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

The aim of this paper was to systematically review the available clinical evidence of homeopathy in urological conditions. Relevant trials published between Jan 1, 1981 and Dec 31, 2017 were identified through a comprehensive search. Internal validity of the randomized trials and observational studies was assessed by The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria respectively, homeopathic model validity by Mathie’s six judgmental domains, and quality of homeopathic individualization by Saha’s criteria.

Four controlled (three randomized and one sequentially allocated controlled study) trials and 14 observational studies were included. Major focus areas were benign prostatic hypertrophy and kidney stones.

All the observational studies generated positive findings. One of the four controlled trials had ‘adequate’ model validity, but suffered from ‘high’ risk of bias. None of the non-randomized studies was of good methodological quality. Nine observational studies had ‘adequate’ model validity and quality criteria of individualization. The evidence from the controlled trials of individualized was inconclusive.

The authors concluded that, although observational studies appeared to produce encouraging effects, lack of adequate quality data from randomized trials hindered to arrive at any conclusion regarding the efficacy or effectiveness of homeopathy in urological disorders. The findings from the RCTs remained scarce, underpowered and heterogeneous, had low reliability overall due to high or uncertain risk of bias and sub-standard model validity. Well-designed trials are warranted with improved methodological robustness.

This new systematic review of homeopathy offers a number of surprises:

  1. When evaluating the effectiveness/efficacy of a therapy, observational studies are not informative and should therefore not be included in the analyses.
  2. The paper is badly written (what was the editor thinking?).
  3. The review is of poor methodological quality (what were the reviewers thinking?).
  4. The literature searches are now almost three years old; this means the review is outdated before it was published.
  5. The conclusion of the review is confusing; essentially, the authors admit that there is no good evidence for homeopathy as a treatment of urological conditions. Yet they seem to be bending over backwards to hide this message the best they can.
  6. The journal in which the paper was published is the ‘Journal of Complementary & Integrative Medicine‘; suffice to say that it is not a publication many people would want to read.
  7. The article was authored by an international team with impressive affiliations:
  • Homoeopathy University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
  • Former Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India.
  • Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India.
  • Secretary, Information and Communication, Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis, Izmir, Turkey.
  • Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, Izmir, India.
  • Department of Neuro-Urology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
  • Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
  • State National Homoeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, India.
  • Department of Materia Medica, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, Kolkata, India.
  • Independent Researcher, Champsara, Baidyabati, Hooghly, West Bengal, India.
  • Homoeopathic Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, under Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of New Delhi, New Delhi, India.

I am pleased with my last point: at least one feature that is impressive about this new review.

73 Responses to Homeopathy for urological disorders: a new systematic review

  • Hmm, Journal of Complementary & Integrative Medicine…. and disintegrative thinking, perhaps…..

    Hahnemann would surely spin in his grave at the concept of homeopathy being “integrated” with anything else; he was entirely inimical to any such idea. Those who seek to ‘integrate’ homeopathy therefore entirely betray Hahnemann.

    This “integration” approach surely only happens in order to disguise the fact that homeopathy on its own is useless beyond placebo.

    • Hahnemann is Dead, your comment is equivalent to saying that the doctrine of the four humours could not change because Galen disagreed with Hippocrates, or that classical physics could not change because Lord Kelvin thought that everything about the universe had already been discovered. The only thing I see on this blog is that you want to keep the image of an archaic homeopathy and no change to sell junk books or make fantastic stories. Learn to live with the fact that homeopathy has changed and will continue to transform.

      • A nothing remains a nothing, even if you invent beautiful new names for it or construct elaborate pseudo explanations around it.

      • Lollypop:

        That homeopathy should not be mixed with with any other medical approach was a basic tenet of Samuel Hahnemann.
        Since you apparently do not accept this basic tenet of the founder of homeopathy, it might be interesting to know which others of his basic tenets you do not accept: For example, do you disagree with “Similimum similibus curentur”? or with potentisation by serial dilution and succussion?

        • The principle of similarity is not reduced to sympathetic magic, it is universal in biology, all systematic reviews with high-quality experiments in vitro and in vivo using homeopathy or isopathy demonstrate this. So even if Hahnemann had erred in some things, his proposal of the principle of similarity and that of potentized drugs still holds validity.

          • Pops

            The principle of similarity is not reduced to sympathetic magic, it is universal in biology, all systematic reviews with high-quality experiments in vitro and in vivo using homeopathy or isopathy demonstrate this.

