This randomized, double-blind, two-armed, parallel, single-center, placebo-controlled study investigated the effectiveness and safety of the homeopathic medicine, Natrum muriaticum LM2, for mild cases of COVID-19.
Participants aged > 18 years, with influenza-like symptoms and a positive COVID test were recruited and randomized (1:1) into two groups that received different treatments during a period of at-home isolation. One group received the homeopathic medicine Natrum muriaticum, prepared with the second degree of the fifty-millesimal dynamization (LM2; Natrum muriaticum LM2), while the other group received a placebo.
The primary endpoint was time until recovery from COVID-19 influenza-like symptoms. Secondary measures included a survival analysis of the number and severity of COVID-19 symptoms (influenza-like symptoms plus anosmia and ageusia) from a symptom grading scale that was informed by the participant, hospital admissions, and adverse events. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate time-to-event (survival) measures.
Data from 86 participants were analyzed (homeopathy, n = 42; placebo, n = 44). There was no difference in time to recovery between the two groups (homeopathy, n = 41; placebo, n = 41; P = 0.56), nor in a sub-group that had at least 5 moderate to severe influenza-like symptoms at the beginning of monitoring (homeopathy, n = 15; placebo, n = 17; P = 0.06). Secondary outcomes indicated that a 50% reduction in symptom score was achieved significantly earlier in the homeopathy group (homeopathy, n = 24; placebo, n = 25; P = 0.04), among the participants with a basal symptom score ≥ 5. Moreover, values of restricted mean survival time indicated that patients receiving homeopathy might have improved 0.9 days faster during the first five days of follow-up (P = 0.022). Hospitalization rates were 2.4% in the homeopathy group and 6.8% in the placebo group (P = 0.62). Participants reported 3 adverse events in the homeopathy group and 6 in the placebo group.
The authors concluded that the results showed that Natrum muriaticum LM2 was safe to use for COVID-19, but there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoints of Natrum muriaticum LM2 and placebo for mild COVID-19 cases. Although some secondary measures do not support the null hypothesis, the wide confidence intervals suggest that further studies with larger sample sizes and more symptomatic participants are needed to test the effectiveness of homeopathic Natrum muriaticum LM2 for COVID-19.
Homeopaths will probably claim that the trial was negative because homeopathic treatments must be individualized (true only for one school of homeopathy). More rational thinkers might point out that the study was woefully underpowered and therefore the positive trends seen in some of the subgroups are nothing other than background noise. Others again might notice that, due to the small sample size, the randomization was not successful in generating comparable groups: the placebo group was older, had more pre-existing conditions, and took more conventional medication than the homeopathy group. And they might point out that these differences could easily explain some of the findings.
Whichever way we turn it, the bottom line is simple:
Homeopathy is ineffective for COVID infections.
95 Responses to Homeopathy for COVID-19: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial shows that it does not work
Leave a Reply to DavidB Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Natrium muriaticum is sodium chloride, table salt!
The ineffectiveness of sodium chloride as a homeopathic remedy was already established in the Nuremberg saline experiment of 1835.
This Nuremberg saline experiment of 1835 proved nothing. “Hey, y’all, go home and take this remedy and come back in a few weeks and tell us what happened.” Does that sound like the basis of good science?
the way you put it, no.
but it did not quite happen like that; and if you are honest, ask yourself whether you would not praise the Nuremberg investigators if their findings had turned out to be pro-homeopathy. BE HONEST!
That is exactly how it happened. They made a remedy which we have to assume was made properly. Then they divided the group in two, remedy group and placebo group. So far so good. Then they gave each them the “remedy” and told them to go home and take it and come back later and tell what happened. This is not proper proving procedure.
The remedy has to be repeated sufficiently and there has to be an objective observer, ie. a supervisor who checks in with the prover on a regular basis during the proving and records new symptoms, and takes a health history before the proving starts, which are critical functions of a well conducted proving. There doesnt seem to have been any advice given on things to avoid during the proving e.g. coffee, camphor, other medicinal substances, etc. This is not a controlled study. Its a lark, like the less-than-amazing Randi downing a bottle of Calm Forte and saying “See, it doesnt do anything.”
Honestly I would be very surprised if anyone would notice anything under those conditions and certainly they wouldnt remember it weeks later. A very sensitive prover might notice something from a single dose. Most not.
“A very sensitive prover might notice something from a single dose. Most not.”
You need to provide evidence for that statement, especially the last sentence.
Most people will, quite naturally, “notice something” after a single dose when they are expecting to “notice something”. By definition, a prover is expecting to notice, and record, not just something, but anything regardless of how mundane or bizarre the anything(s) may seem to be. Therefore, the likelihood of a prover noticing one previously specified particular thing, or nothing whatsoever, is very much smaller than the likelihood of them noticing anything at all.
From the beginning (1796) Dr Hahnemann’s directives on how to do a homeopathic proving tell provers to take the remedy repeatedly over several days until new symptoms are noticed by the supervisor in conjunction with the prover. At the end of the proving all the symptoms from all the provers are collated and any symptoms are compared to the provers’ health histories (taken before the proving started) to rule out any that have been already sited in those histories and any that might be explained by some other cause in the prover’s life (e.g. some trauma).
