MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

German homeopathy has had a free ride for about 200 years. But, since a few years, critics have started voicing their opposition pointing out that homeopathy lacks evidence of effectiveness. Sales figures, previously in excess of 600 million Euros, have thus started to decline. As a result the homeopathic industry has begun to fight back – as previously discussed, not always by honest or fair means.

Now, a new development has taken place; a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies, Hevert, has sent legal letters to several critics of homeopathy in an attempt to stop them stating that homeopathy is not effective beyond placebo. Failing to abide by this demand would be punishable with a huge find of 5 100 Euros.

After I learnt about this, I had a look on the website of Hevert and found an article detailing the evidence on homeopathy. I think it makes certain things more understandable.

The article concedes that the evidence for homeopathy is often of poor quality and not entirely positive. One problem, the article claims, is the fact that these analyses are usually sponsored by interested parties and that independent, reviews financed through public funds have not been available.

Das Hauptproblem liegt darin, dass die klinische Homöopathieforschung bisher fast ausschließlich über Gelder von komplementärmedizinischen Stiftungen bzw. über die homöopathischen Arzneimittelhersteller selbst finanziert wird. Das heißt, dass eine mit öffentlichen Forschungsgeldern unterstützte systematische Erforschung der klinischen Wirksamkeit von homöopathischen Arzneimitteln bisher nicht stattgefunden hat….

Could it be that Hevert is not well-informed about this point? The fact is that there are now numerous such analyses. Here are the key passages from some of these ‘official verdicts’:

 “The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available”

Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia

“These products are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Health Canada, Canada

“Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence-based medicine.”

Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

“The incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine.”

Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden

There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition

National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, USA

There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition

National Health Service, UK

Homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and the principles on which homeopathy is based are “scientifically implausible”

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK

“Homeopathy has not definitively proven its efficacy in any specific indication or clinical situation.”

Ministry of Health, Spain

“… homeopathy should be treated as one of the unscientific methods of the so called ‘alternative medicine’, which proposes worthless products without scientifically proven efficacy.”

National Medical Council, Poland

“… there is no valid empirical proof of the efficacy of homeopathy beyond the placebo effect.”

Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg, Belgium

The Hevert article also points out that systematic reviews assessing homeopathy globally are perhaps not ideal, the article claims, and therefore systematic reviews targeted at specific conditions might be preferable and, indeed yield positive findings.

Mittlerweile geht man bei der Auswertung von klinischen Studien sinnvollerweise mehr dazu über, nicht mehr „die Homöopathie“ als Ganzes auf die Probe zu stellen, sondern kleinere Metaanalysen zu festen Indikationen durchzuführen, da dies eindeutigere Ergebnisse liefert….

Again, I suspect that the firm Hevert is not well-informed. I, for instance, have published about a dozen of such reviews which they fail to cite in their article. Let me copy the abstracts of just 4 examples here:

EXAMPLE 1

BACKGROUND:

Homeopathy is often advocated for patients with eczema.

OBJECTIVES:

This article systematically reviews the evidence from controlled clinical trials of any type of homeopathic treatment for any type of eczema.

METHODS:

Electronic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library with no restrictions on time or language. In addition, the bibliographies of the retrieved articles and our departmental files were hand searched. All controlled trials of homeopathy in patients with eczema were considered. Their methodological quality was estimated using the Jadad score.

RESULTS:

One randomized and two nonrandomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. All were methodologically weak. None demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy.

CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence from controlled clinical trials therefore fails to show that homeopathy is an efficacious treatment for eczema.

EXAMPLE 2

Homoeopathy is often advocated for fibromyalgia (FM) and many FM patients use it. To critically evaluate all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of homoeopathy as a treatment for FM, six electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant studies. Data extraction and the assessment of the methodological quality of all included studies were done by two independent reviewers. Four RCTs were found, including two feasibility studies. Three studies were placebo-controlled. None of the trials was without serious flaws. Invariably, their results suggested that homoeopathy was better than the control interventions in alleviating the symptoms of FM. Independent replications are missing. Even though all RCTs suggested results that favour homoeopathy, important caveats exist. Therefore, the effectiveness of homoeopathy as a symptomatic treatment for FM remains unproven.

EXAMPLE 3

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the evidence of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments.

