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

Dr Jennifer Jacobs is a homeopaths from the US. She is a family physician and a clinical assistant professor in epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine. She received her MD degree from Wayne State University and a Masters in Public Health from the University of Washington.

Jennifer is foremost famous for the homeopathic childhood diarhoea studies, but does that justify her joining THE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME with its 15 current members who managed the impossible feast of never publishing a negative conclusion about their pet SCAM:

A Medline search generated 25 papers of hers on homeopathy. Here are the key findings of the … that report original data on the effectiveness of homeopathy (clinical trials or reviews):

  1. If and when conventional medicine runs out of options for treating epidemic diseases, homeopathy could be seen as an attractive alternative, but only if there is viable experimental evidence of its success.
  2. The homeopathic syrup appeared to be effective in reducing the severity of cold symptoms in the first day after beginning treatment.
  3. the medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific, treatment effects.
  4. Homeopathic ear drops may be effective in reducing the use of antibiotics in children with AOM managed with a delayed antibiotic approach.
  5. This study suggests that homeopathic ear drops were moderately effective in treating otalgia in children with AOM and may be most effective in the early period after a diagnosis of AOM. Pediatricians and other primary health care providers should consider homeopathic ear drops a useful adjunct to standard therapy.
  6. The homeopathic combination therapy tested in this study did not significantly reduce the duration or severity of acute diarrhea in Honduran children. Further study is needed to develop affordable and effective methods of using homeopathy to reduce the global burden of childhood diarrhea.
  7. This pilot study provides no evidence to support a therapeutic effect of individually selected homeopathic remedies in children with ADHD. A therapeutic effect of the homeopathic encounter is suggested and warrants further evaluation.
  8. Small sample size precludes definitive answers, but results from this preliminary trial suggest that homeopathy may be of value in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and improving quality of life, especially in those women not on tamoxifen.
  9. The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.
  10. These results suggest that a positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded and that a larger study is justified.
  11. These results are consistent with the finding from the previous study that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea.
  12. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.

Next to Claudia Witt, Jennifer might be the researcher who has published the most clinical trials of homeopathy with positive conclusions (don’t be jealous Michael Frass, you might be in third place!). Attentive readers have probably noticed, she also published a negative trial with a negative conclusion (No 6) and a negative trial with a not so negative conclusion (No 7). The negative study almost cost her the place in the HALL OF FAME. But let’s be generous, and let’s consider the TRUSTWORTHINESS INDEX which, in her case, is still well and safely in the untrustworthy region. Therefore, I hope we all agree: Jenifer does deserve a place in THE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.

WELCOME JENNIFER!

50 Responses to A homeopath becomes the 16th member of THE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME

  • Congratulations, Jennifer! I’ll admit I was skeptical at first but, after looking at the evidence, I can see that it is well-deserved.

  • what is really concerning is that this believer in fantasy and magic is “a family physician and a clinical assistant professor in epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine.”

    either she has managed to forget all the scientific principles she must have learnt on the way to achieving the relevant qualifications for these posts or she has found a means of dealing what must be the profound resulting cognitive dissonance!

    I fail to see how her beliefs in tooth fairy science are compatible with her University Professorship – I wonder how they justify that?

    Her website is illuminating. Apart from advising people against taking their medications she has this bizarre piece on the front page:
    “The vast majority of skin cancers are non-invasive and benign, although dermatology offices are filled with anxious patients waiting to have these harmless skin lesions removed. Squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas do not spread to internal organs and are not life-threatening. ”

    How can a “skin cancer” be benign? Both SCCs and BCCs are most certainly malignant.
    Both will usually continue to enlarge slowly unless treated.
    Furthermore squamous cell carcinomas most definitely CAN and sometimes DO spread aggressively locally if left untreated. They can be extremely destructive and invade local structures.
    They can migrate to local lymph nodes and other internal organs, and although it is rare they can be fatal.

    It would appear that this woman’s delusions have spread well beyond the bounds of mere homeopathy.

