Some homeopaths are so deluded that I am tempted to characterise them as criminally stupid. This does, in my view, apply to those homeopaths who continue to advise their patients to treat or prevent coronavirus infections homeopathically. This website is only one example of many:
So what homeopathic remedy should I take for Coronavirus?
If you are living in an area which is not yet affected by Coronavirus, you should not be taking any remedy for now.
Based on the analysis above, I believe Bryonia alba 6CH or 30CH, can serve as a prophylactic.
It can be given (only to affected population) once a day, till days become warmer and the epidemic subsides (hopefully). People are mobile in endemic or epidemic areas should take the medicine daily. People who are in self quarantine and not having social contact, can take it for 3-5 days and then take it if and when they venture out. If a patient has flu-like symptoms, you can take the same remedy in 6 or 30 potency, 6 hourly. If the vitality is very low, more freuent repetition may be required. Also consider Camphora in such a case.
If a patient develops tightness in chest and shortness of breath, Lycopodium 30CH is likely to help.
The remedy suggestions are based on the available data. Homeopathy needs much deeper individualization, and clinical experience of treating Coronavirus Covid-19 patients with homeopathy, may bring up a different group of remedies.
Some recent data from Iran shows that many patients are showing sudden collapse. Dr. Rajan Sakaran as well as Dr. Sunirmal Sarkar have suggested that Camphora be considered as a medicine and prophylactic there. So if Covid-19 patients in your country are showing signs of sudden collapse with respiratory distress, vertigo and cold sweat, you may consider Camphora.
I do not recommend self-medication. You can show this article to your homeopath for a better clinical judgment that he/she will make for you.
If you suspect yourself to have Corona virus infection, please consult the concerned medical authorities in your country immediately.
If you have a flu-like illness and wish to take homeopathic treatment, please consult a qualified homeopathy doctor in person.
As I already stated: there are many websites with similarly barmy information. If you don’t believe me, see for yourself and run a quick google search.
Some people will say that this is not so bad – if it does not help, it cannot harm!
I would disagree.
Harm is being done by these charlatans in several ways. Firstly, the truth is a most valuable asset, and we must not allow homeopaths to vandalise it. Secondly, if patients believe in these bogus claims, they might take effective preventative measures less seriously and thus increase the danger for us all. Thirdly, anyone following the idiotic advice of homeopaths would have to forge out money for their service, and that money could be put to better use elsewhere.
My conclusion is that these homeopaths try to profit from the panic of vulnerable people. They are therefore crooks of the worst kind.
116 Responses to “So what homeopathic remedy should I take for Coronavirus?” The answer is NONE -and please avoid people who tell you otherwise!
Leave a Reply to Frank Odds Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Given the seriousness of the current pandemic, it might be in order for the government to legislate to outlaw promulgation of dangerous lunacy of this sort. Of course, it’s difficult to police the Internet, and freedom of speech is an important value; but, as Edzard says, this kind of voodoo advice threatens actual harm on the unwitting – and hence on society.
Test it then reject it. No bungling.
Of course, this treatment will have a success rate exceeding 95 %, even with more severe cases.
Find the error.
During the 1918 Spanish Flu when 20-50 million people died world-wide, Con-Med (Conventional Medicine) had a 10-30% mortality rate for their patients depending on where and who you read. The homeopathic doctors in Philadelphia collated their results for 26,000+ patients and had a 1% mortality rate. Other homeopaths had similar results.
https://www.cmcgc.com/media/handouts/061035/040_Malthouse.pdf
https://edzardernst.com/2017/02/homeopaths-love-it-the-epidemiological-evidence-suggesting-that-homeopathy-works/
a powerpoint presentation as evidence?
WHAT NEXT?
The way the crisis is building up and the reaction of doctors, right in the middle of the pandemic, trying to save patients:
“Hubei province health commission head Wang Hesheng said that treatment at Wuhan hospitals involves a combination of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and western drugs, reported Bloomberg.”
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/covid-19-china-traditional-medicine/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32065348
“Doctors at Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, Jaipur first treated her with a combination of two drugs useful in HIV treatment– Lopinavir 200mg and Ritonavir 50mg twice a day. Before the use of these second-line HIV drugs on the patients, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on the request of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) permitted the “restricted” use of the mix of medications lopinavir and ritonavir. The doctors also gave her chloroquine (useful in the treatment of malaria) and oseltamivir (useful in swine flu treatment).”
https://www.insideover.com/society/indian-doctors-successfully-cure-italian-coronavirus-patients.html
Also in Australia:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8115879/COVID-19-Australian-researchers-CURE-coronavirus.html
How much of above treatment and the use of drugs, is based upon evidence, free of safety concerns………….
This for sure is only the start, when death rates are low. If the second wave turns out to be more lethal, left without choice, you would be among many others making a beeline in front of any possible medication (including homeopathic remedy) that only promises to save from imminent death.
Leptoporosis did vanish from Cuba after use of homeopathic vaccine.
@I Krishna
You wrote:
Here’s the current IAMAT (International Association for Medical Assistance to Travellers) information on leptospirosis in Cuba:
The infection is therefore far from “vanished” in Cuba. Please try at least to keep your information up to date.
“The infection is therefore far from “vanished” in Cuba. Please try at least to keep your information up to date.”
My error. It has not “vanished” (become zero).
Could you check if Cuba still follows vaccination program for leptoporosis ?
Roger,
This site has a banner that points out that “if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.”
Do the right thing, go through that PDF and pull out the citations to actual reliable and verified resources to back your claim.
You have done the equivalent of me saying this; “Homeopathy has no scientific basis. https://www.google.com “
What do you want individual case histories with DNA lab reports from 1918? It was well documented at the time and there are sources that reported it at the time. What are you expecting to find? Would _any of it convince you anyway?
Here is a book about it:
The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza: Surviving Influenza Epidemics and Pandemics, Past, Present and Future with Homeopathy, by Sandra J Perko, PhD, CCN, 395 pages, $24.95 paperback
Here is one case from 1920:
Mr. Rahman, of Tollygunge, was attacked with influenza of a severe type on the 6th of August, 1920. There was extreme prostration; bone-pains were terrible and hacking dry cough was present. On the 8th of August he felt some pains in the left side of the chest; the character of the pain was stitching.
On the 9th of August symptoms of pneumonias, associated with pleurisy, manifested themselves. He was under the care of an allopath; but as the fever did not abate, I was called and undertook the treatment of the patient on the 12th of August, when the following symptoms were noted by me:.
2 P.M. The temperature of the patient was found to be 104.8; the skin was dry and harsh; extreme thirst was present; cough was terrible and incessant; the expectoration was yellowish and viscid; he experienced great pain while coughing; abdominal respiration was present and great oppression of breathing; dull rales were heard over the left side of the chest; face pale, extremities cold, and the pulse was quick and feeble.
I was told that the temperature was declining and so I gave him one dose of Tuberculinum 200.
AUGUST 12th, 10A.M.
The temperature was now 100. p:” oppression of breathing was less than yesterday; the thirst was more moderate and he felt somewhat better.
AUGUST 14th, 10 A.M.
Yesterday the temperature did not rise higher than 101.4. The morning temperature was 98.6; three was no pain while coughing; abdominal respiration disappeared altogether an there was no difficulty of respiration; the patient was feeling comfortable in every way. No medicine.