METHODS:

Systematic literature searches were conducted through January 2006 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, British Homeopathic Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the UK National Research Register. Bibliographies were checked for further relevant publications. Studies were selected according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of any homeopathic intervention for preventing or treating childhood and adolescence ailments were included. According to the classification of the World Health Organization, the age range defined for inclusion was 0 to 19 years. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by 2 reviewers.

RESULTS:

A total of 326 articles were identified, 91 of which were retrieved for detailed evaluation. Sixteen trials that assessed 9 different conditions were included in the study. With the exception of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and acute childhood diarrhea (each tested in 3 trials), no condition was assessed in more than 2 double-blind randomized clinical trials. The evidence for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and acute childhood diarrhea is mixed, showing both positive and negative results for their respective main outcome measures. For adenoid vegetation, asthma, and upper respiratory tract infection each, 2 trials are available that suggest no difference compared with placebo. For 4 conditions, only single trials are available.

CONCLUSION:

The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.

EXAMPLE 4

Many cancer patients use homeopathic approaches to increase their body’s ability to fight cancer, improve their physical and emotional well-being, and alleviate their pain resulting from the disease or conventional treatments. Homeopathy is highly controversial as there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. We have searched the literature using the databases: Amed (from 1985); CINHAL (from 1982); EMBASE (from 1974); Medline (from 1951); and CAMbase (from 1998). Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer receiving single or combined homeopathic interventions were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad score. Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.

I hasten to add that all of these analyses were funded by public (University) money and not by the industry.

I suspect that Hevert have overlooked all this evidence (no problem, we all can do mistakes!) and therefore, I offer herewith to help them correcting the omissions. In particular, I offer to give an instructive, evidence-based lecture to their staff followed by an in-depth discussion and correction of their website. As homeopathy is under pressure in Germany, I would not even insist on a fee. All I would ask is this: abandon all legal actions against critics of homeopathy; these legal actions are ill-advised and will turn out to be a mere waste of your dwindling profits.

40 Responses to A German manufacturer of homeopathic remedies is taking legal action against critics

  • “Failing to abide by this demand would be punishable with a huge find of 5 100 Euros.”
    Surely only public authorities can levy fines (?)

    • apparently they think they can do this according to German law – not sure about the legal details. perhaps a German legal expert can explain?

    • It is somewhat different. In Germany it is common practice to deal with such more or less personal matters out of court. The lawyer of the person who thinks himself harmed by someone elses public statements or publications writes a letter to the offender, indicating that there is some problem. The lawyer offers that the offender might sign a declaration of withdrawing the publications in question if possible and stopping with further statements/publications in this direction (in German “Unterlassungserklärung”). This includes that an amount of money is fixed that is to be payed if the offender does not stick to the contract and repeats his statements. This a contract to settle the matter out of court. If the offender signs this contract but does not comply with it, he will have to pay the sum to the suitor.

      Many cases are settled this way. But if the offender does not sign, the suitor may or may not take to legal actions.

      Hope this gives an idea of the situation. Of course the only one who is sure to have some gain from the situation is the lawyer, who gets payed in any case, either by the suitor or by the accused party.

  • Just the threat of a lawsuit is enough to shut some people up. My guess is that they would never actually do it. If they did, they would have to produce evidence, something they simply cannot do. And it would be costly to them.

    Homeopathy is nonsense. They know that as well as anyone. This is just a tactic to reduce the enemy’s forces and win the PR war so they can continue to line their pockets.

    Those who hold stocks in Hevert should be ashamed of themselves.

  • The German laws HWG and UWG are very effective and clear about medical or health claims in detail in advertisement and the laws do not allow advertisement with medical products or methods claiming to be effective in treating illnesses or diseases if there is no “Goldstandard”. There are thousands of such law suits and court’s decisions about healing aspects e.g. of mineral water, nutrition, supplements, homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic or other SCAM advertisements.
    One of the most effective institutes is the
    http://www.vsw.info
    or the
    https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de

    https://www.vzbv.de/ueber-uns

    You can search in search engines and type in “openjur hwg urteil homöopathie”

    https://openjur.de/u/600989.html

    https://openjur.de/u/692722.html

    https://openjur.de/u/339309.html

    https://openjur.de/u/867387.html

    https://openiur.de/u/743496.html

    https://www.heilpraktikerrecht.com/2017/08/15/hohes-abmahnrisiko-bei-homoeopathischer-therapie-haftungsfalle-diaettherapie/

    http://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2017-N-118220

    about “Goldstandard”:
    https://openjur.de/u/897943.html

    But I couldn’t find information, how it is the other way round if you say that a method is not effective in any diseases beyound placebo if there is no medical “Goldstandard” for it. Logically it’s the conclusion if there are no medical indications. I guess Hevert will loose any case and I am doubting if they will risk a law suit at all.