            You’re making things up. Imagining things.

            Lying, in other words.

            Unless you can link to these systematic reviews..

            We’ll wait.

          • Let me get this right, Lollypop: You consider that Hahnemann was in error in saying that homeopathy should not be mixed with other medical modalities. Have I understood you correctly? But you think he was right about ‘the law of similars’, and potentisation by serial dilution and succussion – am I interpreting you correctly?

          • Lenny:

            As usual, you’re only capable of insulting, demanding evidence, and then ignoring the evidence.

            David:

            Apparently you’re nothing but misinformers. Hahnemann at the end of his life recognized the use of mixtures. And as I commented earlier, both potentized method and the law of similarity can survive without the interpretation of the mystical life force.

          • Plopsy

            As usual, you’re only capable of insulting, demanding evidence, and then ignoring the evidence.

            What evidence? You claimed there were systematic reviews which supported your notions yet, when asked for links to them you resort to your normal name-calling and flimflam.

          • Lollypop,

            The principle of similarity is not reduced to sympathetic magic, it is universal in biology, all systematic reviews with high-quality experiments in vitro and in vivo using homeopathy or isopathy demonstrate this.

            This is not something that I recognise from my own studies of biology, and indeed as promoted by homeopaths would appear to contradict understanding. Could you please be more specific about the systematic reviews and high quality evidence you are referring to so that we can see for ourselves?

          • Lollypop, you say:

            “Hahnemann at the end of his life recognized the use of mixtures. And as I commented earlier, both potentized method and the law of similarity can survive without the interpretation of the mystical life force.”

            By “mixtures” are you referring to mixtures of homeopathic remedies, or mixtures of homeopathic treatment with non-homeopathic treatments? If the latter, I would be interested in a reference establishing Hahnemann’s revised later-life view.

            I am interested in the assertion that “the potentized method… can survive without the interpretation of the mystical life force”.

            I think you are meaning here, that you reject Hahnemann’s “spiritual essence” theory as a mechanism of action for homeopathic remedies. Is that right? If so, that leaves Nanoparticles, and Memory of Water.

            Do you favour one of those? That provings.info homeopathy site referred to earlier, clearly rules out Nanoparticles from its ideas. So if you accept Nanoparticles theory, then you disagree with the provings.info homeopathy site.

            If you agree with the provings.info site in ruling out Nanoparticles, then that leaves Memory of Water as the mechanism you believe in.

            Can you clarify if I have understood your position correctly? Opinions vary quite widely among homeopaths.

          • I know of no evidence that SH ever recommended mixtures – homeopathic or otherwise.

          • “I know of no evidence that SH ever recommended mixtures – homeopathic or otherwise.”

            Lollypop knows of evidence, it seems, and no doubt will be eager to share it……

          • no doubt indeed

          • @David B

            Opinions vary quite widely among homeopaths.

            Indeed they do. Just how many angels can dance upon that pinhead?

          • “Indeed they do. Just how many angels can dance upon that pinhead?”

            Hush, don’t spoil it…..

  • Surely these impressive sounding (and presumably well funded) institutions could actually have put together a decent RCT of homeopathy themselves instead of just doing a review?
    Is it possible that they realize (or fear) the results would negative.

  • I wonder why no one ever tries to show how homeopathy actually works rather than concentrating on trials which, even if they show benefit to the patient, are only circumstantial until the method of action is described.

    • What you are reflecting on is called “Tooth-fairy science” http://skepdic.com/toothfairyscience.html

    • wheels, that would be the wrong way round, I fear.

      What would be the sense in trying to work out HOW I am able to fly unaided, when there is zero evidence THAT I am able to fly unaided?

      To work out HOW a thing is happening, you need to be certain THAT it is happening.

      Aspirin was in use for a very long time before anyone worked out how it worked, but there was no doubt whatever that it worked.

      Homeopathy has not been reliably demonstrated to work better than placebo. There is no point in trying to study an effect that doesn’t actually exist.

  • These folks are bringing the proud tradition of Indian science into disrepute.
    At least in the UK only cranks take homeopathy seriously.
    (Scamists and frauds do not take homeopathy seriously, only the benefits it brings them!)