AUGUST 15th, 10 A.M.
No further rise of temperature; passed a normal stool and slept well last night; no rales could be heard over the affected area and he did not cough at all.
No more medicine was given.
The patient was declared to be out of danger on the 18th of August, and boiled rice was now given.
Roger
Sounds like a description of the natural progress of an influenza-like condition.
Why do you continue to post this nonsense? All it does is give us an insight into the disrupted thought-processes and ignorance of the scientific method displayed by homeopathy fans.
Ok Roger,
You recount a story told by a homeopath of one patient thst got better while he was being fed shaken water infused sugar pills (SWISP). This was one hundred years ago. You claim that it was the SWISP’s that cured this particular patient. For your claim to hold up, you have to provide evidence that this particular patient would not have improved without being administered SWISP’s.
Please provide such evidence. Otherwise the only evidence this story contains is that one hundred years ago, some people with influenza-like illness survived, not that SWISP’s have healing powers.
“You recount a story told by a homeopath of one patient thst got better while he was being fed shaken water infused sugar pills (SWISP). ”
https://www.ecampnd.com/homeopathy/A_Chorus_of_Fifty_in_Harmony.pdf
The doctor is writing about cases of 25,000 patients (check by me, with nothing better to do!) in America to have recovered from SWISP. (Gelsemium) He also runs comparison with use of Aspirin.
Now Roger has to provide evidence that these 25000 patients would not have improved without being administered SWISP’s.
Lenny and Bjorn, I am trying to counteract the disrupted thought processes, ignorance, AND dangerous first-DO-harm processes of Con-Med. Sorry you dont appreciate a case history of a pneumonia cured in 6 days without antibiotics or serious side-effects. 🙂 When you prove that a patient supposedly cured by Con-Med would not have improved otherwise, let me know how you built your time machine and visited that alternative universe. I’d like to know.
Dear Bjorn,
This is not correct to say like this. Somebody unable to prove the position that means he is not good man.
If you have so confidence in allopathy system then why not you save 100% life after supporting your medicine. You simply say we are not GOD. You have some limitations. Similarly , Homeopathy have limitation. If you give your Ego and work together with Homeopathy it will help for the society. I know in India a few good doctors say for this disease in allopathy no solution please go by homeopathy.
This my humble request plz respect Mr. Roger he shared his experience. You should think and start to work with him
Well… No. Why would you think that? I thought it was fairly clear. The site banner states, very clearly, that “if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.” Edzard had already, fairly, dismissed the link you provided. Due to the nature of that banner it is not unreasonable to assume that you think this evidence resides in that PDF. As I stated “go through that PDF and pull out the citations to actual reliable and verified resources to back your claim.”
I don’t know how clearer I can make that.
Also, what you did provide is not reliable or verified. I am curious as to how you think that what you provided would even come close to being that?
The moon landing was well documented at the time and verifiable to this day. Yet we still have Moon Hoaxers.
What am I expecting to find? I don’t know. That is why the request is being made. I understand that natural curiosity goes against the nature of homeopathy supporters but for those that respect what science is and does this is a default state.
If I was to make a guess as to what I would find though, it would be case reports that are unverifiable and poorly recorded by the standards of today. A hundred years of advancement in the Scientific Method would require that any research from that far back be examined critically and, at a minimum, be replicated.
Convince me? Unsure and it doesn’t matter. The proper way to convince people that this is significant would be to have it already in the scientific literature so that it can be assessed for quality and get through into meta analysis, systematic reviews, etc. Those things that contribute to a scientific consensus.
However, not providing it will guarantee that it will have no opportunity to influence anyone at all.
No Roger, it wasn’t the shaken-water-soaked sugar pills.
Partly it was the expectation based manipulation (EBM) of data by hopeful homeopaths and partly it may have been that medicine over one century ago was causing harm that was averted by doing nothing (= homeopathy) and letting nature take its course. Acetylsalicylic acid was then recently invented and may have caused much unexpected harm (https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/aspirin-may-be-enhancer-virulence-1918-pandemic).
It may come as a surprise to you, but exponential progress has since happened in medicine while homeopathy still consists of the same make-believe and inert play-medicine.
“Acetylsalicylic acid was then recently invented and may have caused much unexpected harm (https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/aspirin-may-be-enhancer-virulence-1918-pandemic). ”
This information was also pointed out in a report I located earlier. Homeopaths of the time noticing the effect and telling their counterparts to stop using Aspirin.
https://www.ecampnd.com/homeopathy/A_Chorus_of_Fifty_in_Harmony.pdf
“It may come as a surprise to you, but exponential progress has since happened in medicine while homeopathy still consists of the same make-believe and inert play-medicine.”
I am doubtful if this is really true for influenza as the problem. After, exactly 100 years of the earlier pandemic, the amount of fear and disruption of economic activity, lock down of cities (!) we are seeing around the world because of a medical problem, is unbelievable. This is the net outcome of your description of the “exponential progress.”
The “exponential progress” is at best a rhetorical statement and at worst, a mirage. All action, in the name of medical support, is centered around isolating people, closing down economic and social activity and hoping it blows over: where is the prevention and cure. In an earlier message Dr Edzard was worried that there was no clarity on how to handle the pandemic in UK and this was after knowing at least 8 weeks in advance that there was no doubt, it would reach UK.
And this is the first wave. The 1918 flu virus, mutated in a severely virulent form and that led to deaths. All we can do is cross our fingers. There is nothing available from the medical fraternity, other than care.
By the time this problem blows over, a few trillion $ of economic activity would be lost. As I write now, over 200,000 are infected and over 8200 dead!
If “the same make-believe and inert play-medicine” was to work, I see no reason, why it should not be used. We would have a lot of time, at a later date, to sort out why and why not “the same make-believe and inert play-medicine” worked.
May phd holders in Zoology not say that the concept of E= mc2 is fake.
People who do not know homoeopathy are talking about Homoeopathy. . . . No matter how much you try to explain to a doctor in Zoology that E = mc2 , he will not be able to understand. Not only that he will not want to understand.
Or the other way round, if u want to understand the concept of E = mc 2, the Zoology person is not best person to be asked for an answer, nor is he the best person to answer it.
In the same way , let people who know homoeopathy talk about it. If anyone else wants to talk about it, may he/she take up a homeopathy book and read it, or seek advice from some one who knows it.
People who know nothing about Homeopthy are talking about homeopathy as if they have an MD in the system . . . .and with such authority (“There is no prevention / treatment for covid-19 in homoeopathy”. . . . ).
This is a simple every day rule. The rule of the day should be talk only what u know about. If an expert has made a claim on his subject it is an “expert opinion”. Even courts all over the world take an “expert s opinion” as “evidence” .But in the present scenario anyone and everyone can say anything about what an expert has said.
WHO has said no preventive medicine for Corona Virus.. . . what they have meant is that there is no preventive in the system of medicine that we are familiar as the medicine which give paracetamol/ antibiotics etc . . . . . They have not said anything about Homoeopathy/ Ayurveda etc.
It is probable that there is no one in the WHO who knows there systems of medicine.