    • to me, it looks as though they had bad legal advice. my advice to Hervert, if they don’t want to waste money, is to change lawyer urgently.

  • Hevert is using a legal finesse: The German law on drugs assumes efficacy for authorised homeopathic remedies (remedies with an indication). The authorisation process is managed by a special commission of the pharmaceutical authority (Kommission D), composed mainly of homeopaths and friends.

  • Physician, heal thyself.
    It occurs to me that medicine wants special treatment in the marketplace. They want protection from competition.
    Why could this be? In every culture throughout history the “healer” has status because of the importance of health, both individually and as a group. Surely, the iconic white coated and institutionally trained Western doctor has such continuous and indisputable success that voodoo medicine and archaic herbalists would be dispelled almost immediately. The free market alone would be curative of nonproductive or dangerous treatments.

    Sadly, this isn’t the case. Most chronic human ailments are without such clear success. With the exception of infection disease, injuries, specific heritable diseases, and surgical arts there isn’t much Western Medicine can claim.

    That may sound offensive. Apparently, the free market is expressing this. Mental health is rife with patients in a recycling of trying barely effective and side effect burdened medication in different combination “cocktails” as if they were lab rats, not patients with a disease that has a defined cure.
    And, every chronic ailment of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Crohns, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, Autism, Cancer, age related, and, yes, eczema has no definitive cure.
    However, in the American household, after housing and food, healthcare is our largest expense. And, now, they want protection from competition? On what basis? Homeopathy, besides controllable dangers like heavy metals or contamination has comparatively little side effects.
    Western Medicine says ANY benefit from non-Western doctors is “placebo effect.”
    That clearly isn’t universally true, but for the sake of argument, assume that potential falsehood to be true.

    That means Western Medicine can’t compete with placebos?

    Since eczema was brought up, pulled up a meta study and it is dismal. But, there’s no point in getting granular on a particular realm.
    Most of our great benefits of extended lifespan has been from antibiotics and safety measures in major injury causes of death and surgical interventions. Childbirth in hospitals has a made big differences and work safety and the decline in smoking.

    But, understanding the human organism well enough to help (with the exception of opiates for pain (isn’t that ironic?), the free market is not impressed.
    Physician, heal thyself.

    • do you have a point?

    • That’s an amazing string of misrepresentations, false statements and fallacious arguments you’ve put together there.

      “With the exception of infection disease, injuries, specific heritable diseases, and surgical arts there isn’t much Western Medicine can claim.”

      Isn’t much? Are you serious? Eliminating infectious diseases that killed millions? Healing injuries that once were a death sentence? Developing surgical techniques so advanced that heart surgery can be performed in utero? These are incredible things that have had staggering global effects on the quality of life of billions. There’s nothing alternative medicine can claim that comes close to equalling even one of these things. How dare you try to dismiss them while pretending there’s anything SCAM treatments can offer in competition.

      You claim you want a ‘free market’ for nonsense to compete with real treatments in, yet that is exactly what is causing the decline in sales for world treatments. You don’t want a free market at all. You want a market where homeopaths are free to lie about their products. It’s not a free market when consumers are intentionally misinformed by quacks and snake oil peddlers.

      Your blatant misrepresentation of mental health treatments does nothing but put your own ignorance on display with its farcical inaccuracy. It would be laughable if telling people with mental health issues that treatments are ‘barely effective’ and ‘loaded with side effects’ weren’t so dangerously stupid and irresponsible.

      “Western Medicine says ANY benefit from non-Western doctors is “placebo effect.”
      That clearly isn’t universally true, but for the sake of argument, assume that potential falsehood to be true.”

      Listen to this nonsense. Why would we presume this to be true? So the next bit of drivel doesn’t sound so ridiculous? It isn’t true – end of story.

