Are you or a family member ill?
No need to call a doctor or other healthcare professional!
Homeopathy DIY is the answer. The website of the NATIONAL CENTER FOR HOMEOPATHY tells you how and gives you concrete advice for specific conditions – at closer inspection, it turns out to be an instruction for killing off your entire family:
START OF QUOTE
It’s easy to get started using homeopathy at home. You don’t need to be an expert in anatomy, physiology, or pharmacology. You only need to be able to observe your and your family’s symptoms and any changes you might see in those symptoms. By using the information on this site you can quickly learn enough about homeopathy to use it at home to care for yourself and your family to address minor illnesses and injuries that don’t necessarily need a doctor’s care.
Asthma attacks occur for a variety of reasons. You can help treat asthma attacks with homeopathic remedies based on the type of attack that it is.
- Arsenicum album: anxiety, restlessness, unable to lie down because of feeling of suffocation shortly after midnight.
- Carbo vegetabilis: asthma attach occurs after long, spasmodic coughing spell with gagging or vomiting; patient feels worst after eating or talking; worse in the evening.
- Ipecacuanha: sudden onset of wheezing and feeling of suffocation; coughs constantly, but unable to bring up mucus; feeling of weight on chest.
- Nux vomica: attack often follows stomach upset with much belching; patient very irritable.
- Arnica: injury, shock.
- China: loss of blood.
- Carbo vegetabilis: steady oozing of dark blood; cold breath, cold limbs; cold, clammy sweat; air hunger.
- Ipecac: gushes of bright red blood, nausea, cold sweat.
- Sabina: threatened abortion and uterine hemorrhage.
- Phosphorus: profuse nosebleed, especially after vigorous blowing, or any hemorrhage; when small wounds bleed profusely.
Chicken pox can be uncomfortable and painful (for both the child and the parent) and the only way to deal with it is to wait for it to run its course. However, homeopathy can help speed up the healing process – and quickly calm the itch and irritation of this childhood illness.
Let’s look at the handful of remedies that are often called for in cases of chicken pox:
- Aconite: Early cases, with restlessness, anxiety and high fever.
- Antimonium tart: Delayed or receding, blue or pustular eruptions. Drowsy, sweaty and relaxed; nausea. Tardy eruption, to accelerate it. Associated with bronchitis, especially in children.
- Belladonna: Severe headache: face flushed; hot skin. Drowsiness with inability to sleep.
- Mercurius: To be used should vesicles discharge pus.
- Rhus toxicodendron: Intense, annoying itching. Generally the only remedy required; under its action the disease soon disappears.
- Sulphur: like with Rhus toxicodendron, rash is extremely annoying; very thirsty and hungry but takes more than can eat.
Croup can be very scary for parents… your child awakens at night coughing and gasping for air. Homeopathy works very well for these young patients.
There are a number of great homeopathic remedies to consider first when you confront this condition late some night:
- Aconite: This remedy should always be given at the first; it will often prove to be the only one needed, if given right, unless some other remedy is strongly, indicated. Aconite will be called for if there is a high fever, skin dry, much restlessness and distress. Cough and loud breathing during inspiration. Every expiration ends with a hoarse hacking cough.
- Arsenicum album: For croup with suffocative attacks at night; especially after midnight; croup before or after rashes or hives; patient cannot breath through nose; complaints with much restlessness and thirst, but for less quantity of water; aggravation after drinking.
- Bromine: Spasms of the larynx, suffocative cough, horse whistling, croupy sound with great effort; rattling breathing; gasping; impeded respiration, heat of the face, much rattling in larynx when coughing.
- Hepar sulph: If there is a rattling, choking cough, becoming worse particularly in the morning part of the night. Patient tends to be chilly. Cough can be worse from cold drafts or cold room – better warm moist air.
- Spongia: The cough is dry and silibant; or it sounds like a saw driven through a pine board, each cough corresponding to a thrust of the saw.
…The good news is that a small international team of experienced and heroic homeopaths have arrived in West Africa, and are currently on the ground working hard to examine patients, work out the “genus epidemicus,” and initiate clinical trials. This work is being done alongside the current conventional supportive measures and treatments already in place. We applaud and congratulate this team’s dedication and courage in joining the front lines in treating Ebola with homeopathy. The answer to whether homeopathic medicine has an important role in the Ebola epidemic could be forthcoming quite soon.
The flu can come on suddenly and stop you in your tracks – but there are many homeopathic remedies that can help bring relief and shorten the duration of the flu.
