder cancer in patients who took Actos versus those who took other drugs. BMJ published the latest study on pioglitazone in May 2012. This study revealed that people who take Actos for an extended period have an 83 percent higher risk of developing bladder cancer.
Additionally, Actos has a black-box warning for congestive heart failure. TZDs are known to cause or worsen this condition. Patients with a history of heart failure should be monitored when taking Actos. This medicine is also not recommended for patients with symptomatic heart failure or stage III or IV heart failure.
Also, Researchers from Taiwan’s Kaohsiung Medical University published a study in PLoS One that found the Type 2 diabetes drug increased the risk of chronic kidney disease. The study followed 35,000 people with diabetes from 2005 to 2009. People who took Actos were four times more likely to develop kidney disease than those who did not.
Other potentially dangerous ones are chronic kidney disease, lactic acidosis and bone fractures.
Smokescreen off. Forget curing cancer, the allopathic system is creating cancer and chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure in poor patients who went to their doctors for management of diabetes. Between 1999 and 2010, how many new customers were created by allopathic system?
The system knows everything about pharmacology (….this goes against all we know about pharmacology.) and did not know the possible toxicity of Actos?
How many such disasters you would like me to repeat here?
The first rule” I will do no harm” starts after this killing is over? What will happen to the thousands of patients who have developed bladder cancer, or chronic kidney disease or congestive heart failure? Allopathic system was extremely rotten during Hahnemann’s time. In the intervening 200 years, this is what has been achieved that you are proud off? Treatment (suppression) of one disease results in another more virulent disease. Can you see it?
That is a nonsensical claim. The day I have acute appendicitis, I want my doctor to do me harm, by plunging her/his scalpel in my tummy, cutting it open, removing the appendix and sewing me back up. It is precisely the harm that he/she does that will save my life. A nice homeopathic sugar pellet will be harmless, but I will also very likely be quite dead due to lack of treatment.
Given the choice, I choose the harm. Please doctor, harm me, I beg you!
Nihil nocere has long been replaced by the obligation of healthcare professionals to doe more good than harm with their actions – an obligation which homeopaths cannot meet.
Iqbal, I am afraid your typing is in vain. Traumeel contains pharmacologically relevant substances. As for the preliminary data showing some effects of calendula, therefore homeopathy works, vz. prior probability and false positives. This is a concept you apparently do not grasp.
As for your bypass story, We do not talk about the shortcomings of medicine. We talk about the shortcomings of homeopathy and for this vz. use of Belladonna for the treatment of scarlett fever which YOU still propagate despite 200 year old evidence to the contrary.
As for your “pregnant wife” suggestion. Let me explain something to you: We do not have to do anything. It is YOUR claim and therefore it is YOUR obligation to present data.
@Thomas Mohr on Saturday 01 October 2016 at 08:08
” Traumeel contains pharmacologically relevant substances.”
http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/
Take a look at the dose section for each medicine in the materia medica and tell every one which all are NOT homeopathic medicines listed here because of active molecule! And then look at each remedy in Traumeel and see if the concentration of “active molecule” was lower or higher than recommended dose in the materia medica.
” As for the preliminary data showing some effects of calendula, therefore homeopathy works, vz. prior probability and false positives. This is a concept you apparently do not grasp.”
Off course I grasp these concepts. You are slowly learning Ernst’s trade. He fudged data, you are trying to fudge logic to turn +ve effect of complementary medicine as nil. Nothing new. Carry on. Check if Prince Charles would agree to put you up in the Complementary chair to continue the work where Ernst left off.
“As for your bypass story, We do not talk about the shortcomings of allopathic medicine.”
I am very well aware of this attitude. The science of Physics and Chemistry is for shouting out at alternative medicine when no one in the allopathic system understands its relevant application. The basic relevance is how to make more money at the cost of patients.Creating smoke screen like this blog and to push medical failures under the carpet is part of that promotional activity.
You seem to be a novice. Start by saying ” medicine has moved ahead in the past 200 years and deaths of patients along the way is scientific learning.” The problem developing is, the carpet is becoming smaller than the dirt under it: that the number of deaths have become unmanageable: This area has become part of pubmed studies. Questions are being raised by doctors IN THE allopathic system. Continuing with the present medical logic (accepting deaths as collateral damage), creation of cancers and diabetes and kidney defects etc. would make medical errors the largest killer in USA in the near future. This is one important reason why more educated people are shifting to alternative medicines.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187543&resultclick=1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3711674/
43 million deaths and adverse effects means the population of a country like Argentina terminated in one year. We termed 5 years of Jew persecution in Germany as Holocaust. God would have transferred Adolf Hitler to heaven to create space for people like you and chiefs of AMA in Hell.
“We talk about the shortcomings of homeopathy and for this vz. use of Belladonna for the treatment of scarlett fever which YOU still propagate despite 200 year old evidence to the contrary.”
You have a thick head. I hope to get close enough to you one day with a scalpel to open your ear and check how you manage to retain vacuum in your head.
“It is YOUR claim and therefore it is YOUR obligation to present data.”
It is not a claim. This is part of homeopathic records. Extremely doubtful you can understand this. Here even Ernst cannot teach you much: Remember his homeopathic education turned out to be a hoax.
“Here even Ernst cannot teach you much: Remember his homeopathic education turned out to be a hoax.”
EVERY HOMEOPATHIC EDUCATION TURNS OUT TO BE A HOAX: EVEN THE MOST RIGOROUS EDUCATION IN NONSENSE WILL INEVITABLY RESULT IN …. NONSENSE
Iqbal, more ranting, therefore I will keep myself brief:
Quote: “Off course I grasp these concepts.”