      And, every chronic ailment of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Crohns, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, Autism, Cancer, age related, and, yes, eczema has no definitive cure.

      Homeopathic quackery has cured NOTHING, yet you have the nerve to criticise ‘western’ medicine because it hasn’t found a cure for old age yet? Are you joking?!

      What you failed to point out is that ‘western medicine’ has produced treatments to improve the quality of life for sufferers of every one of the things you list here, the ones that make the slightest sense anyway, while homeopathy has failed to demonstrate a single useful treatment.

      I don’t know about physicians healing themselves, bit you seriously need to educate yourself.

    • Wisenheimer, I’m interested in an explanation of how you define “Western Medicine”. Homoeopathy was invented by a doctor from Saxony, who also trained in Vienna and Bavaria, so presumably you don’t consider these places to be “Western”. Do you also consider Paris, where Hahnemann settled later in his life, to be Oriental, or is it just the places where he lived before he came up with homoeopathy?

      Where does the “West” begin?

    • Do you consider Kansas and Iowa to be “Western”?

    • Western medicine is essentially Allopathic medicine, location is insignificiant.
      https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/western-medicine

      As the father of a 33 year old schizophrenia patient for 14 years, I have to agree completly with Wisenheimer. Medication for the mentally ill is almost useless, in fact, there are studies that show that long term these meds do more harm than good. From my experience and observations, I agree completly. The vast majority of schizo patients don’t believe the medication helps them, were talking about a high percentage, at least half of them are taking the medication because they are told to do so. In large, the mentally ill person is heavily sedated (tranquilized) by the antipsychotic meds… little more. Somehow this is viewed by the medical and social communities as a success. The result of taking the meds over the span of multiple years leads to all sorts of additional disease. Two of the most obviious diseease from side effects are obesity (cardiovascular) and diabedies. Another of the more severe results from antiphycotic drugs is brain atrophy, this begins after only a couple of years on the meds. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the drug studies are short term studies, while the prescription is almost always for life, so the long term effects are never really evaluated… except by the patients and famlies. Yet somehow big pharma want to pat itself on the back. These are high dollar meds, selling billiions of dollars worth of pills that do little more than make patients more ill…shame on them.

      If anybody thinks my personal experence with my sons schizophrenia is anything but the norm, you just don’t know the truth. My experenece is multiplied over by the thousands, perhaps millions.

      • Sorry about your son, but WOW. The sheer number of “facts” you offer is amazing. The only thing missing? Evidence. Yeah, I know. Us skeptics are alway so picky about that. Here are a few of your gems:

        “Medication for the mentally ill is almost useless”

        “The vast majority of schizo (RJ: Nice!) patients don’t believe the medication helps them”

        “at least half of them are taking the medication because they are told to do so.” (RJ: Isn’t this the case for all of them? Or, do the others take it because, well, I don’t know. Why else would they take it?)

        “In large, the mentally ill person is heavily sedated (tranquilized) by the antipsychotic meds… ”

        “The result of taking the meds over the span of multiple years leads to all sorts of additional disease.”

        “Two of the most obviious (sic) diseease (sic) from side effects are obesity (cardiovascular) and diabedies (sic).”

        “Another of the more severe results from antiphycotic (sic) drugs is brain atrophy, this begins after only a couple of years on the meds.”

        “The majority of the drug studies are short term studies, while the prescription is almost always for life, so the long term effects are never really evaluated…” (RJ: But, but, but you just said taking drugs “over the span of multiple years leads to all sorts of additional disease.”)

        “These are high dollar meds, selling billiions (sic) of dollars worth of pills that do little more than make patients more ill…” (RJ: Those damn pharmaceutical companies!)

        AND THEN THE BIG ONE: “My experenece (sic) is multiplied over by the thousands, perhaps millions.”

        RG, please note the instructions at the top of the page in the big red banner: Please remember: if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.

        • Hey Ron… FU

          Unless you have a family member, or good friend that is mentally ill and has lived with the illness for years, I am quite sure that I know INFINITELY more than you on the subject.
          You don’t agree with my claims… you prove me wrong.