    • john travis,

      “The vast majority of skin cancers are non-invasive and benign, although dermatology offices are filled with anxious patients waiting to have these harmless skin lesions removed. Squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas do not spread to internal organs and are not life-threatening. ”

      How can a “skin cancer” be benign? Both SCCs and BCCs are most certainly malignant

      Basal cell carcinomas are the commonest sort of skin cancer, and their natural history is different from most other kinds of cancer as they are very slow-growing and don’t infiltrate the tissue to the same degree, so strictly speaking it is true to say that the majority of skin cancers are non-invasive and possibly “benign” if you use the word in a non-technical sense (which is a very misleading thing to do in this context). However, left untreated they continue to grow and to erode the underlying tissue. The Wellcome Museum https://wellcomecollection.org/ has a specimen of the head of a man whose face has been mostly eroded by a BCC that must have progressed over a period of decades. It is not quite true to say that they don’t spread to internal organs – when I started my oncology training in 1993 one of our patients was a staff member who had lung metastases from basal cell carcinoma, though this is very unusual.

      BCCs are very easy to treat, particularly when they are small, when they are amenable to minor surgery under local anaesthetic. Larger ones are readly treated with surgery or radiotherapy. The commonest site is the area around the inner corner of the eye or near the nose, so if you have a small nodule there, particularly with a scab in the middle, get it seen to.

      Squamous carcinomas of the skin are more variable, and although many of them are slow-growing, they do infiltrate to a greater degree than BCC and some of them metastasise. They are often larger by the time they are diagnosed which makes them more difficult to treat. They tend to occur in areas which have had a lot of sun exposure (perineal sunbathers beware).

      • Head and neck SCC metastasises rapidly but they are fairly rare. I’ve seen two in my career, both of which I spotted early, thankfully. The majority are linked to HSV infection. I don’t know if the disease progression for UV-induced SCC is the same as HPV induced SCC – you’d know much more about that than I do, but anal SCC is normally HPV mediated so perineal sunning might doubly increase risk..

  • I couldn’t help but notice that you neglected to mention that many of the clinical trials that Dr. Jennifer Jacobs has published have been deemed to be of the highest quality of scientific inquiry. The fact that her results have been almost consistently POSITIVE seems to be lost on you, even though they have maintain this high standard.

    What is so great about your comments about Dr. Jacobs is that it PROVES your own unscientific attitude. Rather than maintaining “objectivity,” you concern yourself only with the RESULTS of what her research has found. And if anyone didn’t notice, the above comment by Edzard didn’t mention a single flaw with a single study by Dr. Jacobs. Is anyone suprised, NO, not at all.

    • ” the clinical trials that Dr. Jennifer Jacobs has published have been deemed to be of the highest quality of scientific inquiry”
      on the contrary, Dana, they have been torn to shreds by those who understand science a bit better than you. for instance this one:
      Homeopathic diarrhea trial.
      Carlston M.
      Pediatrics. 1995 Jan;95(1):159; author reply 160.
      PMID: 7770299 No abstract available.
      Homeopathic diarrhea trial.
      Shoultz DA.
      Pediatrics. 1995 Jan;95(1):160; author reply 160-1.
      PMID: 7770300 No abstract available.
      Homeopathy study questions.
      Duggan C, Kleinman RE.
      Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):963; author reply 965.
      PMID: 7971031 No abstract available.
      Homeopathy study questions.
      Layton RE.
      Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):963; author reply 965.
      PMID: 7971032 No abstract available.
      Homeopathy study questions.
      Richmond VL.
      Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):963-4; author reply 965.
      PMID: 7971033 No abstract available.
      Homeopathy study questions.
      Kerr HD.
      Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):964; author reply 965.
      PMID: 7971034 No abstract available.
      Homeopathy study questions.
      Brown KH, Bhutta ZA.
      Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):964-5; author reply 965.
      PMID: 7971035 No abstract available.
      Homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea.
      Fisher P, Dantas F, Reilly D.
      Pediatrics. 1996 May;97(5):776; author reply 777-8.
      PMID: 8628630 No abstract available.
      Homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea.
      Milburn MA.
      Pediatrics. 1996 May;97(5):777; author reply 777-8.
      PMID: 8628631 No abstract available.
      Homeopathic medicine.
      Chapman EH.
      Pediatrics. 1996 May;97(5):779.
      PMID: 8628633 No abstract available.