Here in India, Homoepathy and Ayurveda are both great systems of medicine . . . Homoeopathy medicines are being / have been distributed in many places . . . .and generally at the present point of time, in India Corona Virus is generally under control . . . or it seems to be . . . .when compared to the rest of the orld Most of our cases are from people who have traveled abroad .. . . or very close contacts. . . May God save us . . .
“People who know nothing about Homeopthy are talking about homeopathy as if they have an MD in the system . . . .and with such authority.”
in case you mean me: I might understand more about homeopathy than you!
What is so difficult about E = mc^2, that doctors of zoology would not understand? This is high-school stuff. Same as if there is nothing to cause effect, then there is no effect. High-school stuff as well.
Well… yes. Homeopathy is extremely easy to test for efficacy and it is found to not work. This is before we even get close to claims of how it works all the while ignoring the fact that it doesn’t actually work.
When homeopaths wander into the realm of how it works they are wandering into biology, chemistry and physics. This is where other people get to weigh in on the conversation and point out that those advocating for Homeopathy clearly have a woeful lack of basic education.
So, yeah, the idea that only homeopathy ‘experts’ can talk knowledgeably about homeopathy is ridiculous.
Me sorry u took it personal. Did not mean anyone in particular. The whole web is flooded with anti-homeopathy articles. (for eg: Today there was a director from one of the top Medical institutes in India say the same.) Just meant , lets talk about what we know and not cross the boundary to negate some one else s expertise.
Also, me not saying that I understand much of it either. To me it s like Newton discovering Gravity. It was always there ever since the earth existed. . . only that Newton, explained it.
As much , as a child of 4, even now in 2020, would not know why a stone thrown upwards falls to the ground, it is just the so called “Scientific community ” is unaware of the science of Homeopathy .
George Vitoulkas has published a book called “Science of Homeopathy” which I have with me for many years, but never have read it . Yet for the past 25 years, me and immediate family have never taken anything except homeopathy medicines . . . for . . starting from common cold. . .to Weil’ s disease. . . .. . in between are suspected dengue. . . . . injuries including fractures, avulsion of a finger . . .pneumonia. . . . temporal lobe epilepsy . . very serious burns [boiling oil (straight from the stove ) falling over the chest of a 4 year of child. . . healed without the least scar. . .] and many, many more examples. In instances even where surgery was recommended by doctors
Really, really sorry if u felt that I meant u. Not at all. Just surprised how people (in general) can talk about things that they don’t know at all. .
Also what u said is true: my own understanding of it is very little. . .though I use it a lot. As much as I don’t know the scientific basis of Paracetamol used for fever either
wrong again!
I do not take such things personal.
you do not seem to know the difference between critical and ‘anti’.
nor do you appreciate the difference between experience and evidence.
perhaps you want to read this: https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/
Yes. . . evidence is putting experiences of many people together , by a team of people who are capable of doing it.
I m not a scientific person at all in that way
But there is Henry C. Allen, James Tyler Kent, John Henry CLARKE, . . . many more , they are some of the great stalwarts of homeopathy. If u search on Bing (or Google ) each of these names along with “Homoeopathy” and you ll get the evidence you asked for .
I ve just read them, but haven’t collected any evidence as u ve mentioned. .also evidence cant be collected from family members illness and treatment.
“…evidence is putting experiences of many people together , by a team of people who are capable of doing it.
I m not a scientific person at all…
IT SHOWS!
but can you learn?
evidence is NOT putting experiences of many people together; THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS ANECDOTES, NOT EVIDENCE.
@zERITZ
If, by your own admission, your own understanding of homeopathy is “very little” and you haven’t even read Vitoulkas’ book even though you’ve had it with you for many years, why the heck do you feel qualified to post comments on this blog? Maybe the people you accuse of talking about things they don’t know at all are in fact far more knowledgeable than you credit them.
No. Has it not occurred to you that most members of the “scientific community” are just as aware of homeopathy as they are of, e.g. reiki, chiropractic, ear candling, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, reflexology and the many other “alternative” medical systems and that it takes very little time to reject them as unscientific?
I am sorry. I did not know that one has to be qualified to write a comment here. Any ways, this will be my last comment.
Also I have nt accused any one of anything. I ve just said that it s better we speak of what we know only.
I agree with you perfectly when u say that :
“members of the “scientific community” are just as aware of homeopathy as they are of, e.g. reiki, chiropractic, ear candling, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, reflexology”
and that s the point that I m trying to make, and which I was nt able to make. That people are only aware. . . . in that way
In a comment above I ve suggested this :
“. . . there is Henry C. Allen, James Tyler Kent, John Henry CLARKE, . . . many more , they are some of the great stalwarts of homeopathy. If u search on Bing (or Google ) each of these names along with “Homoeopathy” and you ll get the evidence you asked for . ”
At least try Wikipedia, even if u don’t want to do all that research.
George Vithoulkas I did not read, as I m not a very scientific person. . .Yet I have seen it work, where doctors have thrown up their hands in anguish. . for eg: an ingrowing toe nail , which was very very painful..
Like a little child who throws a stone into the sky and see it coming down , not wondering why it is doing so, I like the way homeopathy works without having to think why it does . .
Anyway thanks to everyone who read what I wrote. No more comments.
” I ve just said that it s better we speak of what we know only”
and then you demonstrate that you know nothing – why speak, in this case?
That was my point, too. He says “I did not know that one has to be qualified to write a comment here.” Then: “I ve just said that it s better we speak of what we know only.” But his comments show that he knows nothing of what he’s burbling about; so why bother with the comments?
@zERIZ:
Quote: ”Like a little child who throws a stone into the sky and see it coming down , not wondering why it is doing so, I like the way homeopathy works without having to think why it does . .”
_____________________________________________
Well, quite obviously, the parents of this “little child” seriously screwed-up.
They should have ENCOURAGED their child to wonder why things happen and start help him/her to LEARN about the phenomenon.
Then the kid would understand that gravity is a REAL thing and that it perfectly explains the falling stone.
In contrast, a specific effect of homeopathy is NOT A REAL thing, as it has been demonstrated over and over that it does not produce any effect beyond placebo, and furthermore contradics many well understood scientific facts.
I suggest that you read “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan. Maybe this will inspire you to learn more about science and stop arbitrarily believing in things like homeopathy, without having sound reasons to do so.
Exactly the point that I was trying to make and miserably failed . . . sorry again
“They should have ENCOURAGED their child to wonder why things happen and start help him/her to LEARN about the phenomenon.
Then the kid would understand that gravity is a REAL thing and that it perfectly explains the falling stone.”
If the stone thrown up falls down again and again it is a real phenomenon. . .
Surely, it is arbitarily that most of us believe that the reason a stone falls to the ground when thrown up, is due to gravity; Not because each one of us have done any research on it ; but because of someone else s research. We have been taught so. we have been made to read books which tell us that .
Same way if a remedy described in the text book s of homeopathy works the way t is described , again and again and again. . . .then it is real.
The names : Henry C. Allen, James Tyler Kent, John Henry CLARKE. . .in Homeopathy, is what Newton is in Gravity/ gravitation. Before rubbish-ing Force of gravity one has to learn what Newton has said; before rubbishing Homeopathy, one has to at the least, read some of these people
So anyone who want to know something , as u put it “should . . . ENCOURAGED . . . to wonder why things happen and start help him/her to LEARN about the phenomenon.”