          The number of adults in the US with schizophrenia are almost 1% of the population. So we have about three million live adults in the US currently diagnosed with schizphrenia. About 10% of them can live a normal life…. with or without meds. So the 90% are suffering. I’ve been a member of a support group (NAMI – National Alliance on Mental Illness) for many years. In my local chapter, I’ve spoken with family members of patients by the hundreds over the years, the names and faces are different, but the lives unfortunatly are much the same. In just one city of one state….yes by the millions.
          Prove me wrong.

          • “You don’t agree with my claims… you prove me wrong.”

            Sorry, RG. That’s not the way it works. It’s called Burden Of Proof. You’re making the claim. It’s up to you to prove it.

            That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • Lenny and Ron,

            Although some of what RG is saying is BS, he is actually right in places. The prevalence of schizophrenia in the UK is about 1% so I would expect it to be similar in the US. It is a chronic disease and very difficult to manage. Medication can deal with the acute flare-ups and help protect the patient as well as those around them. But while it can also prevent relapses, this comes at the expense of heavy sedation, with the very common complaint of being unable to think. There are also almost universal long-term side-effects, particularly with regard to movement disorders. Some patients have the insight to realise that the drugs protect them against acute psychosis, which they may find is worse, but most only take their medication if they are forced to by compulsory treatment orders.

            Although the acute symptoms are what most people think of when they hear the word schizophrenia, it is the chronic effects which are most disabling, eventually resulting in a complete inability to get on with their lives in any useful way. RG is blaming this on the drugs, but it is the natural progression of the disease, and to my knowledge no form of treatment has been found which prevents this. Indeed, there are many schizophrenics who just deteriorate progressively in this way without ever having acute flare-ups. We don’t see them very much because they just drop out of society.

            In the UK the provisions for long-term care of people with chronic mental illness are very poor. There was a time when there were asylums, mostly set up by philanthropists to provide a safe, caring environment. Many of these, however, simply became places of containment. Then there was a decision to move long-term care into the community, but without the resources put in place to do this properly.

            Most people’s approach to serious mental illness is that they simply don’t want to encounter it, and so long as they aren’t personally affected they don’t have to think about it. Mentally ill people, of course, aren’t capable of forming an effective political pressure group, which doesn’t help to get their needs prioritised.

            One thing that RG doesn’t seem to be aware of is how acute mental illness was managed before these drugs that he so hates were developed. The cheapest, quickest and most effective way of calming an an acutely disturbed patient is lobotomy, which used to be done under a local anaesthetic and took five minutes. It also has the benefit of preventing relapse. For a while it was widespread, and 40,000 lobotomies were performed in the US. However, once chlorpromazine became available it was adopted as a less barbaric solution.

            Most of the drugs used are quite cheap (maybe not in the US, where business are less regulated than in the rest of the world).

            I should add that psychiatrists are constantly reclassifying acute psychoses and the term schizophrenia has meant a number of different things over the years, though I think they do all agree that it is not just one disease.

            I don’t think any of this is controversial, and much of it is what I was taught at medical school.

          • Prove you wrong? With a fake identity and a made-up story, I don’t even take you seriously?

            And the FU response shows a level of maturity that is staggering.

          • Dr Julian

            “RG is blaming this on the drugs, but it is the natural progression of the disease, and to my knowledge no form of treatment has been found which prevents this.”
            Doc, I’m not blaming the illness on the meds. However there is some evidence for this. But I am making a case for patients that see no benefit from long term medication not continuing the process. The long term health effects are just not worth the small benefit.
            However, yes I am blaming the chronic effects of the drugs on the drugs. There IS a natrual progression of the phisiological effects of the drugs, and it’s documented by the test trials.
            This is no specific natural progression of the disease. Perhaps you are not aware, there are people that come out of schizophrenia. They are the exception but some do.

            The ones that take their meds “too protect them from acute psychosis” . Yes Doc, they do so because for them for the ten percent that experence efficacy, the meds evidently do give some effect that leads towards a better quality of life. For the other ninety percent, they may well see no benefit. However, just because the meds are not effective at curing the disability, that does not mean they are not medicated. Here in the USA, unless the patient is under lock down, or at least conserved by a ward of the state, they are under no obligation to consume medication against their will. For the ninety percent they continue disabled. So it begs the question would the ninety percent be better off without the meds ? After observation and study, I believe the case can be made to reduce the medication to nothing.