No, you do not. A p-value gives you an estimate about the probability the you observer data given the assumption that there is no difference. This is called the Null hypothesis. It does NOT give you the probability of your alternative hypothesis. “Homeopathy works” is an alternative hypothesis amongst probably thousands of others. At this point prior probability comes into play. If your alternative hypothesis is extremely unlikely, you need A LOT of positive studies to get a positive overall p-value. With the probability of homeopathy being very low this might be hundreds. In the words of Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Four out of five negative Cochrane reviews is NOT extraordinary evidence. On the contrary. It is a string hint that the fifth review is a false positive. To put it bluntly, one p-value does not prove a hypothesis as one swallow does not make a summer.
As for your deaths due to medicine: You have presented no data on the superiority of homeopathy therefore you have no claim.
A final remark: Given the fact that more and more metastudies come to a negative result for homeopathy, the effect is placebo rather than curative. This – by definition – results in a much higher death toll. The problem with homeopathy is that homeopathy does not kill be treatment, it kills by negect.
Thomas Mohr on Friday 30 September 2016 at 15:58
“let me exlain something to you. If you would know the toxicology you would be able to present data.
on the toxicology of homeopathics.”
Your understanding of toxin is very narrow, related to chemistry. You know Phosphorous is toxic. Allopaths have killed many patients with chemicals of which Phosphorous was one. The homeopathic Phosphorous will not kill a person, not inflicted with TB of the lungs. It does not kill with toxin. That is the allopathic chemistry. Repeated use of Phosphorous in low potency collapses the lungs of the TB patient. What is the outcome?”
Similarly Secale does not kill the fetus. It cleans the uterus by expelling everything inside. For a pregnant woman, that creates a risk.
This is recorded in the materia medica and I have first hand experience of both remedies being misused/used.
“So far you did not. Therefore you know. NOT. Your experience is most likely a missed therapeutic window when things got really worse b/c you used a non-working treatment.”
Phosphorous 2, Secale 1.
“Quote by Dana Ullman: “These high potency medicines are not dangerous in the traditional sense of toxicology. They are simply deeper-acting medicines which have the potential to create a healing crisis, that is, an increase in certain superficial symptoms (often skin symptoms) as the homeopathic medicine stimulates the deeper internal health of the person.” found here:
https://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Introduction_to_Homeopathy/Safety_Issues_and_Homeopathic_Medicines.html”
Where is Phosphorous low potency?
“Quote by the British Homeopathic Association: “homeopathy is perfectly safe”.
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/what-is-homeopathy/is-homeopathy-safe/”
Send them a message and ask them a specific question for a specific response.
“You claim homeopathy can be dangerous to the point of deadly. So what is it.”
Where did I say it is dangerous? I gave 2 instances where it will have defined consequences. That is not dangerous. When a doctor does a by pass and has no idea what will be the outcome. The 2 consequences are: either the patient will die Or he would lead a heavily impaired life. This is dangerous. Either way, you are done.
Quote: “t cleans the uterus by expelling everything inside. For a pregnant woman, that creates a risk.”
This demonstrates very well how homeopaths tick. Phosphorus is an irritant that is true, also to mucous membranes that line the uterus. So far this is correct. According to Hahnemanns hypotheses diluted Phosphorus should initiate the symptoms in a way similar to phosphorus without causing too much danger. The more you dilute phosphorus, the more pronounced the reaction should become (note the conditional).
I.o.W. the assessment of the materia medica is purely speculative. Iqbal, for God’s Sake, the materia medica has been written completely without *any* data behind it. It is no more truthful than Grimm’s Fairy tales. So quit refering to it as if it would be a serious scientific text !
Quote: “This is interesting. Physics is very well known. In chemistry, the knowledge of physical, organic and in organic segments is very well understood. Human body has not changed much in the past 100 years.
I would expect, a fairly good model of the problem can be made and the possible methods to scientifically handle it can be prepared. Theoretically, with 4% cost of inflation, and 10% reduction in cost of development by using past experience and research data, year on year the net cost of development of new drug should come down. Number of positive results over years should continue to increase.”
Nope, Iqbal, a fairly good model can NOT be made, and the exact regulations and what happens inside the body on molecularbiological level is largely a grey area. Since you still owe us the answer wether you know the candidate to drug ration, here it is: out of 100 drug candidates, 5 to 10 make it to the market and that is where Pfitzers money goes.
As for dosage of homeopathic remedies, this probably demonstrates like nothing else whyt homeopathy is. There are several opinions on overdosing (i.e. prolonged intake): 1) It can not happen. 2) It causes permanent damage and 3) it causes a stronger “healing crisis” whatever that is. Despite hundred thousands of man years treatment nobody has ever reliably documented that effect which is a strong hint that it is hocuspocus.
On one hand homeopaths and homeopathic pharmacioes will hesitate to distribute higher potencies, due to their perceived danger, yet they constantly harp on the GRAS status of homeopathics in order to avoid being subjected to the stricter legistlation valid for drugs. So what is it Iqbal ? You can not have both.
@Thomas Mohr on Saturday 24 September 2016 at 14:43
“Nope, Iqbal, a fairly good model can NOT be made, and the exact regulations and what happens inside the body on molecularbiological level is largely a grey area.”
Are you saying that the laws of physics and chemistry have nothing to do inside the body? It is microbiology, and in this area, formation is missing? This was not so, a little while back.
” Since you still owe us the answer wether you know the candidate to drug ration, here it is: out of 100 drug candidates, 5 to 10 make it to the market and that is where Pfitzers money goes.”
90-95 drug development projects fail because the science used for modeling, is incorrect or not known. It cannot be physics or chemistry, because all laws governing these subjects are very well known. After bringing to market, why are drugs taken back? What was being tested?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740994/
“As for dosage of homeopathic remedies,…. 1) It can not happen. 2) It causes permanent damage and 3) it causes a stronger “healing crisis” whatever that is. …”
This is not understood. Where did you get this?