    • Richard:

      Considering that in the United Kingdom an international meeting was held at the Royal Society of Medicine, in addition to the international conferences, it seems to me that your slogan is not only false, but defamatory. The only thing I’ve found from you is a propaganda book that once dissected is a vast example of cherry picking.

      https://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Secrets-Alternative-Medicine-Exposé/dp/1519345852

      • Dear Lollypop,

        Why are you anonymous?
        But many thanks for promoting my book. Much appreciated.

        I certainly did cherry-pick to comment on the various camist claims I studied, identifying the best evidence I could – but in the case of homeopathy, I found none that stood up to critical examination.

        If you have any evidence that homeopathic remedies have any effect whatsoever on any pathological condition, physical or psychological, please publish – and tell us who you are!

        In order to further education, the RSM (of which I am a member) hires out its conference facilities to a number of organisations, but it does not endorse their conferences’ contents.

        Again, please advise us to which RSM conference you refer.
        My own recent lecture at the RSM on The Real Secrets of Alternative Medicine was well received, but even I don’t claim the RSM supports my views – though it should!

        • Your work has no scientific value.

          • from Lunypop’s mouth, this must be a compliment!

          • @EE

            Your stale cynical remarks get old, you have nothing to add here.

            You must be busy working on a future book release.

          • RG:

            You can’t ignore that Rawlins ‘ book is a messy pamphlet with no coherence and where he tries to evaluate several Therapeutics in a few pages. It is as absurd as wanting to reject a medical specialty in a chapter of 3 or 4 pages.

          • At 375 pages, it’s quite some ‘pamphlet’.

          • Loonypop,
            How are you in a position to make that judgement, given your lack of understanding of even basic science?

          • Allan:

            Whereas the “375 pages” of the 20 chapters are mostly opinions of Rawlins and that in after each chapter repeats the same ideas only changes that “there is no evidence for…”although he only bluntly cites the few negative trials, and in other cases he confines himself to calling homeopathy “sect”. Rawlins ‘ book has no historical or scientific value, it’s propaganda.

          • LOL! You are amusing, Lollypop!

      • Lols

        Much as I hate to prick your little bubble of delusion, The Royal Society Of Medicine is not an august academic institution. It is a club. Which anyone notionally involved in healthcare can join. Holding a conference there confers as much medical legitimacy to the event as holding it at the Gatwick Hilton would.

  • So if a review shows tentatively positive results, it’s “badly written.” Ernst, the world is changing and you’re no longer in the time when James Randi manage the media. John Maddox is dead, Carl Sagan is dead, Richard Dawkins and Neil D. Tyson lost their credibilty. Bad news for you.

    • it does not show ‘tentatively positive results’ for homeopathy

    • “John Maddox is dead, Carl Sagan is dead..”

      So’s Samuel Hahnemann. So what?

      There’s a few more people involved in science and medicine than Maddox and Sagan, Popsykins.

      Homeopathy remains the nonsense it always has been and will be, unless you’ve got some overwhelming evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Your continued exercises in pompous and high-handed posturing only make you look more foolish. You’ve already shown you’ve got nothing to bring to the table, but that’s because there isn’t anything to bring to the table.

    • The opposite is true. Homoeoepathy is losing its influence more and more. That is why its followers crave for any obscure “proof” of its effectiveness. That is why you trumpet your triumph when pseudo-scientists and pseudo-medicals present you with these apparent “proofs”.

      You are on the losing streak, even if you do not want to admit it.

    • Edzard:

      As much as you don’t like the conclusions, the review clearly shows tentatively positive results.

      Lenny:

      Sagan and Maddox were the greats of their time, today none of the marketing products that call themselves “skeptics” reach his heels. This is because the “overwhelming” evidence you ask for already exists, but you have nothing but insults and meaningless distractions.

      RPG1:
      I am observed that homeopathy has gained a lot of strength in countries where lobbies of “skeptics” lose a lot of strength. I have no doubt that a few years you will be displayed as the great charlatans of the last years.

      • Lollypop said:

        I am observed [sic] that homeopathy has gained a lot of strength in countries where lobbies of “skeptics” lose a lot of strength.

        Where’s that?

        • Alan:

          I’m so sorry, seeing as you’re an associate of Sense About Science, you lose all kind of credibility. I hope Monsanto and Coca Cola pay you well.

          • Oh look. The unevidenced “shill” gambit. Always worth a try when you’ve got nothing else to back up your position.