            “Although the acute symptoms are what most people think of when they hear the word schizophrenia, it is the chronic effects which are most disabling, eventually resulting in a complete inability to get on with their lives in any useful way. Indeed, there are many schizophrenics who just deteriorate progressively in this way without ever having acute flare-ups. We don’t see them very much because they just drop out of society.”
            Yes, mostly Doc, some do drop out of society quietly. Many are the ones that can’t take care of themselves, end up homeless on the streets, in prisons. or locked up on mental hospitals. The former are the ones that don’t die at an early age from suicide, or the ill effects of the meds. It’s a life of dependency, and the lucky ones have families that help to care for them.

            Here is the problem at large. With many of the mental illnesses, medical science really has no clue what causes the illnesses, for sure for Schizophrenia, they really don’t know. There has been heavy speculation for years that the root of the problems are a result of a chemical imbalance in the brain. This has NEVER been proven by science, it is an assumption.

            So how does Pharma get together and invent a medication to treat a problem that they do not know the cause ? I can tell ya how they do it. They do it through much guess work. In my view it’s like taking a shotgun, aiming it at a wall from thirty feet away and trying to hit a fly on the wall. You may hit the target, and you may not. Effectively they are throwing a cure at the wall and hope that something sticks, and sometimes it does ( for a small minority). HORRAY for Pharma, they have a remedy they can sell ! So what Pharma has done essentially created a target with some goals and end points they can hit via the test results. Since the meds have some sedative and tranquilizing effects, the patient appears to be better, but in reality, the voices in their heads never stopped, their just coping better because of the sedative effects…. among other reasons perhaps, but you get the idea.

            Any particular Schizo medication will likely be most effective in the first three months, even though it requires at least three months for the doctor to find what he thinks is the correct dose, there is no exact science herr. The process involves guess work, and trial and error… with the enfasis on error. Many times they never find a correct dose. I the medication was at all effective, after about six or nine months the medications begin to be less effective. In many if not most cases, the medication will need to be changed after about one year to another medication…. and the process repeats.

            You folks here know that it’s difficult to hold the burdon of proof because where is the monetary benefit in proving a drug useless ? We already know the benefit is selling drugs. If you Dr. or Ron want to listen to a couple of short videos by a couple of well respected Doctors, these two videos will address most of the claims I made that Ron found so necessary to refute. There are many doctors around the world questioning the use of antipsycotic drugs for the mentally ill. It’s not just me.

            Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, from the UK – 8 minutes
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cit0Es-Ty7Y

            Dr. Peter Breggin
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luKsQaj0hzs

            among many many more

      • @RG: “Medication for the mentally ill is almost useless”

        Medication for the mentally ill is just about the only thing keeping me alive right now.

        Hey, my N=1 cancels your N=1! QED.

        “The vast majority of schizo patients don’t believe the medication helps them”

        Well, DUHRR. The WHOLE POINT of psychosis is it takes your judgement and utterly fucks it up beyond all recognition. The mind is a remarkable thing, and it’s 100% biological; and when it goes wrong it goes really wrong, because when you’ve got a broken leg you know you’ve got a broken leg, but when you’ve got a broken mind you’re 100% perfectly normal and the rest of the world is frighteningly broken all around you.

        Oliver Sacks’ The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat provides a good accessible tour of some of the outlandish weirdness and horror that brain illnesses can cause. It should go without saying that modern mental healthcare is the worst option we’ve got, apart from all the others. Stuff is Hard. As in, REALLY HARD. Nevertheless, considering how far it’s progressed over the last 100 years, it’s reasonable to expect it to become much less worse over the next 100 too. So either bring something much better or GTFO.

  • Scientific knowledge arises from scientific research, not from dispute between lawyers.

    • very true!
      if this ever went to court, we would of course argue that any comments we made were not on the German regulatory status of homeopathic remedies but on the scientific evidence pertaining to homeopathy. thus Hevert would have zero chance of succeeding.

    • I believe I said Western Medicine had those areas to claim victory.
      But, that isn’t the entirety of human ailments.
      In many chronic ailments there has not been real progress in decades.
      But, our costs have tripled.

      Mental health concerns. I can see that opinions differ. There are plenty of meta studies, and I’ll stand by my statement.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593510/

      There has been quality of life improvements, largely by the use of opiates for pain (see how well that has aged) and other symptom treatments with side effects.