The following are some remedies that can bring relief during the flu:
- Arsenicum album: great prostration with extreme chilliness and a thirst for frequent sips of warm drinks. The eyes and nose stream with watery, acrid discharges. Feels irritable and anxious.
- Baptista: gastric flu with vomiting and diarrhea. Comes on suddenly. Feels sore and bruised all over. Profuse perspiration with a high fever and extreme thirst. Feels (and looks) dazed and sluggish.
- Bryonia: flu comes on slowly. Aching pains in all the joints are worse for the slightest motion. Painful dry cough that makes the head hurt. Extreme thirst at infrequent intervals. Feels intensely irritable and wants to be alone.
- Eupatorium perfoliatum: the pains are so severe it feels as if the bones are broken. The muscles ache and feel sore and bruised as well. A bursting headache with sore, aching eyeballs. The nose runs with much sneezing, and the chest feels sore and raw. Thirsty for cold water even though it brings on violent chills in the small of the back.
- Ferrum phosphoricum: a fever develops, a flu is likely but the symptoms aren’t clearly developed yet (and Aconite didn’t help). Take 3 doses every 2-4 hours.
- Gelsemium: flu comes on slowly especially when the weather changes from cold to warm. The muscles feel weak and achy. There’s a great feeling of heaviness everywhere-the head (which aches dully), limbs, eyelids, etc. No thist at all. Fever alternative with chills and shivers that run up and down the spine. Feels (and looks) apathetic, dull, and drowsy.
- Mercurius solubilis: fever with copious, extremely offensive perspiration that doesn’t provide any relief (unlike most feverish sweats). The breath smells bad, there’s more salivation than normal and an extreme thirst.
- Nux vomica: gastric flu with vomiting and diarrhea. The limbs and back ache a great deal. The nose runs during the day and is stopped up at night. Fever with chills and shivering especially after drinking. Very chilly and sensitive to the slightest draught of air or uncovering. Feels extremely impatient and irritable.
- Pyrogenium: serious flu with severe pains in the back and the limbs and a terrible, bursting headache. Feels beaten and bruised all over. Very restless and feels better on beginning to move. Chills in the back and the limbs with a thumping heart.
- Rhus toxicodendron: flu in cold, damp weather. Great restlessness: aching and stiffness in the joints is worse for first motion, it eases with continued motion and then they feel weak and have to rest after which they stiffen and have to move again. Pains are better for warmth. Feels anxious and weepy.
Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease
Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFM) starts with a fever and shortly after, the spots appear. The spots are more like blisters and can show up on the soles of the feet, palms of the hands, and/or inside the mouth and back of the throat. The blisters in the mouth can be very painful, especially when your little one is trying to swallow or eat.
A child also might:
- develop fever, muscle aches, or other flu-like symptoms.
- become irritable or sleep more than usual.
- begin drooling (due to painful swallowing).
- gravitate toward cold fluids.
Try the following remedies when HFM makes an appearance in your house.
- Mercurius solubis: Mouth sores can be very severe, and the person is very sensitive to hot and cold; may have a fever before getting the blisters and may alternate between getting too hot with perspiration and becoming chilled at night; becoming too hot or too cold makes the person worse in general; blisters tend to be more painful at night; one of the characteristic symptoms of Mercurius is the tendency to drool or to have an excess of saliva in the mouth; the breath may be quite offensive with pus visible on the tonsils or elsewhere in the mouth.
- Antimonium tart: Chill stage of fever: gooseflesh and icy cold skin; heat stage of fever: clings to those around and wants to be carried; does not want to be touched or looked at; thirstless despite the dry parched tongue; wweat stage of fever: profuse, cold, clammy or sticky; dry, cracked, parched tongue with whitish discoloration in the centre; tongue tip and sides clean, moist and red; thrush; may crave apples or apple juice.
- Borax: Refuses to talk during fever; desire for cold drinks and cold food during fever; great heat and dryness of mouth with white ulcers (aphthae); white fungus-like growth; tender; ulcers bleed on touch and eating; painful red blisters on tongue; sore mouth prevents infants from nursing; fear of downward motion; startle easily; very sensitive to sudden noises.
While measles is probably best known for its full-body rash, the first symptoms of the infection are usually a hacking cough, runny nose, high fever, and red eyes that can be very sensitive to light. Characteristic markers of measles are Koplik’s spots, small red spots with blue-white centers that appear inside the mouth. The rash first appears on the face and then moves downwards and from the face downward.