As much as u cant know about Gravity from someone who rubbishes it, so too no one can learn about Homeopathy from someone who says it is rubbish / placebo.
To know what Astro-physics is one has to go to a Astro-physicist .
To know what Homeopathy is . . . . at least don’t go to someone who denies it and at best, go to someone who knows it.l
are you drunk or naturally incoherent?
@zERIZ:
Are you aware that there is more than one flavour of homeopathy only? How do Bönninghausen, Kent, Hering, Sankaran, Scholten, Banerji, Dorcsi, Sehgal and a dozen others fit together? This homeopathic lore is not a uniform thing. Of Course all these people claim that their remedies work and help patients. That is about all they have in common. But what remedy works in which way? And in reverse, which remedy do you apply under a certain set of symptoms? Which type of symptoms should be prioritised to define the proper remedy? All these people vastly disagree on how to do this.
Can they all be right at the same time?
@zERITZ
“Before rubbishing Force of gravity one has to learn what Newton has said; before rubbishing Homeopathy, one has to at the least, read some of these people”. That’s a characteristic Courtier’s Reply (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply)
I suggest you read Oliver Wendell Holmes’ Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions, a book based on a couple of lectures Holmes gave in 1842, so an early example of science already recognizing that homeopathy doesn’t work in any reproducible manner, unlike gravity.
This is an important point. Given what we *now know* about homeopathy we can say, with certainty, that what is happening again and again and again is observer bias.
Science is the tool that takes our observations and assumptions of the world and removes the most flawed measuring device from the process. Namely us. When homeopathy is tested in a manner that observer bias plays no role in the assessment it falls back to the same level as a similarly administered placebo.
If you took the time to learn what science is and how it does what it does and *why* we use it you would understand why we keep pointing out that homeopathy doesn’t work.
@zERIZ, if we had a handful of remedies and removed all the labels do you think a trained Homeopath could determine which was which?
There are certain fundamental things that we know with so much certainty that it is not unreasonable to dismiss things that contradict them. Homeopathy is one of these things. Those that promote homeopathy would need to rewrite large parts of physics, chemistry and biology for it to be considered to be able to work.
This is despite the fact that there is a very large pile of research out there that, when filtered for the quality of the methodology of that research, it shows that homeopathy doesn’t actually work.
This was the point Frank was making. By your own admission “[I’m] not saying that I understand much of it either”
So, in short you admit you don’t know much on the topic and yet ignore your own advice and speak out as if you do.
No, it is not. It is flooded with pro-science articles on the topic of Homeopathy. Literally the only place these are considered ‘anti’ homeopathy are within the homeopathy fan base.
It is not the fault of the authors of these articles that Homeopathy does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
“So what homeopathic remedy should I take for Coronavirus?” The answer is NONE -and please avoid people who tell you otherwise!
Dear Edzard, of course, as always, you are right if you denounce the bull-shit recommendations, especially with homeopathic prophylaxis (by definition, there is no such thing) and “this is the remedy”-nonsense for COVID 19.
But you also know just as well (and this is obviously what´s bothering and driving around you!) that the apodictic recommendation NONE is also wrong. Responsible homeopathy and adjuvant use is simply an additional option that cannot harm anyone and may prove to be an additional lifeline…
https://homoeopathiewirkt.wordpress.com/2020/03/12/influenza-cough-and-co-how-can-homeopathy-which-we-therapists-use-responsibly-help-when-conventional-medicine-reaches-its-limits/
no, I don’t know that at all!
So sorry for you, that you knew “that [..]all” once upon a time:
” just before the publication of a meta-analysis on postoperative ileus [positiv for homeopathy], in which Prof. Ernst was co-author, he wrote a „short report“ in the German Medical Journal with the title: „Homeopathy: Arguments and Counter-Arguments“.” https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/7612/Homoeopathie-Argumente-und-Gegenargumente?
https://homoeopathiewirkt.wordpress.com/2020/01/09/edzard-ernst-and-his-homeopathy/
and forgot “that at all”!
you are wrong on so many accounts here:
1) I was not co-author of this article, I was the sole author.
2) the article does not advocate the use of homeopathy but its rigorous study.
3) now – 23 years later – the evidence is much clearer and NOT in favour of homeopathy.
4) even if I had been in favour of homeopathy [which I was not], it would be a sign of intelligence to change my mind.
GOT IT?
I GOT IT!
1) Homeopathy for Postoperative Ileus?: A Meta-analysis
Barnes, Joanne B. Pharm., M.R.Pharm.S.; Resch, Karl-Ludwig M.D., Ph.D.; Ernst, Edzard M.D., Ph.D., F.R.C.P.
Sole Autor?????
2) „It is likely that, among the homeopathic approaches examined, some studies have effects that go beyond zero therapy or placebo.
The argument of opponents of homeopathy „that homeopathy has been checked many times by high-level scientists, by state commissions, in specialized clinics at universities, but has had no specific effect“ is therefore misleading […]. „
„Homeopaths enrich themselves on patients„
„[…] As already stated, dishonesty may exist here as there. In the absence of evidence, however, it would be wise not to make such accusations. „
„Do we need more research?„
“[…] There are examples of controlled studies that meet all requirements for individualization, diagnosis and other things. […]. This group of people argues that, given the shortage of funds, medical research should focus on the most promising projects. Homeopathy is not plausible and therefore does not belong in this category.
Although there is undeniable logic in this thesis, (in my opinion) it must be rejected. Homeopathy is extremely popular today. As long as large sections of the population are using therapy, it would be simply unethical not to try to answer the essential questions related to the benefits and risks. ”
“Conclusion:
The dispute over homeopathy is as old as this form of treatment. The arguments are now well known, but only partially correct. A solution to this ongoing dispute is unlikely. In this situation, only exact new research can probably continue. What we need are not another one to two hundred undecided studies, but two to three adequately designed studies by the impartialists to prove their effectiveness. Two hundred years of discussion, it would seem, does not make one or the other camp, but medicine as such ridiculous. What is worse, it ultimately harms our patients. „.
Sounds [even more after 23 years] for me [before your “change of mind”] quite benevolent towards the arguments for homeopathy
“3) now – 23 years later – the evidence is much clearer….”:Yes in favour of Homeopathy, as you yourself stated it:
“A new study of homeopathy suggests that highly diluted remedies are better than placebos (and I cannot fault it)”
“…..a sign of intelligence to change my mind.”: Really?
1) sole author of the piece you quoted from the Dtsch Aeztebl, of course.
2) you quote ancient articles; the evidence has moved on. The conclusions of the ‘Homeopathy for Postoperative Ileus?: A Meta-analysis’ included this important sentence: ‘several caveats preclude a definitive judgment.’
3) form my blog post that you cite:
‘As far as I can see, there are the following possibilities:
fraud,
coincidence,
some undetected/undisclosed bias,
homeopathy works after all.
I would be most grateful, if someone could help solving this puzzle for me (if needed, I can send you the full text of the new article for assessment).’
…and subsequently the study has been shown to be flawed:
https://edzardernst.com/2019/09/homeopathy-for-pre-menstrual-syndrome-a-critical-assessment-of-a-recent-trial/
I AM SORRY TO SAY: YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL POINTS!