      “Western Medicine ” would certainly be predominant in Kansas.

      To be clear, I’m not defending homeopathy. If my statements are parsed correctly and rationally the point is clear.
      Particularly in the US, where we allow direct to consumer marketing (which is 25-30% of pharma marketing budgets and the lions share goes to Dr travel meals and such-Drs that receive more than $5k/year prescribe far more name brand recent drugs than others. The effect is “dose dependent” those who receive more than $50k are much more likely to do so) (*** yes I have stats for that. Not in this device, but look to propublica)
      We have lost trust and only one in ten trust that “big pharma” is looks jg to the best interest of the patient.

      Seriously. Free market competition should be sufficient to suppress homeopathy.
      That is the take-away.

      • medicine is not a super-market.
        so sorry that you seem to fail to understand anything.

        • You don’t know what I know or don’t.
          I know that using HeLa cells for cancer research was a mistake, and that besides that, there was so much confusion about what lines of cells were what that at least 100,000 scientific papers became questionable. And, that in the process of this coming out the whistle blowers lost their careers.
          I know that Duke faked years of papers to back up scientific evidence.
          I know that the ” reproducibility ” of papers has been variously reported as low as 40%.

          I know the evolutionary path to the multitude of interlaced complexity that is the result of 2entire genome wide duplication events.(and the resulting similarity of receptors and ligands is why human medicine is so difficult)
          I know which regulatory and G1 and G2 checkpoint systems can carry over in research from budding yeast and which can’t.
          I know vaccines aren’t perfect (and so does everybody else) but that there is no evidence of link to autism.
          I know “in mice” has all too often been hyped as automatically valid in human

          I believe, with what I know, and what I know I don’t, that many of our chronic diseases have roots,( if not causative) in metabolic (and in the majority -mitochondrial) issues.

          And that many of these arise from the endoplasmic reticulum Integrated stress Response system (or OXPHOS, or….) and that it causes a change through translational regulation of what tRNA are used (and therefore the proteins from that mRNA are different) and that this cascade is involved in Fibromyalgia, Alzheimer’s, and many other chronic diseases. In other words, it isn’t a direct genetic cause but an expression issue.
          I believe the “reset” from Stress Response state for Fibromyalgia has been broken because Herpes I virus hijacked it on its entry
          I believe .that mitochondrial mismatch has been ignored for too long and that it and the stress response system above is the path to eliminating diabetes.
          I believe I know of of a dozen already FDA approved medications that could have significant impact on quality of life and health span.

          I know that if one looks at the high altitude human adaptations in Peru and the Tibetan Sherpas, one will find a point mutation in the peroxide oxidation response which ties the above together and the breadcrumbs will likely still not be seen because of hard headedness.

          I believe that the above means that a regulatory system in a diseased(stressed) states does not respond the same as one in a healthy state and have the idea of a” in-silico” method of predicting patient outcome on a non-suoer computer by using rule-based, state-dynamic, modules of interchangeable quantified known errors and RNA broadcast/receiver models

          I believe that the nucleus is incredibly crowded and that the sequential unwinding in associated genomes, one after another,( and other housekeeping duties) have to work that way and when the circadian cycle (not of the pineal, but of the glucocorticoid system) dysfunctional the cascade gets further entrenched because the associated locii are not accessible.

          I believe that RNA is the main driver of chronic disease and not DNA. And, that when this is proved and ways to “reset” the epigenetic markers relevant for circadian rhythm and post transcription regulation will be found ( likely with more knowledge of circular and enhanced RNA and paraspeckles.)

          I believe statistics have been over valued and all that matters is the patient in front of you and their clinical “best clinical practice” lies in their presenting symptoms and history, their sequenced genome, and their RNA “module state” markers and that using “Las Vegas” odds from herd statistic is barbaric and lazy.
          I believe the stink of Bayesian math and Markov models is unbearable and not science because they are premised on not asking “Why”– and that Why is what has been lost.(which is science)

          I know that a recent lung cancer meta-study of personalized medicine was released wherein the driver of the cancer (type) was known, and the best therapy for positive outcome was only used 42% of the time. I believe p-value’s are relevant but that a patient is a person.