- Euphrasia: Lots of mucus; a mouthful hawked up on cough; clears the throat frequently; cough during the day only and worse in the morning; better lying down; eyes – burning, watery and sensitive to light; eyelids burning, red and swollen; wind and light aggravate; nose – bland, watery unlike the watery discharge of the eyes which burns; throat might be sore with burning pain.
- Pulsatilla: thirstless; clinging and weepy; warm rooms and becoming warm aggravate; open air ameliorates; low fever and the itchy skin/eruptions are worse for heat; eruptions itching and worse for warmth with white or yellow discharge.
- Apis: eruptions painful, burning, hot, stinging with swelling where the skin looks shiny/puffy; thirstless; itching better for cold applications and worse for heat, especially heat of bed; if rash is slow to develop or is suppressed; better in general for fresh air, better with cold drinks.
- Bryonia: Rash/eruptions slow to come out or suppressed; warmth of the bed ameliorates; dryness and dislike of movement; headache has pain behind the eyeballs, bursting and violent, worse for moving; better for cold compresses and pressure; thirsty for large quantities of water all at once; motion aggravates; grumpy bear remedy – want to be left alone; throbbing/pulsating pains; dryness throughout all mucous membranes.
END OF QUOTE
I have only selected conditions that are potentially serious. Originally, I had intended to include all of them in this post, but half way through I gave up: there were just too many.
I am sure that most readers of the above advice would have – like I did – first have giggled a bit and then have felt increasingly angry and eventually slightly depressed: this glimpse into the way homeopaths think is revealing and frightening in equal measure.
I already hear the apologists say: This is unnecessarily alarmist; homeopathic remedies are safe, much safer than conventional medicines. My answer to these two points are as follows:
- Homeopathy does not normally harm patients via its remedies but by neglect: it is a non-treatment; and a non-treatment of a serious condition is always life-threatening.
- Sure, real medicines have risks, but they also have benefits. Responsible healthcare practitioners use those treatments where the benefits outweigh the risks.
Good grief. So Ebola is one of those “minor illnesses and injuries that don’t necessarily need a doctor’s care”? How is it legal to make these claims? The dreadful standard of medical regulation in the USA explains why they spend twice as much on health as we do, for similar outcomes. Obviously they waste at least half of it on crap like this.
Surely it’s just a matter of time before the small team of heroic homeopaths bring out a sister magazine to HOLA! Called EBOLA! Full of recipes, foods to avoid,fashion tips, instructions for treating the disease at home,and interviews with famous Ebola sufferers.
I initially tweeted a link to this post, calling it “Swiftian” (recalling Swifte’s famous recipe for cooking a baby, as a protest to English recalcitrance during the Irish Potato Famine), but then realized this isn’t in fact Swiftian. Being a direct quote from the NCH, and an accurate appraisal of potential consequences, irony or satire is neither present nor possible.
I forgot to mention that the NATIONAL CENTER FOR HOMEOPATHY (http://www.homeopathycenter.org/about-us) is a “non-profit organization dedicated to promoting health through homeopathy” – they could have fooled me; I got the impression they were promoting premature death.
Especially by calling bleeding arterial blood “minor”
Quite apart from anything else it is an insult to intelligence. For those who believe, however, it is a religion, for which intelligence is irrelevant.
Apropos Ebola. You don’t have to rise from your computer desk to fetch a homeopathic remedy for it. You can play a sound through your speakers!
When I first saw mention of this absurdity I thought it was a bad joke but as more elaborate accounts of it appeared I started having doubts so I found the email address of Dr. Bill Gray and asked him if he was serious. It turns out he is not only serious but totally out of his mind. He truly believes he is doing something useful with these sound files. He even believes they can be “delivered” via cellphone 😀
A lunatic with an MD title is still a lunatic.
Benveniste ended up selling such ‘cures’ by telephone. Others claim that writing the name of a ‘remedy’ and leaving it near a glass of water is sufficient to produce the ‘remedy’.
So if I read the recipe for a curry down the phone to a homeopath, they’ll feel instantly full?
Or is it important to cut the amounts to a tiny fraction, since the less they eat, the fuller they’ll be?
Has Africa heard about this yet?
Homeopaths are always full. Of BS.
… and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$…
“selling such ‘cures’ by telephone”
Ok Acleron, show the data for sales by Benveniste. Not data little liar?
Hummm, I want you believe Acleron. Dont worry… The lack of data on all comments in all web is typical for you.
Hi Sense About Science headquarters!
Massive data is out!
Poorly formed insults, lack of intelligence and foaming at the mouth hysterics. Yeah, you’re Egger.