      “Rather than maintaining “objectivity,” you concern yourself only with the RESULTS of what her research has found. And if anyone didn’t notice, the above comment by Edzard didn’t mention a single flaw with a single study by Dr. Jacobs.”
      There are about 1500 posts on this blog that detail and explain the flaws of SCAM research. Here, however, it is about the ‘HALL OF FAME’ for those geniuses who manage to publish almost exclusively positive conclusions.
      I should have known that you needed an extra explanation, Dana.

      • “There are about 1500 posts on this blog that detail and explain the flaws of SCAM research.”

        …and lots of post, that explain the flaws of SCSUM (So Called Ssientific Universitiy Medicine)….

        …and even lots of post that show without doubt, that SCAM works….

        Fresh from the press:

        “Homeopathy is just placebo therapy! For real? The case of an acute recurrent pancreatitis”

        https://homoeopathiewirkt.wordpress.com/2021/01/10/homeopathy-is-just-placebo-therapy-for-real-the-case-of-a-acute-recurrent-pancreatitis/

      • @Prof Ernst: “on the contrary, Dana, they have been torn to shreds by those who understand science a bit better than you. for instance this one”

        I assume you have to be a subscriber to Pediatrics to enjoy the actual drubbing? A pity; although the abstract alone would suggest an A vs A+B design, which is about par for the course.

        Of course, when Dana says “deemed to be of the highest quality” is it fair to assume this deeming has been performed by fellow homeopaths; all of whom live in the same Wonderland where “highest quality” means exactly what they choose to mean, neither more nor less? And since homeopathy itself is founded on the thoroughly scientific principle of swapping the numerator and denominator around, no prizes for calculating what that “highest” actually works out to.

        Honestly, the only real surprise here is that Dana isn’t on this list. But I suppose according to homeopathic science one’s complete lack of publications is the most powerful evidence of all.

    • Dana

      Objectivity?

      So who deemed the Jacobs papers to be of the “highest quality”?

      Let me guess. Fellow homeopathy loons.

      You wouldn’t recognise the concept of objectivity if it ran up and bit you on the arse. You wave around triumphantly and unquestioningly any piece of fatuous nonsense which appears to support your religious faith in the magic powers of shaken water.

      The work of Jacobs has been recognised as the nonsense it is and rightly disregarded by mainstream healthcare, homeopathy remains, as ever, a busted flush and you remain an object of ridicule. Run along, Dana.

    • “The fact that her results have been almost consistently POSITIVE seems to be lost on you, even though they have maintain this high standard.”

      Dana, you are starting to sound like a child in the back seat of the car who has yet to learn the language. I hear noise and I know you mean well and work valiantly to be understood, but what’s coming out of your mouth makes no sense.

    • It is pathetic to see that Edzard only engages in the systematic harassment of his former colleagues or people who in most cases ignore him. Perhaps because he knows that his battle against homeopathy was totally lost in Germany, Switzerland and Brazil, as could be seen in the imminent failure of the “Questao Da Ciencia Institute”. But the most illustrative are his two recent posts, in one he celebrates as a small child that homeopathy “does not work for asthma” although the graphs clearly show that with conventional medicine patients felt worse and still the authors are moderate and suggest doing more research. Instead, in this post Edzard acts as a real bully against Dr. Jacobs by including her in a “hall of fame” to humiliate her before the hoolingans who applaud her, who are always the four guardian trolls who never contribute or benefit to the discussion. But this becomes more pathetic when Ernst’s publications have never competed in methodological quality or as published journals like the ones Jacobs has managed. It is enough to see that Edzard’s greatest achievements are a review in Jama published a few decades ago, the same review that even contradicts him and that was later debunked by lüdtke’s meta-analysis of arnica montana.

      • congratulations!
        you managed to get a maximum of errors into your blog with a minimum of knowledge of the facts.