“On one hand homeopaths and homeopathic pharmacioes will hesitate to distribute higher potencies, due to their perceived danger, ..ter legistlation valid for drugs.”
Garbaled. Not clear.
Quote: “90-95 drug development projects fail because the science used for modeling, is incorrect or not known. It cannot be physics or chemistry, because all laws governing these subjects are very well known. ”
Iqbal, the human body is an extremely complex regulatory network that is largely uncharted. Your question alone proves beyond any doubt you have no idea whatsoever about human physiology on molecular level.
Quote: “As for dosage of homeopathic remedies,…. 1) It can not happen. 2) It causes permanent damage and 3) it causes a stronger “healing crisis” whatever that is. …” This is not understood. Where did you get this?”
This is a compilation of several point of view by homeopaths. BTW, your “recipe” for the perfect murder of a person with tuberculosis is contradicted by Mr. homeopathy himself who claims that this is not possible. The problem you have is that homeopaths have at least three mutually exclusive theories on what happens if you overdose homeopathic drugs, the three I named. Even Mr. hmeopathy himself, Dana Ullman contradicts you. Do you know why there is this confusion ? Because your claims are based on phantasy and not on data.
Now Iqbal, comes my challenge. Instead of doing unethical experiments with pregnant women, cite ONE study or case demonstrating toxic effects of homeopathics that can not be explained by conventional toxicology. With hundreds of thousands of man years experience this should not be difficult.
@Thomas Mohr on Sunday 25 September 2016 at 16:52
” the human body is an extremely complex regulatory network that is largely uncharted.”
You are confused. Can you check with Ernst. He will be able to guide you through these unchartered complex network and prove to you that ALL physics and chemistry laws work inside the body. And until this teaching is over, you should avoid stating “homeopathy will not work inside the body” because you do not know the “extremely complex regulatory network that is largely uncharted” and does not recognize many laws of physics and chemistry that you know of. But you are not alone.
“Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy,” says Ennis, “the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings.” She is at pains to point out that the pan-European team have not reproduced Benveniste’s findings nor attempted to do so.”
“Your question alone proves beyond any doubt you have no idea whatsoever about human physiology on molecular level.”
I never said I had. You insisted that laws of physics and chemistry work inside the human body. Now you are giving excuses, as to why there seems to be a problem. And you are not alone. 95% of the drug projects fail. The chemists who start these projects also don’t know. Pfizer burns $7.65 billion on research and has nothing much to show, They have been at it for long. Still missing many laws of physics and chemistry.
I believe, Ernst made an error in joining Complementary…..at Exeter. He should have joined Pfizer. He knows all the right laws of physics and chemistry that work inside the body. A deal of 10% saving from development cost would have made him a billionaire many times over.
qbal, it is YOU who seek for excuses, namely to “explain” how homeopathics work, by suspending the laws of physics and chemistry. Contrary to that NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in molecular physiology or the regulatory circuits at work in the human body have to use this excuse.
As for your “euthanasia”, you had your chance to present an example and failedl. So this phantasy about the dangers of high potencies is just that, a phantasy.
I suppose this is homeopathic jargon. What does it mean?
@Thomas Mohr
“This is a compilation of several point of view by homeopaths.”
Please share links.
“BTW, your “recipe” for the perfect murder of a person with tuberculosis is contradicted by Mr. homeopathy himself who claims that this is not possible. … I named. Even Mr. hmeopathy himself, Dana Ullman contradicts you.”
Send me the links
“Instead of doing unethical experiments with pregnant women, cite ONE study or case demonstrating toxic effects of homeopathics that can not be explained by conventional toxicology.”
Why would it be unethical? Nothing should happen. So try it.
How do believe I know of these 2 remedies?
@Thomas Mohr
Where are the links?
Or as others you are also “Yellow belly”?
Iqbal, don’t try to cant yourself out. You where the first to claim that homeopathy can be very harmful to the point of euthanasia due to it’s powerful effects. Is this supported by *any* toxicological studies or is that pure PR and a marketing gag ?
Thomas Mohr on Tuesday 27 September 2016 at 14:06
“You where the first to claim that homeopathy can be very harmful to the point of euthanasia due to it’s powerful effects.”
I am not the first one to claim this. This precaution appears in Dr. Boericke’s Materia Medica and possibly some other doctor’s compilation. I have first hand experience of this condition with Phosphorous and for Secale. How would I know other wise?
This is the advantage of knowing a subject. Did you see the response of Ernst: “can not have any effect at all. this goes against all we know about pharmacology.” and “would kill human life. this goes against medical ethics.” IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Which of the 2 is correct? The correct reply is : I don’t know homeopathy.
Iqbal, let me exlain something to you. If you would know the toxicology you would be able to present data.
on the toxicology of homeopathics. So far you did not. Therefore you know. NOT. Your exerience is most likely a missed therapeutic window when things got really worse b/c you used a non-working treatment.
Quote by Dana Ullman: “These high potency medicines are not dangerous in the traditional sense of toxicology. They are simply deeper-acting medicines which have the potential to create a healing crisis, that is, an increase in certain superficial symptoms (often skin symptoms) as the homeopathic medicine stimulates the deeper internal health of the person.” found here:
https://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Introduction_to_Homeopathy/Safety_Issues_and_Homeopathic_Medicines.html
Quote by the British Homeopathic Association: “homeopathy is perfectly safe”.
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/what-is-homeopathy/is-homeopathy-safe/
You claim homeopathy can be dangerous to the point of deadly. So what is it, Iqbal ?
Iqbal, re Edzard’s comment. He *clearly* states that *he* knows your suger pills would not do any harm while you propose a very harmful experiment – albeit harmful only in your thinking. This proposal is against medical ethics.