Hit me with Allanuh Acleronbahr!
This link will help you: http://bfy.tw/8N0z
I agree. This is the web, sorry for the SAS. Massive data is out, and your name appear 😀
Maybe, on RT news?
I LOVED the Benveniste video! The izzy-wizzy sounds made it all sciencey, like an old episode of Star Quack! He should have appeared at Glastonbury.
Well, based on the theory that there are not a lot of readers of the blog in West Africa most of us probably won’t get ebola if we use his method.
This man is truly mad.
As I started reading the list of diseases, their descriptions and the recommended homeopathic cures I began to laugh as I thought what a clever parody of the practice you had written. And then as I kept reading, I eventually thought OMG, these people are serious!
Darwin Awards all round, I’d say!
Talk about the wild, wild West:
“We inform legislators and work to secure homeopathy’s place in the U.S health care system while working to ensure that homeopathy is accurately represented in the media. We help you get and stay connected and find the resources you seek while being a strong and collective voice for homeopathy in the US.
NCH does not have professional homeopaths or other medical professionals on staff. NCH does not provide medical or therapeutic advice (including second opinions or recommendations for a particular remedy or potency). Nor do we assist practitioners with questions regarding their cases. Persons seeking medical or therapeutic advice should consult with a healthcare professional. Practitioners seeking assistance with a particular case should consult with their peers (NCH members can find peers using the Membership Directory after logging in) or contact their professional society for advice.”
I can believe they have no medical professional on staff, but who can believe NCH does not provide medical or therapeutic advice”?
Hmmm… “Mercurius solubilis”.
Aren’t these the same people that yap on about vaccines containing mercury? Now, granted, the process of preparing these homeopathic “remedies” means there’ll be no mercury left in the solution at all but, unscientifically-speaking, that makes it far more potent. Right? Sign me up for a vial of instant formication!
There may not be anything in their final product but if I was in the local authority of one of these factories I’d be very interested in their waste disposal.
Not sure I completely understand zet1’s comment.
Is he objecting to the allegation that Benveniste sends ‘ tinctures’ down the telephone? Or to the implication that he charges money for such a service?
If it’s the first, then it reminds me of the early US Candid Camera stunt in which a gentleman gets a face full of water squirted at him from a public phone when the fellow he’s talking to tells him there’s heavy rain where he is.
If it’s the second, then it resembles Peter Butterworth’s ‘ Mr Fiddler’ character in ‘Carry On Camping’.
The sentence of “Acleron” biologist id clear. Can you provide evidence of the sales by Benveniste with homeopathic web remedies?
I suspect that’s universal.
I don’t suspect. Is clear tour role with conflict of interests. Hi Genetic Literacy memeber!
What conflict of interests? Please try to be specific.
Ninghtingale trust, Meyerside Skeptics, Genetic Literacy, Science 2.0, American Humanist Association, British Humanist Association, NCHAF… As you knows, trilla with bit cheeks and laughs worked 18 hr per day on Twitter, Facebook, Spectator, Edzard Bastard… Yes, the seno doggy style!
Yup. Still gobbledegook. Please try harder.
“But Ernst didn’t set out to wage war against the unconventional. Indeed, fresh from his studies, he began his career in a homeopathic hospital. “To me, homeopathy wasn’t as strange as it would be to many other people because, in a way, I was brought up on homeopathy – our family doctor was a homeopath,” he says. ”
Which diseases did your “family doctor” cure for you?
Any of above?
And why would you with your knowledge of homeopathy, still refer to him as a doctor and not a quack?
Jeebus Christ Iqbal.
Your perseverance is almost endearing.
Almost every point you make goes down like a Stuka on fire. But still you carry on.
You remind me of one of those people -Dr’ Charlene Werner comes to mind, or one of the crazies from the Jon Robinson book- who spend hours headedbutting a wall because they’ve heard it’s more air than atoms.
I meant of course ‘Ronson’ not’Robinson’. iPad corrects at random.
Barrie, barrie… You can’t offer a logical response for Iqbal. Only repeats the Ars Technica and JREF or “International skeptics” or Genetic Literacy quacks rethorical ad-hom attacks.
Ernst is not a homeopath as BMJ statement un “Systematic review”. Ernst trained in short courses of homeopathy for 6 months!
Ernst was not homeopath.
Ernst is clearly a fraud with extreme bias and severe conflicts of interests!
Our re-analysis of the original “debunks” of Ernst on books, papers and comments clearly support my statement. Our results was an independent replication of Hahn and others. I will shown on conferences.