            Pathetic, Pops. You’re not doing very well here, are you?

            It would be very easy for you to destroy our position if you had a decent bit of evidence to bring to the fight.

            But you can’t.

            Which is why we keep laughing at you.

            Nancy Malik is posting stuff about how homeopathic remedies can be identified by advanced chemistry technology..

            Do you agree with her?

          • Goodness. I see your research skills are somewhat lacking! Non existent, in fact.

            Now about those countries you were referring to…

          • Monsanto and Coca-Cola ? No-no, dear “Lollypop”.
            Those meager companies are not paying off real skeptics or evil scientists like Alan and I. We belong to the secret, VIP inner circle so we are paid in alchemical gold directly by the Grand Master of the lizard people himself, every new moon.
            Monsanto is just a humanoid company, that only handles the technical execution of mind control and population culling.

            I actually have a secret tip for you, Lollypop. Normally we don’t give warnings, but this is an exception, because we like you. Don’t share this with anyone. You would not want to be visited by the Lizard-squads in the middle of the night, do you?

            Here’s the warning:
            Monsanto will be doing some heavy chemtrailing i your area over the weekend, so you might want to shake up some of that ‘Lux Veneris Stellae Errantis’ remedy*, which provides full protection. As it is very hard to make without a telescope, I recommend instead the Musca Domestica 200C. It has fabulous detoxing effects against the zombie-juice, the main ingredient in the chemtrails. I am sure you have that in your emergency kit, right?
            Remember. to not drink coffee when taking potent remedies and don’t handle them with bare fingers.
            * https://www.provings.info/en/substanz/spect

            Now, Lollypop, feel free to try to prove me wrong. I claim that you cannot.

          • @Bjorn

            That site is a classic! Homeopathic Black Hole of Cygnus X-1? Is there no end to their delusions?

          • In one of the YouTube videos on homeopathy, someone declared than nanoparticles are the mechanism of action of the remedies. I asked how x-ray or moonlight or sunlight manifest nanoparticles, but, answer came there none…..

          • It’s interesting that the Provings.info website say “For these trials, with very few exceptions, there are only substances being used which are homoeopathically triturated and – according to the chemical model – contain no traces of the original matter (C 12 or higher)”

            The homeopaths responsible for that website obviously then reject the ‘nanoparticles’ theory as a mechanism, since they say the remedies “contain no trace”. Nanoparticles would be a trace.
            That leaves only Memory of Water and Spiritual Essence to choose between, as a putative mechanism of action. Unless I have forgotten one…..

          • David:

            “In one of the YouTube videos on homeopathy, someone declared than nanoparticles are the mechanism of action of the remedies. I asked how x-ray or moonlight or sunlight manifest nanoparticles, but, answer came there none…..”

            It is obvious that radiation-based products cannot contain material nanoparticles from a solid solute, in any case structural differences would be sought, if any.

          • Björn:

            Save your conspiracy delirium.

          • I am sorry that the Lollypop does not share our appreciation of satirical humour 🙁
            But then again, homeopathists seldom do.
            I wonder if and then how homeopaths would have fun? Perhaps by experimenting with homebrew psychedelics, like the congregation that had to be gathered by rescue squads from the German countrysite some years ago, in a diverse state of delirium?

            I guess it is futile to ask how our resident water-shaking expert explains the mechanism of action of remedies based on exactly nothing, i.e. ‘Vacuum’?
            One may procure a bespoke preparation of this particular remedy (produced from ‘nothing’ shaken in water, I presume) from the renowned homeopathic emporium of Helios at the modest starting price of only £4.50*. I find their introduction to this magical medium for medicine, to paraphrase our resident authority in the field, frankly “Delirious” :

            The strictest criterion to define a vacuum is a region of space and time where all the components of the stress–energy tensor are zero. It means that this region is empty of energy and momentum, and by consequence, it must be empty of particles and other physical fields (such as electromagnetism) that contain energy and momentum.

            It is also demonstrably wrong, e.g. regarding electromagnetism.
            I have been unable to ascertain how ‘nothing’ is harvested to adequately and securely supply the production? How do they know they have captured the nothing?
            Perhaps they obtain this elusive ingredient by meditation, a method I have seen described as succesful in the case of depleted supplies for remedy production. Another described and proven[sic] method involves writing the name of the missing ingredient on a paper in a certain manner, thus obtaining the magical starting power for the producttion of the desired remedy.