That you now distort the post in a way that you claim that Edzard says it is harmless and harmful in the same way tells a lot more about you than you might wish.
@ Thomas Mohr on Friday 30 September 2016 at 16:17
“Edzard’s comment. He *clearly* states that *he* knows your suger pills would not do any harm while you propose a very harmful experiment – albeit harmful only in your thinking.”
Great. So you will test Secale on your pregnant wife or Ernst will?
” This proposal is against medical ethics.”
If it is only part of thinking, it is not against medical ethics.
No, you will. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, if you please. That’s how things work in the real world. You make the claim, you provide the evidence, otherwise your claim has no more value than that of any retarded drunk, late at night in some bar.
That is essentially correct. It also has no medical implications whatsoever, i.e. it is empty blather, just as we expect from a quack-lover.
@Thomas Mohr on Monday 26 September 2016 at 07:10
“it is YOU who seek for excuses, namely to “explain” how homeopathics work, by suspending the laws of physics and chemistry.”
Not correct. I simply put you through the why-why analysis. You started with physics and chemistry laws being invalid if homeopathy works. Slowly you are your self confirmed that there are other laws that possibly work inside the human body: which not many are aware (95% projects for drug development based on scientific premise do not succeed) and drug development is by and large a trial and error process. For example starting as a possible remedy for heart, Viagra is definitely not for heart. This cannot be physics and chemistry: Ernast knows ALL laws, but keeps all to himself.
“Contrary to that NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in molecular physiology or the regulatory circuits at work in the human body have to use this excuse.”
Which excuse are you stating here?
“As for your “euthanasia”, you had your chance to present an example and failedl. So this phantasy about the dangers of high potencies is just that, a phantasy.”
If the guy just keeled over, what evidence would you expect? Phosphorous is used in TB for short duration or in high potency.
http://www.drpskrishnamurty.com/case-study/homeopathy/s.l.e.pdf
@Edzard on Saturday 01 October 2016 at 17:22
“EVERY HOMEOPATHIC EDUCATION TURNS OUT TO BE A HOAX: EVEN THE MOST RIGOROUS EDUCATION IN NONSENSE WILL INEVITABLY RESULT IN …. NONSENSE”
I am impressed with your analysis. If this is a fact, why did you continue to lie about your homeopathic education?
@Edzard on Saturday 01 October 2016 at 08:11
“Nihil nocere has long been replaced by the obligation of healthcare professionals to doe more good than harm with their actions – an obligation which homeopaths cannot meet.”
Is this correct? When did this happen and what was the rationale for the change?
@Bart B. Van Bockstaele on Saturday 01 October 2016 at 07:57
“The day I have acute appendicitis, I want my doctor to do me harm, by plunging her/his scalpel in my tummy, cutting it open, removing the appendix and sewing me back up. It is precisely the harm that he/she does that will save my life.”
Cutting you open is no harm. Sewing you back is a requirement. But the question that you have to ask your doctor is : does he know the consequences of his action and did he really save your life or just put you in a lane that will require you to visit doctors repeatedly in future.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm
http://jezebel.com/5890422/oops-looks-like-you-might-need-your-appendix-after-all
Read the comments of the people who had their appendix removed.
Is removal the only way? http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20150616/appendicitis-can-often-be-treated-with-antibiotics#1
“A nice homeopathic sugar pellet will be harmless, but I will also very likely be quite dead due to lack of treatment.”
You will be so good that you will recommend others because it is much easier with homeopathy. http://homeoint.org/books1/clarkeprescriber/a.htm#appendicitis.
“Given the choice, I choose the harm. Please doctor, harm me, I beg you!”
You don’t have to ask, your doctor does it because of lack of knowledge.
@Thomas Mohr on Saturday 01 October 2016 at 17:42
” A p-value gives you an estimate about the probability the you observer data given the assumption that there is no difference. This is called the Null hypothesis. It does NOT give you the probability of your alternative hypothesis.”
WHY?
“Homeopathy works” is an alternative hypothesis amongst probably thousands of others. At this point prior probability comes into play.”
Please explain in detail.
“If your alternative hypothesis is extremely unlikely,..”
What is the explanation behind …extremely unlikely… Who decides this?
“you need A LOT of positive studies to get a positive overall p-value.”
This is Catch 22 invented by allopaths?
“With the probability of homeopathy being very low this might be hundreds.”
Your saying so? And WHO ARE YOU?
” In the words of Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Four out of five negative Cochrane reviews is NOT extraordinary evidence.”
Done by Ernst?
” On the contrary. It is a string hint that the fifth review is a false positive. To put it bluntly, one p-value does not prove a hypothesis as one swallow does not make a summer.”
I would accept to play ball. Please explain why would a medicine for diabetes be responsible for bladder cancer? Or a NSAID create cardiac failure.
“As for your deaths due to medicine: You have presented no data on the superiority of homeopathy therefore you have no claim.”
If homeopathy kills only in defined circumstances, and allopathy just kills at random, homeopathy has to be better.
“A final remark: Given the fact that more and more metastudies come to a negative result for homeopathy, the effect is placebo rather than curative.”
This is not true. Read https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/355916 and check with Ernst on whose instructions/under what motivation he changed figures.
“This – by definition – results in a much higher death toll. The problem with homeopathy is that homeopathy does not kill be treatment, it kills by negect.”
The data is exactly contrary. The reams of paper published on deaths due to allopathy is proof of this phenomena. Anything that is linked to allopathy is dangerous. It maims, it kills, it gives you chronic problems, it disfigures you, it has capability to destroy your generations.
Iqbal, did you seriously ask why a p-vaue does not show the probability of an alternative hypothesis ? I will tell you why: BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED TO TEST THE NULLHYPOTHESIS for God’s sake.