@zet1 on Wednesday 26 October 2016 at 05:28
“Ernst was not homeopath. Ernst is clearly a fraud with extreme bias and severe conflicts of interests!”
I am in total agreement. Don’t you have adjectives that increase the degree of disgust in your statement. I would happily go along.
Iqbal, let me lecture you. Nobody gives a fart about your opinion. In order to test homeopathy one does not need to be a homeopath. One only has to know how to design and correctly interpret a clinical study and Edzard Ernst is more than qualified to do that. Iqbal, I and others have conclusively proven that you have no idea how to do that. F.i. your infamous statement that a therapy has a p-value, you remember that, do you not ?
“One only has to know how to design and correctly interpret a clinical study and Edzard Ernst is more than qualified to do that.”
MORE than qualified? I agree.
He carries data in his hat that he takes out and uses when ever required.
“He carries data in his hat that he takes out and uses when ever required.”
does that have a meaning? if so, what is it?
Quote: “He carries data in his hat that he takes out and uses when ever required.” Iqbal, you have been challenged repeatedly to present your data. You failed, as did Hahnemann. You follow a medical theory that is based on the pathologic condition of it’s founder, i.e. an outlier. In science this is a deadly sin.
@Edzard on Thursday 27 October 2016 at 18:52
“does that have a meaning? if so, what is it?”
I believed you remember this. Taking data from yor hat. It is mentioned against your name.
Sorry, here you did not take data out of YOUR hat. You just dressed it in a manner you thought looked good to you and your friends and followers.
you are mistaken – as usual.
Your reply to Iqbal is quite correct of course.
One trick that homeopathy cultists try very frequently is to make a claim about their belief, defy you to disprove it, and then argue that since you’ve never studied homeopathy, or don’t have a science degree of some kind, then your opinion is worthless.
But of course that is irrelevant, or at best only part of the story.
One very basic difficulty for them is to explain how a substance becomes more potent the more it’s diluted. Physics and chemistry were by far my worst subjects at school, but that’s irrelevant to any understanding of the aforesaid as a sensible proposition. It sounds like a superficial argument in some ways, but actually it isn’t. It’s essentially a way of saying ‘Answer this one basic question, or shut up’.
If they can’t answer it, then any sensible person has the right to decline any further engagement with the argument. I think Richard Rawlings made a similar point a couple of days ago, I.e. there’s little to be gained any more in arguing this. The evidence, as Dawkins says about Evolution or the ‘flat Earth’ theory, is already in. For me- I just like to have a little fun with wilful imbeciles.
When I’ve had another couple of rakis, I’ll see if I can make my TV work by plugging it in to a bowl of soup.I shall report back should I have success. On second thoughts, I’ll have to invite a couple of my Greek neighbours round to witness it. It should make a credible ‘story’ for Catherine though.
I guess this is all about quack homeopathy in the USA/UK where it is not properly regulated, nor taught as a medical speciality in Med School, nor administered by real doctors…and where it costs a rip-off fortune! Quite the opposite in countries like France & Belgium where it is administered by properly-qualified medical specialists and costs a fraction of conventional medicine! And guess what…it works when accurately dosed and administered! I could share a multitude of positive stories, but I won’t bother waste my breath preaching to the confirmed sceptics which, btw, I used to be until I experienced ‘real’ homeopathy for myself! If you want to test it, go to a properly-trained medical homeopath and, as with any pharmaceutical, don’t self-medicate!
Where is it properly regulated and how would you regulate quackery?
Why on earth would quackery be taught in medical schools?
I’d hope that ‘real doctors’ would know and understand why they should be doing no such thing.
And guess what?! I don’t believe you. Please provide good evidence.
I have no doubts…
Preaching is for churches: we require good evidence. And you’ve not provided any yet.
If you were once a skeptic, you must have forgotten all the stuff about science and evidence.
Mama! In each quote you can’t offer any logical response. As a typical of pseudoskeptic, you only repeat “quack”.
Note: I want believe you. Can you post the good evidence of the “Benveniste sales” on homeopathic web remedies?
You’re talking nonsense again, zet1.
Bored zeno. Take a tour of scientific and logic methods before answer the questions.
If I ever needed any, I wouldn’t be taking any lessons from you!
“it works when accurately dosed and administered!”
Don’t tell me, tell the “It Works For Me” campaign, who are trying to get the EU to exempt homeopathy from normal medical testing standards (as it is in Germany). Tell them they can relax and allow homeopathy to be tested, and confidently await the results.