I follow this blog for quite some time and it seems to me that since the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, many (at least to me) unfamiliar proponents of homeopathy have appeared on this blog (“zERITZ”, “NM”, “quasus”, “martina”, “Dr. Heinrich Hümmer”… to name a few) and spread their wisdom.
I wonder… could this be because at present, every sane person is relying on evidence-based science, medicine and technology to protect humanity… and therefore SCAM proponents think they have to show up here to double down on their belief in magical shaken water & sugar pills?!
“every sane person is relying on evidence-based science, medicine and technology to protect humanity…”
I think it is common sense to look for supportive healing methods in view of the current helplessness of so-called scientific medicine … And I am very happy to know the possibilities of intensive care medicine that I once learned and used myself.
‘supporting healing methods’?
what a wonderful term describing useless healthcare that only fills the bank account of the practitioner!
@ H. Hümmer:
Quote ”I think it is common sense to look for supportive healing methods in view of the current helplessness of so-called scientific medicine”
Indeed unfortunately, evidence-based medicine cannot offer an effective treatment or vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 (yet). But of course, it is a fallacy (and really stupid) to think that it is a good idea to try some random “supportive healing method” and hope that it works, without any evidence that it really does.
EVERY treatment must be supported by solid evidence (preferably via RCTs) that the risk/benefit balance is in favor of this treatment, before you should consider using it.
And of course, homeopathy is not supported by solid and reproducible evidence to provide any specific health benefit (beyond placebo) for any illness, COVID19 obviously included.
Quote ”… And I am very happy to know the possibilities of intensive care medicine that I once learned and used myself.”
If you appreciate intensive care so much and even practiced it yourself, let me ask you:
At what point of your career did you decide to leave science & evidence behind you (as you will know, all of the very useful instruments & remedies that modern intensive care relies on are exclusively based on science…) and become convinced that pre-scientific ideas (e.g. the unscientific and hilariously stupid idea the shaking & diluting stuff will make it more “potent”, magically converting water into a remedy…) are the “real deal”?!
“If you appreciate intensive care so much and even practiced it yourself, let me ask you:
At what point of your career did you decide to leave science & evidence behind you…”
Answer:
when I found out that I couldn’t bring anyone to a cure, but only treated almost “palliatively” … But for you: during the time of the homeopathic general practice I was still working as an emergency doctor driving the blue-light car…
“(as you will know, all of the very useful instruments & remedies that modern intensive care relies on are exclusively based on science…)”
“..based on Sciense…”
I hope you know how little your so-called scientific medicine is certainly evidence-based …:
Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care
Regina P. El Dib PhD
Álvaro N. Atallah MD PhD
Regis B. Andriolo
Results
We analysed 1016 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 44% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which 1% recommended no further research and 43% recommended additional research. Also, 7% of the reviews concluded that the interventions were likely to be harmful, of which 2% did not recommend further studies and 5% recommended additional studies. In total, 49% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 1% did not recommend further studies and 48% recommended additional studies. Overall, 96% of the reviews recommended further research.
2% [!!!!!] And did you know, that Homeopathie has “same good” results?
The only thing you can accuse homeopathy of is having a same bad evidence as the so-called scientific medicine……GOT IT?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00886.x
@ H. Hümmer:
Quote#1 “when I found out that I couldn’t bring anyone to a cure, but only treated almost “palliatively…”
_____________________________________
If this really is true (which I hope it isn´t), then I am certainly glad that you have not been one of MY doctors (e.g. the oncologist & doctors that began treating me five years ago), or that you laid hands on one of my friends or family members.
And if you really were not able to help anyone by practising evidence-based medicine …mmmmhhh…
have you considered that you might not have been the best in the business?! Just saying… this is not a great track record, compared to your colleagues.
Quote#2 “I hope you know how little your so-called scientific medicine is certainly evidence-based …:”
_____________________________________
Responding to a critique by pointing at an unrealted issue is a well-known rhetorical trick called “Whataboutism”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Won´t help you here. You can criticise evidence-based medicine all day long, this won´t make homeopathic remedies more effective… or turn the hilariously stupid magical shaking rituals into something credible that should be taken seriously.
Within 34 yaers of practice, I only had patients, which were very glad, that I treated undogmatic taking the good of both and I have never failed to take necessary conventional medical measures…
And I think you didn´t get the difference between “Cure” and (good and necessary) (Acute)-therapy….
yes, that’s what many German homeopaths do: conditions that are serious get real treatment; conditions that are self-limiting receive placebos.
@ H. Hümmer:
• statements like “I only had patients, which were very glad (…)” and “I have never failed to (…)” sound quite arrogant in my opinion.
Well, based on my previous interactions with SCAM proponents on this forum, I can´t say that I am too surprised to detect a certain lack of humbleness and (self-)critical thinking when talking to a person selling or practicing “alternative healing” methods.
• Quote: ” I think you didn´t get the difference between “Cure” and (good and necessary) (Acute)-therapy”
Could you please define what you mean when using the term “cure” and how you determine that it was your magical water/sugar pills that actually “cured” the patient?
Now, please don´t say that you base your believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy on your personal experience as a doctor. It should be common knowledge for all medical practitioners that personal experience is a very flawed and biased way to assess treatments.
Jashak on Monday 23 March 2020 at 20:10
“Indeed unfortunately, evidence-based medicine cannot offer an effective treatment or vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 (yet). But of course, it is a fallacy (and really stupid) to think that it is a good idea to try some random “supportive healing method” and hope that it works, without any evidence that it really does.”
You are stating a common assumption: if the most common method cannot be applied, nothing else can work. COVID 19 is not a killer as the 1918 flu. Most people being infected would get well automatically. The reason being simple: their immune system would find the way to neutralize the virus in a short time.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317103815.htm
The patients at risk are elderly and young with co-morbidity whose immune system is weak because of age or because of medication that compromise immune system.
In 1918-1920, many patients died because doctors used Aspirin. This time it is medication for hypertension, diabetes etc.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30116-8/fulltext
This safety check was not made during trials.
“And of course, homeopathy is not supported by solid and reproducible evidence to provide any specific health benefit (beyond placebo) for any illness, COVID19 obviously included.”
Homeopathic Doctors during the 1918-1920 flu believed that they saved numerous lives by treating patients with Gelsemium and telling their counterparts to avoid using Aspirin. They published a summary.
https://www.ecampnd.com/homeopathy/A_Chorus_of_Fifty_in_Harmony.pdf
Remember. the flu of 1918-20 was a very big killer because there was no medication available, and after 100 years, there is no change in the situation. The saving grace is, COVID 19 is not a as deadly.
@ I KRISHNA
Quote:” You are stating a common assumption: if the most common method cannot be applied, nothing else can work.”
_________________________________________
Nonsense, I have never said said or intended to say so.
You are completely missing the point and you so far off, that I won´t bother to try to explain it to you.
If you want to believe in the magical healing power of shaken water without having good evidence, fine.
I guess, no rational argument that I would give you would change your mind.
Let me just point out that IF you would be open to learn more about science, you might change your mind. Give it a try! For starters read “A demon haunted world” by C. Sagan.
Believe me, it is really great to have science as the basis for your epistemology (as I have), because then you never have to trust in anything else but the best available, independently confirmed and reproducible evidence, no matter what e.g. self-assigned “experts” say.