This question alone shows that you have no idea about scientitic testing. As for homeopathy being etremely improbable, well it goes against everything we know about chemistry, thermodynamics and phyisology. Since these theories all have a probability close to being a fact, homeopathy is extremely unlikely. I will not comment on the rest because it is only further proof of your ignorance.
As for your allopaths kill patient’s whining. Right now we have a court case in Europe where quite a large number of patients was killed in the course of homeopathic cancer treatments. As long as you do not provide any data on the superiority of homeopathy with regard to that quit your pathetic canting.
@Thomas Mohr on Sunday 02 October 2016 at 16:59
“..did you seriously ask why a p-vaue does not show the probability of an alternative hypothesis ? I will tell you why: BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED TO TEST THE NULLHYPOTHESIS for God’s sake.”
I wanted a reconfirmation:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108?src=recsys
This is what you are explaining.
“The ASA Board was also stimulated by highly visible discussions over the last few years. For example, ScienceNews (Siegfried ) wrote: “It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The ‘scientific method’ of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.” A November 2013, article in Phys.org Science News Wire () cited “numerous deep flaws” in null hypothesis significance testing. A ScienceNews article (Siegfried ) on February 7, 2014, said “statistical techniques for testing hypotheses…have more flaws than Facebook’s privacy policies.” A week later, statistician and “Simply Statistics” blogger Jeff Leek responded. “The problem is not that people use P-values poorly,” Leek wrote, “it is that the vast majority of data analysis is not performed by people properly trained to perform data analysis” (Leek ). That same week, statistician and science writer Regina Nuzzo published an article in Nature entitled “Scientific Method: Statistical Errors” (Nuzzo ). That article is now one of the most highly viewed Nature articles, as reported by altmetric.com (http://www.altmetric.com/details/2115792#score).
Of course, it was not simply a matter of responding to some articles in print. The statistical community has been deeply concerned about issues of reproducibility and replicability of scientific conclusions. Without getting into definitions and distinctions of these terms, we observe that much confusion and even doubt about the validity of science is arising. Such doubt can lead to radical choices, such as the one taken by the editors of Basic and Applied Social Psychology, who decided to ban p-values (null hypothesis significance testing) (Trafimow and Marks ). Misunderstanding or misuse of statistical inference is only one cause of the “reproducibility crisis” (Peng ), but to our community, it is an important one.”
The fact is, what ever the allopathic medicine touches, it pollutes.
Thomas Mohr on Sunday 02 October 2016 at 16:59
“As for homeopathy being etremely improbable, well it goes against everything we know about chemistry, thermodynamics and phyisology.”
The basis of this statement is what is known. Not every thing is known. Thermodynamics?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.548.5298&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“As for your allopaths kill patient’s whining. Right now we have a court case in Europe where quite a large number of patients was killed in the course of homeopathic cancer treatments. As long as you do not provide any data on the superiority of homeopathy with regard to that quit your pathetic canting.”
I agree with you. Killing 4 people with homeopathy(?) is an subject to be discussed by stupid people like you. But there are others, more educated and influential, who do not think so.
” It’s a chilling reality – one often overlooked in annual mortality statistics: Preventable medical errors persist as the No. 3 killer in the U.S. – third only to heart disease and cancer – claiming the lives of some 400,000 people each year. At a Senate hearing Thursday, patient safety officials put their best ideas forward on how to solve the crisis, with IT often at the center of discussions.
Hearing members, who spoke before the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, not only underscored the devastating loss of human life – more than 1,000 people each day – but also called attention to the fact that these medical errors cost the nation a colossal $1 trillion each year.
“The tragedy that we’re talking about here (is) deaths taking place that should not be taking place,” said subcommittee Chair Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in his opening remarks.
YOU KNOW BERNIE SANDERS?
” Among those speaking was Ashish Jha, MD, professor of health policy and management at Harvard School of Public Health, who referenced the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 report To Err is Human, which estimated some 100,000 Americans die each year from preventable adverse events.
“When they first came out with that number, it was so staggeringly large, that most people were wondering, ‘could that possibly be right?'” said Jha.
Some 15 years later, the evidence is glaring. “The IOM probably got it wrong,” he said. “It was clearly an underestimate of the toll of human suffering that goes on from preventable medical errors.”
It’s not just the 1,000 deaths per day that should be huge cause for alarm, noted Joanne Disch, RN, clinical professor at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing, who also spoke before Congress. There’s also the 10,000 serious complications cases resulting from medical errors that occur each day. ”
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records
4 deaths by homeopathy does require mention. Homeopathy does not kill.
Iqbal, I have already explained to you what a theory is and why it is called a theory. Apparently you understood that as you understood facts about the p-value. NOT.
As for your claim homoeopathy does not kill, you claimed that Phosphorus can be alike to euthanasia. So what is it ? You can not have both.
@Thomas Mohr on Monday 03 October 2016 at 20:16
“I have already explained to you what a theory is and why it is called a theory. Apparently you understood that as you understood facts about the p-value. NOT.”
I have not much interest in learning junk.
“As for your claim homoeopathy does not kill, you claimed that Phosphorus can be alike to euthanasia. So what is it ? You can not have both.”
Phosphorous does not kill. Homeopathy has clearly defined the rules and conditions. If the rule is not followed by the doctor, the outcome follows. This is REAL SCIENCE used for medicine.
In the allopathic system, the doctor follows procedure, uses drugs that have cleared RCT, including the null hypothesis and still the patient dies. Medical errors resulting in 400,000 deaths in USA and 43 million world wide cannot be doctor’s mistakes only. This IS NOT MEDICAL SCIENCE. This is misuse of science.