(And continue to avoid googling “false positive”.)
Catherine-go on. Waste your breath. We’re all ears, I can promise you.
Although to be honest, it sounds like a rather diluted argument for being attacked by a fully qualified rapist.
If there’s no validity to it, the qualifications are irrelevant.
I was once beaten unconscious and robbed. The fact hat there was no justification for what the two rotters did is completely irrelevant. It would have hurt just as much if they had been ‘qualified’.
Or perhaps your argument that an awful attack would have been less painful and costly had it been carried out by fully trained muggers?
“administered by properly-qualified medical specialists and costs a fraction of conventional medicine! And guess what…it works when accurately dosed and administered! ”
Nope, Catherine, it does not. The recent Australian Metastudy should have shown that once and for all.
“it works when accurately dosed and administered! I could share a multitude of positive stories”
Properly designed studies trumps anecdotal evidence. Even the anecdotal evidence presented by Hahnemann himself shows in many cases that homeopathy does not work. Aside that Homeopathy was derived from a faulty experiment and a severely misunderstood theory. I have read the relevant Hahnemann publications in the original. They are full of faulty conclusions. Hanemann was a terribly bad scientist. You know the principle: crap in crap out.
@Thomas Mohr on Wednesday 26 October 2016 at 09:16
“I have read the relevant Hahnemann publications in the original. They are full of faulty conclusions. Hanemann was a terribly bad scientist.”
Your knowledge level about science and human body is pathetic and homeopathy, zero. Now I can safely say you are a LIAR also.
“He is called the Father of Experimental Pharmacology because he was the first physician to prepare medicines in a specialized way; proving them on healthy human beings, to determine how the medicines acted to cure diseases. Before Hahnemann, medicines were given on speculative indications, mainly on the basis of authority without experimental verification.”
“My sense of duty would not easily allow me to treat the unknown pathological state of my suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of my fellow human beings was most terrible to me, so terrible and disturbing that I wholly gave up my practice in the first years of my married life and occupied myself solely with chemistry and writing.”
No change in the allopathic system in 200 years. Continue to kill patients in the name of scientific treatment.
HE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE.
Dr. Hering proved 72 drugs, out of which the following are the most important: Cantharis, Colchicum, Iodum, Mezereum, Sabadilla, Sabina, Psorinum, Nux moschata, Lachesis, Crotalus, Apis, Hydrophobinum, Phytolacca, Platina, Glonoin, Gelsemium, Kalmia, Ferrum-met, Fluoric acid, and Phosphoric acid.
He has the credit of introducing the following remedies to the Homoeopathic Materia Medica: Pertussin, Carcinosinum, Epihysterinum, Baccillinum Testicum, Morbillinum, Parotidinum, Scarletinum, and Scirrhinum.
Along with other nosodes, he introduced the remedy Baccillinum.
There are many more.
Hahnemann mistook an idiosyncratic reaction to a crude product and without verifying it concocted a complete mythology. The father of experimental pharmacology? That is like saying that Benveniste was a future Nobel prize winner.
Iqbal, I have missed you.
Quote from Gesnerus Suppl. 2000;46:7-158.
[The development of experimental pharmacology 1790-1850].
[Article in German]
“In 1799 Johann Christian Reil elaborated his principles for a future pharmacology. Reil establishes the rules for clinical experiments on which a scientific pharmacology should be based. His goal is to explain the actions of drugs which are the results of biochemical alterations. Even though Reil’s program is a theoretical conception, it anticipates a situation that was to take shape half a century later. Also in 1799 Adolph Friedrich Nolde published detailed rules for the critical examination of drug actions in patients, including aspects like placebo, compliance, statistics, and several ethical rules. Reil’s and Nolde’s programmatic messages vanished in the emerging German medicine of “Naturphilosophie”. The original paper by Nolde is: Nolde AF. Erinnerung an einige zur kritischen Würdigung der Arzneymittel sehr nothwendige Bedingungen [Reminder of some of the necessary conditions for the critical appraisal of a drug.] Hufelands Journal 1799 8: 1. St. S. 47–97, 2. St. S. 75–116.
These works culminated in Rudolf Buchheim who is the founder of experimental pharmacology as a subject sui generis as defined by pharmacokinetcs, mode of action and pharmacodynamics. Hahnemann did NOT do any research in this direction and is consequently not mentioned in Textbooks on Experimental Pharmacology. Quite contrary his “proofs” are based on a not replicated experiment that we know now was interpreted in a catastrophic way.