      • Yawn yawn yawn. The standard tropes get dragged out again. Another homeopathy freak happy to publicly demonstrate their ignorance of science and statistics whilst having a hissy fit at someone demonstrating once again that magic shaken water has no effects beyond placebo.

        ChapmanG mentions the Lüdtke meta-analysis. What did it conclude?

        “The hypothesis that homeopathic Arnica is effective could neither be proved nor rejected.”

        Hardly a ringing endorsement.

        “ Studies from Medline-listed journals and high-quality studies are less likely to report positive results ”

        The better the study, the less well homeopathy performs. As ever.

        One wonders why Lüdtke was happy to include studies with poor methodology in his meta-analysis.

      • Shorter Homeopathy Shill: “Wahh-wahh-wahh, Prof Ernst is a big meanie poopie pants!”

        “But this becomes more pathetic when Ernst’s publications have never competed in methodological quality or as published journals like the ones Jacobs has managed.”

        So, why don’t you prove it then? Cite the methodological errors you’ve identified in Prof Ernst’s papers. Like the red banner says. Because your unevidenced assertions aren’t worth the electrons they’re written in, and your claims that Prof Ernst is acting like a small child are risible when demonstrating all the intellectual rigor of an angry toddler yourself.

  • Oh really!?

    First, the list you’ve created is simply a list of COMMENTS on one of her articles…and many (or possibly most) are extremely supportive of Dr. Jacobs’ study.

    Second…and more important, every meta-analysis and serious reveiw of clinical research on homeopathy have deemed that several of Dr. Jacobs’ studies are of the highest caliber.

    But in the meantime, thanx for verifying again how sloppy your research is. You’re quite predictable.

    • 1) my list is a group of SCAM researchers who as good as never publish anything negative even about the most dubious treatments such as homeopathy
      2) not EVERY meta-analysis/ systematic review [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17285788/], only those by fellow homeopaths; and the multiple publisged criticisms can be ignored?
      3) always a pleasure!

      • Jacobs published a negative trial on the use of a homeopathic “combination remedy” in the treatment of childhood diarrhea: Jacobs, J, Guthrie, BL, Montes, GA, Jacobs, LE, Mickey-Colman, N, Wilson, AR, DiGiacomo, R, Homeopathic Combination Remedy in the Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea in Honduras, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Oct 2006, Vol. 12, No. 8 : 723 -732. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278

        Because you seemingly want to provide ACCURATE information, should I assume that you will now take Dr. Jacobs OFF YOUR LIST? If not, please explain.

        • “Attentive readers have probably noticed, she also published a negative trial with a negative conclusion (No 6) and a negative trial with a not so negative conclusion (No 7). The negative study almost cost her the place in the HALL OF FAME. But let’s be generous, and let’s consider the TRUSTWORTHINESS INDEX which, in her case, is still well and safely in the untrustworthy region. Therefore, I hope we all agree: Jenifer does deserve a place in THE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.”

          thanks for confirming that you are not an attentive reader!

          • Dana’s selective powers of reading on display once again.

            His ongoing public displays of foolishness are always enjoyable to witness. It’s that he seems so happy to perform them which I find curious.

        • @ Dana Ullman

          she concluded the paper with the words:

          “Further study is needed to develop affordable and effective methods of using homeopathy to reduce the global burden of childhood diarrhea.”

          So no – she is still pursuing a pathetic fantasy and child abuse – by treating ill children with worthless placebos instead of actual medicine.
          She should abandon her silly religious belief and adopt proven scientific methods.

          • “She should abandon her silly religious belief and adopt proven scientific methods.”

            Yeah I think we’re past that point and onto “should not be allowed within 100 meters of children”. Disgusting.

        • That’s the trial even Mathie didn’t consider to be reliable evidence, wasn’t it, Dana?

          • Actually, Mathie considered TWO of Jacobs’ childhood diarrhea studies to be high-quality. I’m not clear to which one you are referring. And I couldn’t help but notice that this important fact is “overlooked” by you and Edzard. I wonder why…

          • Here’s a good idea, Dana: rather than retreading your lame Argument from Authority, why don’t you walk us through these trials and explain exactly what makes them “high quality”.