It is also quite liberating to always be open to change your mind on an issue, as soon as new and better evidence is available (which is an integral part of science).
In this regard, I feel sorry for believers in homeopathy (or religion, etc.), because they have to follow and defend irrational ideas & dogmas for ever, no matter how ridiculous they may be.
God joke, from which you very well know, it is nonsense:
“conditions that are self-limiting receive placebos”
“SELF-LIMITING”?
Immediate Remission of an Inguinal Lymph Node Afflicted with Large-Cell B-Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Under Sole Homeopathic Treatment with Conium: When Is a Sole Adjuvant-Homeopathic Tumor Therapy Permissible and Useful?
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/500122
And don’t come to me with the hackneyed argument of coincidence instead of causality, because you cannot fault it [Edzard Ernst:” A new study of homeopathy suggests that highly diluted remedies are better than placebos (AND I CANNOT FAULT IT)”], because coincidence is here as likely as the proverbial drop in Lake Constance …
The patient, who is under regular oncological control, is still healthy and very happy to have been able to avoid chemotherapy so far….
Anectotic case?
There are hundrets of similar cases I can show you fron the literatur…..
thank you for reporting another case of spontaneous remission of a non- Hodgkin lymphoma
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30631255/?from_term=spontaneous+remission+of+B-Cell-Non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma&from_pos=2
considering that this is your only publication ever, it is understandable that you are proud of it. therefore i hate to disillusion you: the outcome was clearly due to the fact that the patient’s family prayed for her health. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547166/?from_term=intercessory+prayer%2C+review&from_page=2&from_pos=1
much more plausible than less than one molecule of hemlock having an effect! I am sure that you with your highly evidence-based background agree.
If you find me a case with “spontaneous remission” BEGINNING THE DAY AFTER beginning a treatment, I would be very glad!
Didn´t you read the coincidence-probability of “ONE DROP IN THE LAKE CONSTANCE”
And for the ad hominem argument:
https://studylibde.com/doc/1435068/adjuvante-hom%C3%B6opathische-therapie-bei
127
Adjuvante homo
̈opathische Therapie bei
konventionell behandeltem Mammakarzinom
Verlaufs- und Therapiekontrolle mittels quantitativer Bestimmung
im Blut zirkulierender epithelantigen-positiver Zellen
and look at this, maybe you notice something about the authors…..
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/10/11/407
so impressed with your 2nd!!! publication, pity that it’s not Medline listed. could it be that this homeopathic journal is just a laugh?
your conclusion: “Using the objective enumeration of epithelial cells in blood which according to a recently published study has been shown to be correlated with prognosis gives us for the first time the possibility to prove an immanent antitumoral influence of homeopathic therapy.”
certainly is.
PS
sorry that you do not seem to know what an ‘ad hominem argument’ is.
If you like it that way, I would be happy to put myself down to your level of thought and argument: Compared to the journals in which the co-author of my “only two” publications published, your publications have been published in predatory journals …
Got it?
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/10/11/407
But from now on I will only answer, if the level is not under the waistline!
so sorry to tell you that you are wrong again
https://edzardernst.com/2020/03/prof-ernst-has-never-done-any-clinical-trials-true-or-false/
Dr. Heinrich Hümmer is a homeopathy apologist. He has nothing to do in his spare time and thus constantly floods homeopathy-critical blogs (especially in Germany) with his abstruse hypotheses. As he has no arguments, he tends to attack critics of personally.
What a pathetic behaviour, I pity him.
true, I demonstrated twice that he was mistaken. instead of responding directly to this, he re-appears with a new stupidity. all he can do is play pigeon chess, it seems.
Sorry to say:
Mister RPGNo1:
and you, who are too cowardly to appear with real name, have no arguments as ad hominem: shabby!
Shame on you!
If you are trying to provoke me, Dr. Hümmer, you have already lost, as prove my previous statement.
On elast remark: Do you remember “Back to the Future”? The protagonists Marty McFly and Biff Tannen and their dialogues?
I am no Marty McFly, but you strongly remember Biff Tannen. Much bluster and muscle games, but no substantial arguments. And in the end of you will be washing the cars. 🙂
People in here are not only vouching for, but also lauding a system of medicine that has helplessly stood around watching a 25,000 + human beings die of the same illness over the past few months. Helpless because it does not have the know how to deal with it, something that everyone concerned has admitted.
Whereas the British Press has yesterday informed the world that the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles tested positive for Corona Virus and has opted to take Homeopathic medicines. . . The right things always for the right people. Happy.
“helplessly stood around watching a 25,000 + human beings die of the same illness over the past few months”
oh really?
I think you might have missed the frantic activity in all ICUs across the world.
True , frantically active , but without knowing what to do.
if you really think that, you are painfully ignorant
I was also speaking of ignorance.
Some Questions:
(1) What is the know how of homeopathy about corona and other viruses?
(2) How many hospitalized people were saved by homeopathy which otherwise would have died?
(3) How many people have taken homeopathy and died nevertheless?
If you cannot answer (2) and (3) how can you be sure that homeopathy is anything else than helpless?
Ur questions :
1)Maybe nothing
Yet if figures are facts may i say this
USA and India reported the first cases of Corona positive cases almost simultaneously.
However unlike USA there was something that stood between the people in India and the Corona Virus. This came in the form of an Advisory from something called AYUSH, a government of India body, which advised a homeopathic medicine Arsenic Album 30 . Lots of people took it. Los of people did not .
Yet something has happened in India . There is definitely a dilution in the the virus load in the community due to some reason. That’s what the figures say. It is not about the number of CORONA + ive cases reported. Many are not reported/ tested . Lots of people are using Homeeopathy when symptoms appears instead of getting tested. They, obviously are not in the “ACTIVE CASES” count .
Surely there is a big big difference between the figures 2250 and 25 (fatalities ) (as of today ). Whatever said and done, at the current point of time the curve of India is lagging far far behind especially considering the tremendous population density of India
Ayush has advised a 2nd dose at 1 month. Many may take it , many may not.
Even if it is only a “Placebo effect” let it be. . . .it is the difference between the numbers 2250 and 25 (USA / India) over a time of nearly or less than a month.
2 and 3 are just for arguments sake . No use . Waste of time.
No, figures are not facts if you do not know how they were assessed and if the baseline is the same (percentage of people tested, thoroughness of reportinng with regard to numbers and timely delays). Then, if the numbers are different, you must find some explanation why this should have happened due to homeopathy and not instead of homeopathy. Conclusion: Your account of the situation in India, if at all correct, does not provide any clue.
And questions #2 and #3 would be essential to establish if homeopathy does better with the virus or if this is just wishfu.l thinking.
No assessments./ counts of cases
Only fatalities
USA : 2250 (almost)
India: 25 +
Also no arguments.
Same problem still. How do you know if someone died from COVID-19? I would say by testing. Or by counting the deaths among the people tested positive. So figures depend on the coverage of testing for corona-infections.
Ceterum censeo:
I think it is DANGEROUSLY UNETHICAL to withhold ANY (!) POTENTIALLY (!)(!)(!) EFFECTIVE ADDITIONAL (!) therapy from a purely dogmatic stubbornness, especially under the given dramatic circumstances.