            Sigh…

            ‘Delirious’ is a phrase that certainly applies.
            ‘Stark-raving mad’ might also fit the bill, don’t you think?

            * https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/vacuum

          • I am sorry that the Lollypop does not share our appreciation of satirical humour 🙁
            But then again, homeopathists seldom do.

            Indeed. A repeated feature of the AltMed fans is an inability to understand irony, nuance or, indeed, wit. I’m sure there’s a link here to the impaired thought-processes which drive people towards the nonsensical. It might just be that they’re not very bright.

          • Lollypop,

            It is obvious that radiation-based products cannot contain material nanoparticles from a solid solute, in any case structural differences would be sought, if any.

            As somebody who has spent my career working with radiation it is not obvious to me. Could you please explain?

          • David:

            If a radiation-based homeopathic can’t exhibit nanoparticles, it doesn’t mean it can’t be shown that there’s some kind of structural modification.

            Julian:

            And Galen wasn’t taught the microbial theory of disease.

            Björn, Lenny and Alan:

            I don’t respond to trolls or people with severe conflicts of interest with Sense About Science.

          • “I don’t respond to trolls …”
            said the ueber-troll.

          • Lollypop, you say:

            “If a radiation-based homeopathic can’t exhibit nanoparticles, it doesn’t mean it can’t be shown that there’s some kind of structural modification.”

            Should I understand from this, that you espouse the Memory of Water theory as a mechanism of action, since you reject Nanoparticles and Spiritual Essence?

            Can you explain what the structures are which you refer to, and how they are measured (and by whom)? Also, how these structures are transferred to sugar? And how they affect any disease process in a human body?

            Also, could you address my question about Hahnemann and “mixtures” – were you referring to mixtures of homeopathic medicines with other medicines, or of homeopathic medicines with other homeopathic medicines? You say that Hahnemann had latterly changed his view on this: Where is that information published please – where did you get it?

          • The Lollypop seems to be under the illusion that it is being addressed and expected to respond. On the contrary.
            One is merely reflecting on the amusingly agonistic activities of yet another anonymous aficionado of the archaic practice of entertaining patients with shaken water soaked sugar pills, while nature takes its course. Since it persists on stage, parroting puerile platitudes in defense of the peddling of make-believe medicinee, it will not avoid its share of the rotten eggs and ripe tomatoes from the peanut gallery 😀

          • “Should I understand from this, that you espouse the Memory of Water theory as a mechanism of action, since you reject Nanoparticles and Spiritual Essence?”

            Both theories are complementary.

            “Can you explain what the structures are which you refer to, and how they are measured (and by whom)? Also, how these structures are transferred to sugar? And how they affect any disease process in a human body?”

            And you also want me to write a dissertartion in a comment?

            “Also, could you address my question about Hahnemann and “mixtures” – were you referring to mixtures of homeopathic medicines with other medicines, or of homeopathic medicines with other homeopathic medicines? You say that Hahnemann had latterly changed his view on this: Where is that information published please – where did you get it?”

            I was hoping that you would be well informed about the subject to be discussed, but I realize that most of you do not even know the basics.

          • I was hoping that you would be well informed about the subject to be discussed, but I realize that most of you do not even know the basics.

            😀
            Translation: “I have no idea myself, what I am talking about, but I like to pretend that I have. It makes me feel important”

          • Lollypop, since you decline to answer my straightforward questions (no dissertation would have been needed; just direct, brief, simple responses), I cannot engage with you further. I am well-informed about homeopathy, and no-one is better-informed than Professor Ernst. Your obfuscatory and elliptical responses strongly suggest that you are otherwise.

      • Popsie

        This is because the “overwhelming” evidence you ask for already exists, but you have nothing but insults and meaningless distractions.

        Curious that you seem unable to produce this evidence whereas I can produce a stack of high-quality systemic reviews and meta-analyses which demonstrate that homeopathy does f**k-all squared. Of course the homeopaths have whinged about these and done their standard ignorant Special Pleading because the nasty scientists have demonstrated their foolishness. Science and medicine ignores them and listens to the evidence which says today the same as it always has. Magic shaken water has no theraputic powers beyond placebo.