“t’s not just the 1,000 deaths per day that should be huge cause for alarm, noted Joanne Disch, RN, clinical professor at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing, who also spoke before Congress. There’s also the 10,000 serious complications cases resulting from medical errors that occur each day. ”
“In the hearing’s closing questions, when Sanders inquired as to why this crisis was not constantly splashed across front page news, he was met with this: “When people go to the hospital, they are sick. It is very easy to confuse the fact that somebody might have died because of a fatal consequence of their disease, versus they died from a complication from a medical error,” Jha said. “It has taken a lot to prove to all of us that many of these deaths are not a natural consequence of the underlying disease. They are purely failures of the system.”
Need I say more?
Iqbal, let’s analyze your post. First, quote: ““I have already explained to you what a theory is and why it is called a theory. Apparently you understood that as you understood facts about the p-value. NOT.”
I have not much interest in learning junk.”
Well, these are the very foundations of real science. If you don’t want to learn that you should quit talking about science. To paraphrase Ludwig Wittgenstein, about things one does not know about one has to be silent. Next, dangers of homeopathy: The materia medica clearly writes that phophorus can be used as euthanasia. Now you continue to insist that homeopathy does not kill. Well, according to authoritative writing it does. Seemingly you do not only have no idea about science, but about homeopathy as well.
Now follows more of a smokescreen with this exception:
“In the allopathic system, the doctor follows procedure, uses drugs that have cleared RCT, including the null hypothesis and still the patient dies. Medical errors resulting in 400,000 deaths […]”
A treatment does not have a null hypothesis. With this sentence you have utterly destroyed your position because it proves beyond any doubt that you have no idea about science at all. You are dismissed. The discussion is over.
Typically childish defense ?
What Iqbal does not understand he calls “junk”
Quote: “The fact is, what ever the allopathic medicine touches, it pollutes.” a sorry excuse for somebody who does not understand why Fisher developed the p-value.
Thomas Mohr on Monday 03 October 2016 at 20:18
The proof of the pudding is in eating.
If the end result is millions of deaths due to built in medical errors, it is fundamentally wrong to call it science based medical system (It has taken a lot to prove to all of us that many of these deaths are not a natural consequence of the underlying disease. They are purely failures of the system) , p values, RCTc and the great science not-withstanding, it is a system hurtling towards extinction.
Very much like King Midas: on the way every thing that it touches turn into killers: humans (doctors), corporations (pharmaceutical companies), hospitals, science (physics and chemistry), statistics (p value :Fischer would be turning in his grave), and finally your own children. Then only the pain hurts.
Iqbal, let me lecture you: As long as you do NOT provide evidence that homeopathy does NOT kill by neglect your whining is just a worthless cant. By your statement that a treatment has a null hypothesis you have conclusively proven that you have not the slightest idea what science is or even what good evidence is. Worse, you have shown that you have learned nothing whatsoever from the tons of explanations you have received here. One rarely meets an individual that is so learning resistant than you.
@Iqbal
You’ve learned nothing from your time here, have you? Absolutely nothing. Not one iota about what constitutes good evidence and what is fallible and untrustworthy and why.
@Alan Henness on Thursday 06 October 2016 at 09:36
“You’ve learned nothing from your time here, have you? Absolutely nothing.”
I am very keen to learn. Please explain how is it that deaths due to medical errors continue to increase every year.
“It’s not just the 1,000 deaths per day that should be huge cause for alarm, noted Joanne Disch, RN, clinical professor at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing, who also spoke before Congress. There’s also the 10,000 serious complications cases resulting from medical errors that occur each day. ”
This is a four fold increase over 1999. This does not cover the deaths that are converted to normal. What about the additional deaths due to cancer and heart failures that are the consequences of drug adverse reactions?
““When people go to the hospital, they are sick. It is very easy to confuse the fact that somebody might have died because of a fatal consequence of their disease, versus they died from a complication from a medical error,” Jha said. “It has taken a lot to prove to all of us that many of these deaths are not a natural consequence of the underlying disease. They are purely failures of the system.”
” Not one iota about what constitutes good evidence and what is fallible and untrustworthy and why.”
Can you have more reliable and solid evidence than a dead body in front of you? ( “It has taken a lot to prove to all of us that many of these deaths are not a natural consequence of the underlying disease. They are purely failures of the system.” )
For the world the data is 43 million. (43,000,000 every year). This is more than the population of a country. the size of Argentina.
AND, IT IS INCREASING EVERY YEAR higher to the rate of population growth. I am very keen to learn why is there a Senate committee considering this subject?
Iqbal, let me lecture you again. We have already established that Belladonna does not work in scarlet fever. The epidemiology of scarlet fever shows that since the 1880 mortality is around 25 per 100.000, but can be as high as 150 per 100.000. Since homeopathy does provenly not work in scarlet fever, it is safe to assume that this (something between 25 and 150 per 100.000) would be the mortality in a homeopathy only world. With modern medicine this is less than one tenth.
In other words, with homeopathy treatment at least 22.5 per 100.000 people would die of scarlet fever due to application of a non working treatment. For the US alone this would be 70.000 unecessary deaths, only due to scarlet fever. for other preventable infectious diseases such as mumps, etc. the same goes. Concluded from studies, the mortality for cancer (for which homeopathy is equally ineffective, mortality now ~170 per 100.000) would triple. I.o.W. 3.2 million deaths more.
You are an absolute idiot. BTW I am using you as example how unscientific hoemopaths really are.
Nope. You’re still showing no insights into your failures and no indication at all that you understand anything that is said to you. When things are clearly explained, you go off on another whitaboutery expedition of irrelevance.
Once you understand some of the basics of evidence, please feel free to come back. Until then, it’s a waste of time replying. The fact that you will not understand why, is your main failing.
@Thomas Mohr on Thursday 06 October 2016 at 09:53
” As long as you do NOT provide evidence that homeopathy does NOT kill by neglect your whining is just a worthless cant.”