This from a practical therapist und not from theorizing cynicism!
People in the homeopathic clinics in New York 1918 did not ask, if their survival was evident, they were just very-very happy!
https://twitter.com/AmyShircel
If you are in this state of health, and schoolmedicin can´t help you [I don´t talk of the stadium when ICU with ventilation is needed and lifesaving], YOU will welcome EVERYTHING which MIGHT help YOU.
… and the despicable deception of homeopaths is that they claim to the gullible public that their placebos MIGHT help.
they might help, if the patient has subjective symptoms, but to claim they might help against a deadly virus is criminally unethical.
“If figures are facts. . . “.
The difference is between 2250 and 25. . . . .
No despicable deception
No gullible public
Only figures and facts . The figures are all over the web. The Ayush advisory is on the web too
Yes, that is right: It would be very unethical to withhold any potentially effective treatment, additional or as sole therapy. But unfortunately homeopathy does not fall under this condition.
And you might find it interesting, that homeopathy was not even mentioned in the report of how New York fared through the 1918 influenza epicdemic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862336/pdf/phr125s30071.pdf
//And you might find it interesting, that homeopathy was not even mentioned in the report of how New York fared through the 1918 influenza epicdemic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862336/pdf/phr125s30071.pdf//
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Zo7nj02Po&feature=youtu.be
is a video from the American Institute of Homeopathy. One of the speakers is a doctor from the Stanford school of Medicine. Its about the epidemics covered by Homeopathy including the one mentioned by u.
It s a long video.
Not really interested in an argument
And even some more for the one, who claims to be well informed….
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjlp4DsicDoAhVcUhUIHdXCCgYQFjAAegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecampnd.com%2Fhomeopathy%2FA_Chorus_of_Fifty_in_Harmony.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2BNesSPKagWlUpbMPJKiJf
How amazingly reliable!
‘Aspirin is the most pernicious drug of all.’
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?
So you are telling the world, that homeopathy is a very effective treatment for any kind of epidemic, but unfortunately fails completely to show any solid effect in rigorous clinical trials?
Or are those thousands of references Andre Saine spoke about just an extensive sample of post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies?
“Edzard on Sunday 29 March 2020 at 17:31
How amazingly reliable!
‘Aspirin is the most pernicious drug of all.’
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?”
YES, because NOT AMAZING but seems to be life threatening and a joke only for people like you…..:
“A good friend, a doctor in Modena, told us today that it has now been found in Italy that both ibuprofen and paracetamol have greatly aggravated the situation in corona patients.
Therefore, his clinic is now rethinking …
No more fever lowering M ”
The STRIKINGLY same observations as in 1918 for the administration of aspirin appear to be real.
Perhaps a mind, which is not dogmatic biased could also draw life-saving conclusions from the observations of the STRONGLY lower death rates in homeopathic hospitals and under homeopathic treatment and is not stuck in “post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc delusions”.
Anyway:
I hope you stay well inspite of your “amazing humor”.
the difference between a homeopaths and a rational person seems to be that the former thinks hearsay is evidence, while the latter does not:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200331/New-study-helps-identify-drugs-that-are-safe-for-treating-COVID-19.aspx
Anyway:
I hope you stay well inspite of your “amazing ignorance”.
in case you have trouble finding the original:
COVID-19 and treatment with NSAIDs and corticosteroids: should we be limiting their use in the clinical setting?
30 Mar 2020
Beth Russell, Charlotte Moss, Anne Rigg, Mieke Van Hemelrijck
Given the current SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, the availability of reliable information for clinicians and patients is paramount. There have been a number of reports stating that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids may exacerbate symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this review aimed to collate information
available in published articles to identify any evidence behind these claims with the aim of advising clinicians on how best to treat patients. This review found no published evidence for or against the use of NSAIDs in COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, there appeared to be some evidence that corticosteroids may be beneficial if utilised in the early acute phase of infection, however, conflicting evidence from the World Health Organisation surrounding corticosteroid use in certain viral infections means this evidence is not conclusive. Given the current availability of literature, caution should be exercised until further evidence emerges surrounding the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.
https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/1023-covid-19-and-treatment-with-nsaids-and-corticosteroids-should-we-be-limiting-their-use-in-the-clinical-setting/abstract
@Heinrich Hümmer
That is a nice page you linked to. What “excellent” scientific magazine is it from?
Sorry, I was wrong, this is not a scientific magazine. The cheering choirs sound just like advertisements you find in program supplements or women’s magazines. You know, those are the ads that advertise shark cartilage as a new miracle cure, that are peppered with reverent statements of alleged patients and where at the end a so-called learned expert gives his placet.
So sad.
//Norbert Aust on Wednesday 01 April 2020 at 11:27
So you are telling the world, that homeopathy is a very effective treatment for any kind of epidemic, but unfortunately fails completely to show any solid effect in rigorous clinical trials? //
Homeopathy cannot be tested the way Apirin / Paracetamol is tested for fever or Ibuprofen for inflammation or Salbutamol for Broncho- constiction or for that matter any particular illness = any particular medicine , or even any particular bacteria = any particular antibiotic (For eg: culture +ive Streptococcus B = penicillin ).
To do a clinical trial in H-pathy , one has to know Homeopathy . Once came across a paper which did a controlled study in stroke . Among other drugs used the Homeopathic medicine used was Arnica. And the conclusion was Arnica cant be used for stroke. Arnica for stroke ? ? it could be fatal for the patient.
Can Belladonna be used for fever > yes , it can be . But for what fever ? For that one has to know when Bell can cure a fever
Can Ars Alb used for fever ? Yes it can be . but for what fever ? For that one has to know when Ars Alb can cure a fever
Can Belladonna be used for Hypertension yes , it can be . But for what Hypertension ? For that one has to know when Bell can cure a Belladonna.
Can Bell be used for eg a : 1) Strep B infection . . .yes depending on the presentation. Can Bell be used for a 2)Staph (let it be a MRSA). . . yes depending on the presentation. Can Bell be used for an 3)acute Appendicitis . . . yes depending on the presentation.
Can Ars Alb be used in situations 1) 2) and 3) . Yes . But definitely not at the same stage pf illness when Bell can be used. The remedies to be used in Corona Virus will also differ similarly. A different remedy at every different stage .
So how can someone with out knowledge of Homeopathy do a clinical trial? it will only be like the ARNICA study in Stroke.. . .
Not an argument . . just saying how it works
so, you are saying that H has to be individualised by competent homeopaths.
fine, but that is possible in RCTs and it has been done.
how come that even these studies fail to generate a positive result?
IS IT PERHAPS BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG AND H. DOES NOT WORK BEYOND PLACEBO?
The reason would be that the people who did the study did not know how to apply it.
For eg: 100 cases of fever . . . . .the researcher should know which medicine to be given in which case. For eg should know if al the cases should be given Bell or Bry or what ever.. . . Other wise, if u give Bell to a patient who rewuires Ars Alb . . . then it wont wok .
Both Ars and Bell can be given in fever . But Bell is like a Violent Mob , where as Ars is like a King fighting a losing battle and trying to hold on or retreat. The two situations r totally different . This is just one way of putting it .