  • Please guys, I recently acquired Ernst’s new book called “Chiropractic”. He only devotes one section to homeopathy and in an extremely biased. An example:

    “Today, some 500 clinical trials of homeopathy have been published. The totality of this evidence fails to show that homeopathic remedies are more than placebos.25 Yet, many patients undeniably do get better after taking
    homeopathic remedies. The best evidence available today shows that this improvement is unrelated to the homeopathic remedy per se, but the result of a lengthy, empathetic, compassionate encounter with a homeopath, a placebo-response or other factors which experts often call ‘context effects’.”

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

    Considering that you had previously performed meta-analysis, it is strange that you avoided doing a global meta-analysis. In your review you comment that overall the reviews failed to provide “convincing” evidence, not lack of evidence that they are totally different issues. Another aspect of your review:

    “Many systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published outside the Cochrane database. Most arrive at similarly negative conclusions3,4,17 and, in recent years, the evidence seems to have become less and less convincing.18 Numerous authors have pointed out that the main assumptions of homeopathy are biologically implausible.19 Reviewers of basic research studies of homeopathy have noted the low quality of the data and lack of replications,20 and others have concluded that “no positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators”.21”

    The main reference is “Ernst E, editor. Healing, hype or harm? A critical analysis of complementary or alternative medicine. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2008”, a essay where are the opinions of prominent lobbyists, including a magician like James Randi talking about medicine, philosophy and science, which is totally ridiculous.

    The reference is another book “Homeopathy: undiluted facts”. In this:

    “Some proponents of homeopathy are aware of the fact that the evidence for homeopathy fails to demonstrate its effectiveness, but insist that the data also fai lto show its ineffectiveness… Today, more than 300 such studies have been published; if we assess the totality of this evidence, we have to conclude that it fails to show that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are anything other than placebos… Several well-conducted clinical studies of homeopathy with positive results have been published. It is therefore not true to claim that there is no good trial evidence at al.”

    So, Ernst, you admit that there is high-quality evidence showing that homeopathy works better than placebo, but instead of acknowledging that there is some evidence, you erase those trials with an extrapolation based on your own value judgments of “all the reliable evidence.” What you prove is that the idea that there is no evidence is not true. My analysis of your work is completely consistent with that of Professor Robert Hahn. And in my case I don’t believe in spirits and I’m not a proponent of spirituality, so you can save yourself the ad hominems.

    • A book on chiropractic is perhaps not the best source for a full discussion on homeopathy. Try this one:
      https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Edzard-Ernst/Homeopathy—The-Undiluted-Facts–Including-a-Comprehensive-A-Z-Lexicon/19719982

      • From your book:

        “Today many homeopaths have moved on and point to basic science studies which, in their opinion, might go some way towards providing a rational explanation for homeopathy’s mechanism of action. For instance, some experiments have suggested that water molecules can, in fact, form structures which might preserve the memory of the substances previously contained in that water. Other homeopaths believe that, during the process of succussion, tiny particles, called nanoparticles, are formed, which in turn explain the health effects of highly diluted remedies. Others again think that hormesis—the phenomenon that, at very low doses, some toxins can have the opposite effects from those at high doses—could provide a scientific explanation for homeopathy’s mechanism of action. Unfortunately, all of these theories have one very obvious thing in common: they are just theories! As such they are shared by some but not by the majority of scientists, and a scientific consensus as to how homeopathy works simply does not exist at the moment. In fact, if we are close to a consensus, it would be that there is no explanation for homeopathy’s mechanism of action (other than a placebo effect) which would be in keeping with the known laws of nature.”

        So you admit that some experiments “suggest” that there is formation of structures, and you say that homeopaths “believe” that there are nanoparticles, and that they are only “theories” in the pejorative sense. No Ernst, you don’t need to believe in nanoparticles to accept them, experiments using high-resolution TEM have shown that they exist in some homeopathic high potency. These analyses have been confirmed and replicated using X-ray diffraction and Z-potential measurements. You confuse the phenomenon with its explanation and consensus.

        Looking the references… “Ransom, S.: Homoeopathy PB: What Are We Swallowing?. John Ritchie Ltd, Kilmarnock (2000)”
        Ramson’s book is a poorly documented and poor quality book. How is it possible that you will trust your arguments in such works?

    • Anyway, Lollypop, now that you’ve found this thread again is there any chance of you posting references for your “high-quality reviews” or the debunking by “an statician”?

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.

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.

Archives
Categories