Hahnemann violated *several* of the rules laid down by Nolde and Buchheim, i.e. the use of placebo in trials and use of statistics. This scientific blunder has been demonstrated in an exemplary way by some of the first RCTs in history. No Iqbal, the liar here is you. Hahnemann was and will always remain a terrible scientist.
Interesting information. Thanks!
“Hahnemann violated *several* of the rules laid down by Nolde and Buchheim, i.e. the use of placebo in trials and use of statistics. This scientific blunder has been demonstrated in an exemplary way by some of the first RCTs in history. No Iqbal, the liar here is you. Hahnemann was and will always remain a terrible scientist.”
Why did Hahnemann start the new proving method? Scientific Doctors with no rationale used crude drugs that killed patients in place of curing them during his time.
In place of proving, Hahnemann could follow the RCT, supposedly the gold standard that you refer here.
A test procedure is considered good where end results very closely resemble the outcome in real life.
Did Vioxx clear RCT. It did. Would homeopathic Lachesis 30 clear RCT: no.
Did Actos clear RCT. It did. Would homeopathic Belladonna 30 clear RCT: no.
Did Isotretinoin clear RCT. It did. Would homeopathic Arsenic 30 clear RCT: no.
Did Bextra clear RCT. It did. Would homeopathic Rhus Tox clear RCT. no.
I could name another 100 drugs that cleared RCT but ended up killing millions. The with draw orders come because the adverse effects leading to deaths were not part of adverse effects printed on the inside flap and the risk benefit ratio is tilted dangerously towards extreme risk. During Hahnemann’s time, the outcome of the situation was exactly the same. Patients were dying because of adverse effects of crude drugs. Addition of RCT has changed the scenario in which way? The objective of the drug is to supposedly to heal patients so he can drive back home. The end result here is being driven back in a hearse.
What would Hahnemann experience and say, if he was alive? NO CHANGE.
I pointed out earlier, it was not only one person proving homeopathic medicines as is made out to be. There were many. If end results are any thing to go by, Hahnemann was right.
The RCT suffers from many defects. The biggest issue being that if 2 persons can NEVER be the same because of their genetic variability (includes twins) how can a genuine control group be created? If the RCT runs for over one year, the person starting the test is not the same: all the cells he started with have now replaced. Add to this the pharma business requirements:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2282014 and the other issues
As I said earlier, what ever allopathic medical system touches, it pollutes. How can this be a scientific medical system. Death and disabilities that were present 200 years ago, continue without change and acknowledged.
Iqbal, first of all, homeopathy kills by non-treatment. This is apparent in a hypothetical scenario where scarlet fever death rates did not go down in the 19th century despite excessive use of belladonna. “Fortunately” for homeopathy no treatment was available, but if you would treat diseases with homeopathy instead of medicine, death rates would skyrocket.
Second, apparently you have no idea about homeopathy itself, therefore I will lecture you. The correct translation of Hahnemanns word “Prüfung” is “examination” or “experiment” but NOT and I repeat NOT proof or proving. A “Prüfung” is an experiment to get data. It has no connotation of a “Beweis” which would be the German equivalent to proof or proving. The translation Prüfung – proof/proving was done by a homeopath with terrible knowledge of English. It is clearly a false friend caused by similar sounding words. Indeed even today Germans with bad knowledge of English chose “proving” for “Prüfung” instead of the correct exam or experiment. The fact that this has not been corrected yet demonstrates the learning resistance of homeopaths. Hahnemanns drug development method contains no test whatsoever that the drug is indeed effective, contrary to the rules of Nolde and Buchheim which demand that a drug test has to contain a test that the drug is really effective. Hahnemanns method of drug development does not contain *any controls whatsoever* that his drugs really work. This is also eviident in his case reports where he claims healings that are clearly the effect of the self limiting nature of the disease. I.o.W. without treatment the disease lasts seven days, with treatment one week. Indeed homeopathic “drug development” works this way up to now, i.e. you record perceived symptoms, summarize them, no check wether the whole thing really cures and the drug is thrown onto mankind.
Third, thank you very much for the confession that a lot of homeopathic drugs would not pass an RCT, thus admitting they are useless.
Finally, data already cited here earlier show that by use of homeopathy the death rate by breast cancer alone would double. Given the fact that breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, we are talking not about a few hundred thousands who die due to medical errors, but about millions who would die despite state of the art homeopathic “treatment”. Your can shove your tu quoque scenario up your behind.