Yes, it requires great competency on the part of the researcher to sort out the for eg : the 100 cases which requires BELL/ Bry/ Ars. . . any remedy for that matter and conduct a RCT, Before randomizing one has to sort out the cases according to the remedy .
Ayush India before advising ARS ALB 30 did first repretoise the symptoms :
https://www.homeobook.com/coronavirus-infection-scientific-advisory-board-of-ccrh-ministry-of-ayush-recommended-homoeopathy-medicine/comment-page-2/?unapproved=202405&moderation-hash=3aa7a2ad9fe6e00490922a154119c6eb#comment-202405
I see: studies that have a positive result are the ones where the researchers performed homeopathy correctly, and the negative ones where they did it wrong?
Is there any standard whereby you can judge the competence of a homeopath? And which flavor is the proper one? Classic homeopathy? Kent? Bönninghauen? Sankaran? Scholten? Banerji? Dorcsi?
How do you know? Or is it just like a good homeopath is one that supports your views?
In another post you linked a YouTube video of an online congress of the AIH. There a certain André Saine presented the following figures:
Mortality from community acquired pneumonia: standard treatment 24.4 %, homeopathy (not only Hahnemannian) 3.4 %
Mortality from combined effects of influenza and pneumonia: conventional care: 5. 8 % , homeopathy 0.7 %
same with pregnant women: conventional care 30 % , homeopathy 0.7 %.
And you are telling me, you homeopaths cannot think of a protocol to corroborate claims of such soaring superiority to conventional care in a decent trial?
A decent trial in Homeopathy would be quite different from any decent trial in the other system of medicine. Have just tried to elaborate on it in a reply. Only a competent homeopath can do it. Not just any one.
All those figures it self would be a research. . . probably that s why they have put it as a paper in a conference. Obviously they were all very competent homeopathy who knew their subject very well who did the treating of the patients.
Anyway the world has come to a point where the fatality has crossed 50,000. Why not try Homeopathy?
On March 21 , the British Press informed the world that the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles tested positive for Corona Virus and has opted to take Homeopathic medicines. . Now it has informed the world that after 6 days he has tested negative. Why cant anyone else be given a trial . . . .in desperate situations desperate measures
“Only a competent homeopath can do it. Not just any one.”
Let us assume, this was true. Then I wonder how many competent homeopaths exist? As a percentage? Must be very few only, at least not enough I fear so that you could find a single competent homeopath that is able to perform a rigorous trial showing homeopathy effective exceeding placebo.
What is the chance a patient (=layman) happens to find a competent one? How do you select competent homneopaths from incompetent ones?
What is the difference if homeopathy is bogus versus all homeopaths – except Santra of course and a very few that “really understood” homeopathy in her view – are too incompetent to perform it properly? Seems to be the same outcome for the patient, doesn’t it?
As Edzard has already found out in his work
https://journals.lww.com/jcge/Abstract/1997/12000/Homeopathy_for_Postoperative_Ileus___A.16.aspx
and as you have also admitted, homeopathy has significant,
” if not meaningful evidence, which makes a difference in the absolute number. Just as “no beer” is different from “no good beer”.”
As always, you place your fingers unerringly in the festering wounds of the homeopaths! But that’s exactly why I asked you to conduct a study with us about the effectiveness of merc-corrosivus in diverticulitis, which would probably give results as good as Edzard’s meta-analysis…
But to stay with the current dramatic situation: I feel more secure when I have Lob-p with me…
Why the fuck do you always repeat this one sentence of mine and ignore all the rest of what I say? Please clear this partition of your memory for once and save this sentence as my position to homeopathy:
“There is no sound evidence to prove that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo!”
And if you do not have anything new to say, I would be obliged if you could refrain from repeating yoursellf.
And this study of yours: Apparently you forgot that I asked you about protocol and funding.
Hhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuu
no need to get angry at a clown!
Right, Edzard. Not worth the effort.
Alll eyes on India https://homeopathyplus.com/covid-19-our-eyes-are-still-on-india/
A sample of what is happening in India https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE6ctWqNI7A
Fatality rate in India 0.2 /million https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
There are lots of medicines should find with your homeopathy dr. Camphor 1M is also one of them apart of Arsenic Album 30
If you have a bottle of Camphor 1M pillules and one of Arsenic Album 30C pillules, and you take the labels off them, no laboratory in the world will be able to tell you which is which (if you think otherwise, tell us which laboratory can do it, and how).
Yet we are required to believe that sugar pills which have had a couple of drops of liquid dropped on them – which liquid contains no molecules of arsenic or camphor – can have powerful physiological effects on the body, beyond placebo.
We are required to believe that a spiritual essence is imparted to the sugar by the drops of liquid, and that this essence does not dissipate into, or through, the glass, or the cork or plastic top.
If you still think of Molecules concerning Homeopathy, then you might be right. But then you can as well forget nearly whole physics and stay in middle ages without X-Ray, MRT and so on…
And to finish off the fine conclusion of Lord William Thompson Kelvin, mathematician and inventor, President of the Royal Society in 1895:
“These rays of Mr. Röntgen will turn out to be fraudulent.”
I am right, then, in saying that no laboratory in the world would be able to tell which bottle was which, with the labels off? Is that correct?
Yes, until now!
Better ensure the labels are not stuck on with homeopathic glue, then……
And Lord Kelvin was rapidly shown to be incorrect and X-rays became an essential part of diagnosis.
Meanwhile, all the people who have called out homeopathy as delusional bullshit since Mad Sam pulled the idea out of his arse have been shown to be correct as homeopathy has repeatedly failed to demonstrate any efficacy in well-conducted trials and it remains a pseudotherapy loved only by cranks, fools and charlatans.
Oh.. and “Yes, until now”
Citation please.
I think Dr Hummer meant “So far”.
English and German have different ways, grammatically, of referring to time. This is why you hear people saying things like:
“I am living here since three years” instead of “I have lived here for three years”.
Some of these peculiarities have found their way into American English, presumably by immigrants applying the grammatical rules of their own language 9not just German) into English. One effect is the strange reluctance of Americans to use the perfect tense:
“Did you do it already?” instead of “Have you done it yet?”
Another one is the use of infinitives with verbs that in England take a gerund. Some verbs in English can take either, but not necessarily with the same meaning. This means that you lose the distinction, for instance, between “a chance to win” and “a chance of winning”.
One of my favourites is the phrase “long time no see”, which is more-or-less a word-for-word translation from Chinese (Chinese grammar is very simple in comparison with most languages).
My wife once had a laughing fit when we left a German town by car and she saw a big sign ‘GUTE FAHRT’ [meaning as much as ‘SAFE JOURNEY].
@Heinrich,
Surprising for you to give such a resounding endorsement of real science, given its nature of self-correction over time, while homeopathy stays in the late 1800s.
@Frank:
Gravity has always existed, even if it cannot be explained logically to this day. The principle of resonance has always existed and determines innumerable processes in nature. Homeopathy is presumably a banal kind of this principle of resonance. Has been around since 1800 and didn’t dissolve …
if I did not know better, I’d assume you have humour
“if I did not know better, I’d assume you have humour”
Cardinal Humour, I presume.
“even if it cannot be explained logically to this day” – of course gravity can be explained logically. Refer to Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Note: If YOU do not understand this, it does not mean, that nobody can understand it.