          So. Don’t act perfect.
          Clinical treatments are years behind “what I know” and the arrogance and refusal to be humble, transparent, speak truth to power, and allow people to have unorthodox views is why the “War on Cancer” and chronic disease…frankly suck.

          The desire to attack the areas that just aren’t relevant is nonproductive.

          Look, science is a bitch.
          1000’s papers a week, incredible human genome dysfunction and complexity..
          It becomes too much for a human brain.
          So, all of us. We give up
          . We say, “I can’t be held responsible for knowing what I need to know–just tell me.”

          And, the only ones willing to do so and were organinized was pharma. I love pharma. And, the model it uses of safety, etc.
          But, face it. They dont know what the hell is going on a wide basis. We have more information, more genetic and protein repositories ams association studies and wow.
          But, what dont we have?
          A way to tie it together. To make research from disparate fields compile. I know many people who talk like I do. We want to help. I want to help.
          I’m not an academic. I I know many who are. Some the best damn irritating mathematicians and data scientists, and lab directors. Maybe. Just maybe. Something could be worth listening to from one of us.

      • To be clear, I’m not defending homeopathy.

        And yet you’re posting a lot of whataboutery about medicine in response to a post about homeopathy. If it ducks like a quack…

  • So, reading through the comments on this post, and looking up “The Medical Letter” as to ascertain outlook, membership and bias… I didn’t realize the history of the institution Food to know.
    I also had not formally been introduced to the Jadat score and have had numerous discussions of how to establish authority and rigorousness for an automated machine learning.
    I still haven’t gone over all of the finer points because it is suited for clinical applications but not research.
    Why? Because it is for clinical trials. Research (hard science) does have a hypothesis and means of testing with observation points, protocols, controls, milestone checks, etc, but it isn’t set up the same way.
    I’ll get flamed for that messy statement, so let me try another angle. Biology always has held a “messy” label. Math is pure and perfect and a “Proof” is just that. Trigonometry, calculus and standard physics are a set and have measurable beginnings, quantities and endpoints. There is not much of gray. Organic Chemistry becomes more complex with loose non-covalent boding interactions with varying affinities and flexible molecules that change vibration modes and even complete shape (think RNA switches). “Errors” happen. At the granular level, “errors”/are system features (see tRNA wobble and translational regulation).

    Biology has historically been a ” black box”. Do something external. Observe what happens and formulate a theory.
    The box is more of a hazy fog, now. Some parts we can see very well with imaging, fluorescent and radio labeling, etc. We have micro-dialysis and single cell sequences for all the cell type’s in the tissue we are working on.

    Point? The takes is that, from what I have seen, using Jadat scoring, only about 5% of the papers are considered “Worthy” because they are being evaluated on a protocol that does not apply to them. Can’t apply to them. Yes, it needs to be “reviewed” to evaluate the potential weaknesses.
    I wonder if this is why so much seems to fall on deaf ears… Like clathrin-heavy on chromosome 22. I keep seeing errors made in assumptions that have been known false for 15 years.

    Gardner, the founder of this institution put forth some methods in the 1950’s, but I haven’t seen the idea have currency since the late 90’s. Is there a current Medicine Letter project?

    It would make me happy to have an explanation as to why so many studies are based on false premises.

    Yeah. schizophrenia. I did some research into tardive dyskinesia which an old friend is suffering found some interesting pathways that might look promising, but it would be months before I get back to it. I bookmarked 360 or so articles I want to consider and have it to him to look at in the meantime.
    Full disclosure, I’m not schizophrenic by a hair and roll of dice-” low latent inhibition”. I can nerd snipe myself in a blink.

    And, I wonder is that’s what’s going on? There

    • In all the years years, I have not encountered a Weisenheimer on this site.

      Weisenheimer, what are your views on homeopathy?

      Thank you

      • That proves it! The evidence is indisputable.

        You ARE just a troll, Greg.

        Having said that. . . Call me a glutton for punishment, but I can’t wait to hear what Mr. Weisenheimer has to say.

        Let ‘er rip, Mr. W!

  • Ron is right The evidence is indisputable.

  • a Homöopath and Antivaxxer has treated a child with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) until it was dead.

    Details in German only

    https://www.tt.com/tirolchronik/osttirol/3382594/prozess-gegen-osttiroler-mediziner-urteil-erwartet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Categories