This is an illogical argument. Homeopathy cannot kill in the hands of a proper doctor. Allopathy kills even when it seemingly treats a patient. As the British would say ” The proof of the pudding is in eating:” the end result. And this is not new. It has continued over years. ”
”
“The tragedy that we’re talking about here (is) deaths taking place that should not be taking place,” said subcommittee Chair Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in his opening remarks.
Among those speaking was Ashish Jha, MD, professor of health policy and management at Harvard School of Public Health, who referenced the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 report To Err is Human, which estimated some 100,000 Americans die each year from preventable adverse events.
“When they first came out with that number, it was so staggeringly large, that most people were wondering, ‘could that possibly be right?'” said Jha.
Some 15 years later, the evidence is glaring. “The IOM probably got it wrong,” he said. “It was clearly an underestimate of the toll of human suffering that goes on from preventable medical errors.”
The doctor here is being naive. 15 years later the figure would more than quadruple again. Deaths from cancer and heart failures that are due to adverse effects of prescription drugs today is NOT part of this data. If that is added, deaths due to medical errors is already the largest killer.
“According to the FDA, in two additional three-year studies (a liver safety study and the PRO active study) researchers noted a higher incidence of bladder cancer in patients who took Actos versus those who took other drugs. BMJ published the latest study on pioglitazone in May 2012. This study revealed that people who take Actos for an extended period have an 83 percent higher risk of developing bladder cancer.”
https://www.drugwatch.com/actos/
Which death column would be filled when patients start dying of bladder cancer or kidney failure because of the consequence of using Actos for controlling diabetes. Cancer or Medical error?
“By your statement that a treatment has a null hypothesis you have conclusively proven that you have not the slightest idea what science is or even what good evidence is.”
This is good for your students: As teacher, as student. If they join the medical world and face the reality, they would look forward to your backside one day meeting their toughest boot.
“Worse, you have shown that you have learned nothing whatsoever from the tons of explanations you have received here. One rarely meets an individual that is so learning resistant than you.”
You are not serious, you are. What is the end result? Hahnemann was right 200 years ago. Crude chemicals cure nothing, only suppress existing disease. The resultant disease is more virulent in nature and can change form. TB and Malaria are great examples. MDR TB and drug resistant malaria are rampant. Medical errors are a runaway success.
Remember: The proof of the pudding is in eating.
“Remember: The proof of the pudding is in eating.”
WHY SHOULD WE REMEMBER SOMETHING AS DAFT AS THIS?
Quote: “This is an illogical argument. Homeopathy cannot kill in the hands of a proper doctor.”.
So homeopathy cannot kill ? Take this:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/asthmatic-told-to-give-up-drugs-26063764.html
A brief summary, Jacqueline Alderslade of Ireland died of asthma because a homeopath treated her severe asthma – a disease that is quite well manageable – with homeopathy instead of proper medical care
Isabella Denley, a toddler (!!) died of untreated epilepsy because her parents preferred homeopathy over medicine.
Paul Howie, Ireland, died of a treatable neck tumor because he preferred homeopathy instead of medicine
Homeopathy does not kill ? Well, Iqbal, it does, so quit your pathetic cant about how bad medicine is.
@Thomas Mohr on Thursday 06 October 2016 at 13:53
” a disease that is quite well manageable – with homeopathy instead of proper medical care.”
How do you implicate homeopathy? No remedy in homeopathy kills. The doctor was not good enough. What was the period of the data base for finding one case?
And if this was killing, who killed the 37 people in Ireland due to asthma in one year. Multiply that by past 20 years and you will come up with a nasty figure by homeopathic consideration. For you this is like a walk in the park. Such deaths are routine in the allopathic system.
http://www.thejournal.ie/asthma-attacks-ireland-2465543-Nov2015/
“In the United States, the number of asthmatics has leapt by over 60% since the early 1980s and deaths have doubled to 5,000 a year.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs206/en/
Could you find out who is killing these asthma patients in the USA.
“Experts are struggling to understand why rates world-wide are, on average, rising by 50% every decade.” These so called experts have to look into the prescription of antibiotics to get their answers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11069562
Check where the additional increase in asthma is coming from:
http://martinblaser.com/excerpt.html
and then it becomes hereditary: New customers.
“A study in the South Atlantic Island of Tristan da Cunha, where one in three of the 300 inhabitants has asthma, found children with asthmatic parents were much more likely to develop the condition.”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs206/en/
First the allopathic system creates asthma from some simple mild disease by suppressing it. Then focus shifts on “managing disease” (focus on cure would kill business) and then inadvertently finds ways to increase patients (customers). Do you know which new disease is round the corner, on account of MANAGING ASTHMA? Lung Cancer? (Remember managing diabetes with Actos gives new patients with bladder cancer and kidney failure. Diabetes continues!!!!!)
After creating all the above mess, you found one child that died because of doctor’s incompetence and you tom tom that here. You should get your head examined.
“Paul Howie, Ireland, died of a treatable neck tumor because he preferred homeopathy instead of medicine”
You want me to give you another bloody nose?
Iqbal, so the doctor is not good enough ? A pathetic excuse of a tiny little canter. The only thing your posts demonstrate is how idiotic homeopathy really are. Do you realize that ?
he must be paid by BIG PHARMA to defame homeopathy!!!
@Edzard on Thursday 06 October 2016 at 12:32
“WHY SHOULD WE REMEMBER SOMETHING AS DAFT AS THIS?”
Most writers on this blog come in from UK. I expected this line to be understood by all.
For the German in you: The RESULT matters in the END.
If Hitler would have won the war, German would be the international language.
now you have demonstrated that you not only lack logic, but also taste!
Of course… a proper doctor can give you a glass of water without much risk 😀
Homeopaths kill by negligence.