            Don’t worry, we’ll wait; we have to stock up on popcorn anyhow.

    • Hi Dana!

      While you’re here, what’s your views on this paper by Weatherley-Jones? Is it robust? Was it well conducted? Was it properly randomised and blinded? Did it give reliable results, do you think?

      A randomised, controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome

  • Dear Edzard,
    when looking at your “Hall of Fame of SCAM”, as a German I feel a bit neglected (if not offended) to find only three of my fellow countrymen on this list. Should not at least the wonderful Harald Walach be mentioned here, who as a professor in Frankfurt (Oder) succeeded in wrecking the reputation of a whole university?
    Indeed, you might consider starting some kind of competition for future places on the list, inviting anyone to suggest (and give reasons why) persons who deserve the honor to be mentioned there.
    Moreover, this Hall of Fame should not be limited to physicians still living. For example, the history of Chinese medicine in the West is in fact a history of frauds, like Soulié de Morant and de la Fuye in France, Bachmann (founder of the DÄGfA, the largest German acupuncture society) and Porkert in Germany, Miriam Lee in the USA, or the self-styled “Professor” Worsley in the UK. Aren’t these ladies and gentlemen much more interesting and much more important than those rather insignificant figures like, let’s say, Jens Behnke?
    Asks, with best greetings from Berlin
    Hanjo Lehmann

    • thank you for your suggestions. I promise to consider them carefully; certainly Walach was on my list of candidates, and surely the HALL OF FAME can be expected to grow in the near future.

  • Hey John Travis…so, after conducting 3 high-quality clinical trials where she consistently found significant results in the INDIVIDUALIZED homeopathic treatment of children with diarrhea, she conducted one study in which every child was given the same medicine…without individualization…and this trial showed that there was no significance.

    Based on these facts, do you STILL feel that she was unwarranted to make those statements…OR are you against science. You sound like Trump with an axe to grind. My sympathies.

    • Those trials were 20 years ago. Plenty of time for others to replicate the results and for individualised homeopathy to become front-line treatment for childhood diarrhoea.

      Hasn’t happened, has it.

      Why do you think this is?

      Might this be because three trials were not of high quality but were the standard exercises in p-hacking and Texas sharpshooting that we see time and again from idiot homeoquacks desperate to seek validation of their faith in the nonexistent powers of magic shaken water?

      Others thought so. And Edzard gave a list of references above showing exactly that.

      The Jacobs diarrhoea trials were recognised as the nonsense they are and rightly ignored, Dana.

      Scientifically-ignorant fools such as yourself who want to continue trying to beat their empty drums are objects of ridicule. You turn up here time and again to do your Rumpelstiltskin act, stamping, frothing and jabbering and are shown to be wrong each and every time. You never learn,Dana. Never. That is why you are a fool. It is why your sputterings are ignored. You are a foolish little man who once again is happy to demonstrate this foolishness on a public forum.

      • To Dana a positive study is the end of enquiry, not its beginning. Conversely a negative study is clearly in error.

        This is what really discredits AltMed practices: not our knowledge of the claims themselves, but our understanding of the ways in which we humans really like to fool ourselves. Match those behaviors and it’s a high likelihood the whole lot’s a fraud, and it only remains to be seen whether its practitioners are knowingly scamming others or if they’re scamming themselves too.

    • @ Dana Ullman

      No – you are, as per usual, missing the point!

      she spins the results to suit her religious like faith in homeopathy.
      even where the results of her “studies” are clearly neutral or negative she still reports the results as though they were positive.

      also she clearly states that she is setting out to prove that homeopathy can treat childhood diarrhoea – in other words she has a fixed belief that this result is true and she is determined to prove that it is true. A real scientist sets out to determine the facts. They have a hypothesis and they try to prove it true or false – not to prove it true come fell or high water.
      Like all homeopaths she has a deeply held conviction that her silly beliefs are true despite all the evidence to the contrary.
      And she is determined to “prove” this no matter what. This is not science – it is insanity.