BTW Iqbal, with the blog entry critizing RCTs because often the prior probability based on scientific knowledge is not considered you have shot yourself into your knee. I have already lectured you numerous times, but obviously that has not been understood. Given the fact that the prior probability of homeopathy is virtually zero, all the trials showing some effect are very likely false positives.
@Thomas Mohr on Friday 28 October 2016 at 07:15
“I have already lectured you numerous times, but obviously that has not been understood.”
A short question. How do drugs kill millions after they clear RCT running over 10 years especially with altogether NEW adverse reactions.
Why does it happen repeatedly over past 50 years even though science has moved ahead and even YOU know so much abut it.
Iqbal, as long as you do NOT present data about the superiority of homeopathy *especially* with regard to the same treatment outcome as medicine you can shove your pathetic “medical errors kill ….” whining up your behind.
Fact is, homeopathy does not work. Fact is that with homoepathy death rates would skyrocket to the point of the mortality of untreated diseases. For breast cancer alone this would halve the 5 year survival rate.
Finally, Fact is that homeopathy has not contributed at all to the development of medicine and to call Hahnemann a father of experimental pharmacology is an insult.
We can all share stories, but this has nothing to do with medicine.
Australian report is not a meta study.
Hahnemann chinchona bark proving was replicated in several instances. I wrote a paper (under peer review) about this contorversial subject. The paper is a fresh assessment of similia principle on several instances. The flaws on Ernst and Sigh critiques, Hopff and W. Holmes are described and debunked.
zet1 technically it *is* a metastudy. As for your paper, it would be interesting to read it and to know who peer reviews it. Anyway, of course the symptoms described by Hahnemann have been repeatedly reported by others. It is a rare side effect of quinine. However, replicating an experiment means to get the same reaction in the vast majority of cases and not as a rare side effect. In that sense the experiment can not be replicated. The mode of action and the acting agent is well known today and it is NOT, and I repeat NOT due to like cures like because quinine normally does NOT cause, and I again repeat it does NOT cause fever. It is not related in any way to homeopathic principles. I.o.W. Hahnemann built his entire hypothesis on an outlier, the wrong mode of action, never corrected it even in the light of the results of the first RCTs and never checked it if his concept actually worked. Actually, Hahnemanns extensive case reports are an archive of treating by trial and error as well as heavy observational bias. In the world of science these are deadly sins.
Many suckers believe in magic, voodoo, faith healers, witch doctors as well as homeopaths. So, your convictions Catherine, are not surprising.
Does being registered changes nature of occupation? Except that now you can do it officially? Teaching homeopathy at med schools is a strange occupation, since curricula of these schools include subjects that explain both why homeopathy cannot work and why homeopaths are not right telling that it is impossible to design randomized controlled clinical studies of homeopathy (and those that are done are often of poor quality). And med school also explains why individual experience cannot serve as evidence. Actually not only med school, any decent school.
I mentioned some of this before, but I think it bears repeating.
In her befuddled post, Catherine attempted to differentiate between ‘properly regulated’ and rigorously taught homeopathy, and that other stuff.
An ex-friend- his choice-who lives in France, said in an argument we had that ‘You know I don’t believe in homeopathy, it’s all nonsense, but some of it can work’.
Also he pointed out that in France, someone training for a qualification in medicine had to do an extra two years to gain a homeopathic ‘qualification”.
I pointed out that since it’s all nonsense it didn’t matter whether it were an extra twenty years or even two thousand.
The discussion, as I’ve hinted, did not go well.
I do hope that Catherine decides to stay, and argue her case, rather than flouncing off and complaining of impoliteness.
She even used exclamation marks in an attempt to soften her daft views!
But it didn’t work on this old bunny!!
Of course tender loving care from an empathic practitioner ‘works’ in the sense that many patients will ‘feel better’.
And practitioners who like to style themselves as, and promote themselves as ‘homeopaths’ will have a number of clients who will ‘feel better’ after their ministrations. (Though necessarily as a result of those ministrations. Recession to the mean applies in all cases.)
But that is not ‘homeopathy’. Homeopathy additionally involves suggesting to the client that a ‘homeopathically prepared remedy’ will have, on it’s own account, a specific action. And there is no plausible evidence HP remedies can or ever do have such actions.
It is self evident that using placebos to trigger placebo responses will have placebo effects.
I am not clear what all the fuss on this thread is about, unless some homeopaths are deluded and have not been taught, or have not understood, the mechanisms of their art.
No HP remedies have been shown to have any effect whatsoever on the conditions, illnesses and ailments as claimed at the top of this thread, as cited by Edzard. End of. Can we move on please.