@Iqbal
Earlier in this thread you said about prior probabiity: “Off [sic] course I grasp these concepts.” Now you are coming along clearly showing you have no idea what they’re about. You seem to revel in your ignorance (lack of knowledge) of things you persist in arguing about. Take a look at http://www.dcscience.net/2014/03/24/on-the-hazards-of-significance-testing-part-2-the-false-discovery-rate-or-how-not-to-make-a-fool-of-yourself-with-p-values/. It’s the clearest description I know about p-values and prior probabilities, but — with the maximum respect I can muster — it will almost certainly float high above your thick head.
@Frank Odds on Sunday 02 October 2016 at 18:12
Read above.
“Read above”
Read what above?! Your spew ignorant comments all over these threads: which particular piece of your ‘wisdom’ do you want me to read?
For the record, I’ve read your all of your endless, hate-filled vomit about orthodox medicine in this thread and others. On another thread I even provided you with links explaining why your 400,000 iatrogenic deaths is a grossly oversimplified datum, obtained by extrapolation from small (and old) studies to the current USA population. Now you have extrapolated the less than reliable 400,000 point estimate to the world population, thus compounding the error in a turbulent sea of stupid.
This is the last time I shall bother to respond to your idiocy, Iqbal. To augment Alan Henness’s recent comment, I see you like an infant who sticks their fingers in their ears saying “la-la-la-la” to avoid having to listen to what others are trying (with various degrees of patience) to tell you. As Gold said here: “Pigeon, meet chessboard.” I bet you don’t even understand the reference. Please google ‘pigeon chess’ for enlightenment.
@Frank Odds on Thursday 06 October 2016 at 11:32
“On another thread I even provided you with links explaining why your 400,000 iatrogenic deaths is a grossly oversimplified datum, obtained by extrapolation from small (and old) studies to the current USA population.”
I believe you have your eyes crossed. You have to explain nothing to me. I did not make that report. It was a doctor at John Hopkins. I suggest you immediately move over to Washington DC. The Senate committee Chairman Mr. Bernie Sanders is eagerly waiting to hear you expert advice. He does not give damn about the existing mortality figures. He wants to see an action plan that reduces these figures in future. No doctor is ready to guarantee this. You know what: the figures after 5 years would be double of this-this I can guarantee.
“Now you have extrapolated the less than reliable 400,000 point estimate to the world population, thus compounding the error in a turbulent sea of stupid.”
Your comprehension requires revision. The report for the world is prepared by a doctor at Harvard Medical. 43 million (43,000,000) is slowly approaching homeopathic figure. My interest is the 5.8 million deaths/adverse reactions in India. Makes a great case to spend more money on safe and real Complementary medicine.
I am sure with improved English comprehension you will things differently.
“To augment Alan Henness’s recent comment.”
Did I ask you to respond to my comment? You have shown your stupidity earlier also: recall Traumeel in USA and homeopathic potencies.
Read another research by a doctor regarding how allopaths (orthodox doctors) have continued to kill patients: every research has shown this for past 40 years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101
“A paradoxical pattern has been suggested in the literature on doctors’ strikes: when health workers go on strike, mortality stays level or decreases. We performed a review of the literature during the past forty years to assess this paradox. We used PubMed, EconLit and Jstor to locate all peer-reviewed English-language articles presenting data analysis on mortality associated with doctors’ strikes. We identified 156 articles, seven of which met our search criteria. The articles analyzed five strikes around the world, all between 1976 and 2003. The strikes lasted between nine days and seventeen weeks. All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods.”
156 studies, 40 years: Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.
Ernst and Allen run blogs from payments received from xxxxxx and have to continue to provide cover up service. What is in it for you? Unless you are on paid by some of these blog writers.
@Edzard on Friday 07 October 2016 at 10:09
“now you have demonstrated that you not only lack logic, but also taste!”
It is not my logic vs, your logic. You are paid to take a stand: all logic that runs contrary to the payment stream is lack of logic. I am positive you understand this better than all.
I am not so sure of taste: this is a subjective matter. But I have no doubt, based upon his past activities, Hitler would have enforced German as the mainstream language, if he won the world war 2.
If you have better logic, I an keen to follow the thought process.
Yes, Allan Henness is a well knowed troll-bot in the web. He and her wife may apper not work in the normal sense of the word. Their comments and activities may be tracked, and their not used TOR or any related service. In my opinion, they are very fools.
I AM SURE THEY WILL RETURN THE COMPLIMENT
Yes, why not? By your logic I can claim with MAYUSC LETERS, that only I can see, locked up in my keyword. The world must accept my claim as truth until someone disproves it. Nonsense!
” THEY WILL RETURN THE COMPLIMENT”
I’m scaried Ernst! Edward Snowden and RT news need know this facts!
The alt-med aficionados commenting on this blog get more bizarre and more deranged from day to day!
“This is a four fold increase over 1999. This does not cover the deaths that are converted to normal. What about the additional deaths due to cancer and heart failures that are the consequences of drug adverse reactions?”
But who is trying to say this isn’t true? What they are saying is that, flawed those evidence based medicine is, so called alternative medicine (or charlatanism if we’re going to call it out) is at best placebo.
If you treat leukaemia with sugar water, then that will definitely kill the patient. Why don’t you accept this? You accuse others routinely of being in the pay of those with commercial interests to protect and yet you act exactly as though this were true of yourself.
Your absence of actual logic, the cherry picking of facts, the whataboutery to distract – these are old and tired tactics. But people die because people like you indulge in simple anti-establishment lies.
Whereas those seeking evidence based solutions have the very solid foundation of: we will go where the evidence leads. Significantly less blood on our hands, and significant medical successes on our side.
Absolutely zero evidence based medical successes on yours.
That makes this not an academic debate between two equal sides, but a pointing out of some facts to religious-like zealots whose anti-science kills people for doctrinal reasons.
That’s not OK. That’s criminal.