      But since you suffer from exactly the same delusions and fixed beliefs which are immune to any kind of reason then I guess that you are also unable to gain any insight into this problem.

      • John…please show me EVIDENCE of any religion that conducted randomized double-blind and placebo controlled trials. If you can’t, then, there is something DIFFERENT going on here that doesn’t fit in YOUR RELIGION and your belief system.

        As for me, I follow the science.

        How embarrassing for you.

        • Hey Dana, your echolalia is hanging out again.

          “As for me, I follow the science.”

          Collecting the garbage it discards behind it.

        • @ Dana Ullman

          I am not in the least embarrassed – why should I be?

          “As for me, I follow the science.” – is this meant to be ironic? Do you have a sense of humour that you have been hiding all this time?
          We have never before seen any evidence on this blog that you “follow the science.”

          Homeopathy, as has been attested by many observers here and elsewhere, displays many of the features of a religion or even a cult – certainly it does not conform with the norms of a scientific endeavour.

          Homeopaths have an unshakeable belief in the “truth” of their calling – it is impervious to reason, logic and evidence to the contrary.
          This belief is impervious to the fact that it contradicts many well-established principles of chemistry, physics and biochemistry.
          Their belief is not based on sound reasoning but on “magical thinking.”
          There has never been any sound evidence or even rational explanation for its supposed workings or laws and these have not been established to be consistently true empirically.
          e.g. law of similars, dilutions making greater potency, effects of succussion, provings.
          The ability of homeopathy to “trap” the more bizarre substances such as moon-light and rays of Saturn’s rings.
          The inability of homeopaths to differentiate one nostrum from another except by its label.
          The persistent lack of evidence over 200 years that homeopathy is capable of reliably curing or treating any disease or condition.

          So what you are following is clearly delusional, magick, and fantasy – and anything BUT science!
          I am afraid that the only person you are fooling is yourself – and very probably your punters.

    • Hey Dana!

      What do you think of this individualised homeopathy trial?

      • Alan…first, can you point me to ANY effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome that fits your standards?

        Thanx…I will predict that you don’t reply (or can’t make a proper reference).

        As for this trial, the researchers gave a proper objective evaluation of it in their conclusions:

        “There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo. Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation. Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger samples.”

        This may be the best results to date of any controlled randomized double-blind trial on CFS…but I’m open to see what other trials you know that had better results.

        • Alan…first, can you point me to ANY effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome that fits your standards?

          A straw man, Dana. And a completely irrelevant one.

          “There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo.

          Which is exactly what statistics says an ineffective treatment will show in trials.

          And the conclusions?

          Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger samples.

          The trial was from 2004. Plenty of time for further research to have been done to confirm the results and for homeopathy to become front-line treatment for CFS.

          Hasn’t happened, has it.

          Once again, a big FAIL for magic shaken water, Dana.

          Same as every time.

          Keep kicking the dead horse, Dana.

          • Thanx for confirming that conventional medicine offers no effective treatment for CFS.

            In comparison, this well-controlled trial shows some benefits from homeopathic treatment….which seems to be a lot safer and more effective than anything that Big Pharma provides.

            Once again, a big FAIL for Big Pharma…and a safer and more effective alternative from homeopathy.

            By the way, in THIS case, you are that dead horse…and there’s no need to kick a dead horse.

          • @ Dana Ullman re treatment for CFS

            “.which seems to be a lot safer and more effective than anything that Big Pharma provides.”

            in your dreams…..

            well it would be a lot safer wouldn’t it – since most of your nostrums are diluted out of existence and contain not a single molecule of active substance? What could be safer than a pure PLACEBO!
            What a nonsensical comment!

            That is one of the problems with giving drugs that contain an active component – they actually have a real effect on human systems – they carry the potential to have harmful effects as well as beneficial ones.
            You really don’t understand how these things work do you?

            There is however always the potential for secondary harm – where people miss out on treatment that could be beneficial while they are messing about with magic water instead of proper medicine and their condition deteriorates in the interim.

            As for believing that your nostrums actually work…….I have addressed this before.
            Studies that are poorly designed and have all kinds of problems and have to be contorted to try to show a positive result (as nearly all homeopathic studies do) are not evidence that “homeopathy works.”
            This is just further evidence that homeopathy is a belief system and that whatever the evidence actually shows homeopaths will just go on believing in it.

            You do not “do science” – if you did evidence would change your mind.

          • @Dullman: OR, how about this:

            Conventional medicine is honest enough to admit it doesn’t have a treatment for CFS… YET. Whereas SCAM has zero problem screwing patients out of their money with empty promises of magic cures.

            See how easy it is to interpret this situation either way? That’s why evidence matters. Which the depth and sincerity of your belief is not.

          • interestingly, there is some evidence for some interventions for CFS, e.g.:
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26375519/

          • Once again, a big FAIL for Big Pharma…and a safer and more effective alternative from homeopathy.

            No, Dana.

            As I said. The paper is from 2004. Have the results been replicated?

            No.

            Has homeopathy become a front-line treatment for CFS?

            No.

            Have trials shown any treatment to be particularly successful in the treatment of CFS?

            No.

            Do doctors insist that any of their treatments are successful and continue using them despite clinical trials showing the opposite?

            No.

            Do homeopaths insist that their treatments are successful and continue using them despite overwhelming clinical evidence showing the opposite?

            Yes.

            Because homeopaths are antiscientific …

            You’re trumpeting one trial. An old trial. Unreplicated. Which returned the results you’d expect from an inert therapy.

            Is that the best you can do?

            Yes, Dana. It is. Because, again, you have nothing.

            Truly pathetic, Dana.

            As ever.

          • Lenny: “As I said. The paper is from 2004. Have the results been replicated? No.”

            As I’ve noted before: Dana’s mission is to confirm his beliefs, not his claims. Of course, he doesn’t see the distinction, which is part of his problem. He still thinks it is our job to disprove homeopathy, but it’s not: it’s his. The only way to prove homeopathy—or any ostensible science—is valid is to do your very best to prove that it isn’t and thoroughly fail at that. But this demands a rigor born of a willingness to be wrong, and to declare yourself wrong before anyone else can.

            At risk of Godwinning (Roger-ing?) the thread, Dana’s worse than ruddy Chamberlain†: “I have here this piece of paper…” He has no comprehension of his own shortcomings, never mind the desire to negate them. Which is why homeopathy fails: not because it is proved right or wrong, but because it refuses to prove it either way. It seeks only confirmation; nothing else.

            Revealing a simple truth:

            Dana is a coward.

            So are Heinrich, Roger, RG, and Dendra. Because not a single one of them has the stones to ask of herself: “In what ways might I be wrong?” Never mind answer it honestly.

            We can shred their useless papers all day long, but that is us now missing the point. The evidence we should demand of them is evidence that they have already tried (and failed) to shred them themselves. Then we’ll be in a position to discuss what’s actually in them.

            († Though the much-maligned Chamberlain probably understood war was inevitable and was simply stalling for time as best he could. Dana’s not even that insightful, genuinely choosing to believe in the worthless scribble he proudly waves about.)

            But Jesus answered, “The scripture says, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”—Luke 4:12

        • Oh dear, Dana.

          I made no claims for anything about treatments for CFS, so, you know, I have no work to do here.

          But thanks for at least partially answering my question. I did manage to read the paper myself so I know what the authors said, but I was interested in your views on it – as bizarre as that is.

          Any thoughts on the blinding and its effectiveness?

          • I would say Dana is very effectively blinded by his religion. But you already knew that. Whether he will ever rise above it, well that is the challenge.

          • I had a look at the paper. They certainly bind themselves in knots to make a negative study look positive. This study is equal to throwing dice and concluding that because six turned up in one of the throws, that must mean six is important.

            Conclusions: There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo. Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation. Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger samples.

            “Turd polishing” comes to mind.
            There is actually no evidence to be found in there, if you don’t count evidence of the futility of play medicine.

            Thanks for the joke Alan.
            Homeopathy is certainly embarrasing, itself.

Leave a Reply to john travis Cancel 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