Its a tricky exacting process but the list of symptoms that remains can be used as indications for homeopaths to determine how to use the remedy in practice. And then it becomes a self-correcting process because homeopaths note which symptoms appear in clinical practice more regularly for that remedy and they are highlighted in the literature. A spurious symptom that is accidentally included will have little to no effect on the use of the remedy. A remedy is chosen based on the mental, physical and emotional totality of the case.
Its common knowledge that some people are more sensitive to certain drugs than others. Some can drink a pot of coffee to almost no effect and others are strongly effected by any coffee. No evidence needed.
You did not address anything in my comment, which started with me quoting YOUR claim that:
“A very sensitive prover might notice something from a single dose. Most not.”
I am very familiar with numerous branches of SCAM, especially homeopathy, therefore I don’t need you to lecture me with “From the beginning (1796) Dr Hahnemann’s directives on how to do a homeopathic proving …”
It may help you to engage in discussions if you:
• stop writing “its” when you mean “it’s” (contraction of “it is”)
• reply to what was actually written, rather than replying to your straw man creation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Yes, I did. We all have individual levels of sensitivity and it has been recognized since the beginning of time, certainly since the beginning of homeopathy as I gave evidence, and even recognized by conventional medicine.
I have made a conscious decision to eliminate apostrophes when I write informally. Useless since everyone, including you, apparently, know when they are expected.
No, you have provided only an assertion, not evidence. You have dismissed the points I laid out in my first comment.
You also ignored the red banner at the top of the page:
Please remember: if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.
Hitchens’s epistemological razor succinctly explains the reason for the red banner:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
— Christopher Hitchens
“I have made a conscious decision to eliminate apostrophes when I write informally. Useless since everyone, including you, apparently, know when they are expected.”
In other comments you have written Dunning-Kreuger” and “wikipedia”, which are not informal, they are incorrect.
I shan’t ask you again for evidence, I shall instead dismiss without evidence your claim: “A very sensitive prover might notice something from a single dose. Most not.”
“I have made a conscious decision to eliminate apostrophes when I write informally”.
There are goals much more worth expending conscious decisions on, in my opinion.
Since you only make this conscious decision when writing informally, could we ask you always to write formally here? It’s more pleasant to read writing that employs apostrophes correctly and doesn’t look illiterate. And it will save you some conscious effort.
aren’t you asking a lot of our little Stan?
I have hopes that he will rise to the challenge….. (and emerge from it a better writer).
optimist!
DavidB
It is also easier to read. I get very irritated when I have to reread a sentence because I couldn’t parse it correctly the first time.
If somebody can’t take the trouble to write their own language correctly then it does make me wonder where else they cut corners.
Dr. JMK
I’m pretty sure it’s been disproved that education equal intelligence ?
Mr. Joromat, please stop digging.
Mr Joromat,
It seems strange that anybody should want to take the trouble to carry out a study to answer that question. Do you have a reference for it?
Your comment is a bit of a non-sequitur; clearly haven’t read my previous comment very carefully.
James Joromat wrote “I’m pretty sure it’s been disproved that education equal intelligence ?”
education: mass noun; external
equal: adjective
intelligence: mass noun; internal
Well done!
Looking up what a homeopathic remedy actually was before it was diluted into oblivion and given a fancy Latin name, is always a guaranteed laugh. I have no idea how a homeopathic strength of table salt would translate into normal grains and whether the ‘treatment’ could be taken at home without paying homeopathic prices and with the same lack of effect. You would think that based on homeopathic principles a cheaper option would work better.
There’s actually a homeopathic preparation sold that’s made from dogshit, called excrementum caninum.
The most concentrated solution they offer is 12X, i.e. one in a trillion. At 12X, the vial would actually still have some dogshit in it 🙁
What exactly is this dogshit remedy supposed to treat? Does the breed of the dog matter? Has anyone done provings on this remedy?
Stan,
You seem very knowledgeable in homeopathy. Are you able to answer the above questions?
Homeopathic provings: Bullshit about dogshit
https://edzardernst.com/2019/09/homeopathic-provings-bullshit-about-dogshit/
Heedless Homeopathy. Part 2: Revolting Remedies
https://edzardernst.com/2020/08/heedless-homeopathy-part-2-revolting-remedies/
Apparently it’s mainly used to treat people who are psychologically damaged by having been dominated – the idea being that the ancestors of dogs lived in packs, with strict dominance/submission relationships.
Of course! They wouldn’t sell a homeopathic unproven remedy!
Only one dog is needed, the original material is only handled once. It was a mutt.
Thank you Robin and Pete for enlightening me. Who knew fido’s feces can treat so many symptoms! No one needs expensive psychotropic drugs anymore. Big pharma will surely be put of business by man’s best friend.
Why dont you do a proving and discover it for yourself. Easy to do. Or look up the materia medica of the proving if that is too much trouble for you.
You want me to save you from the Dunning-Kreuger effect in homeopathy? You know enough to criticize it, basically what you gleaned from wikipedia, that the remedies are extremely diluted and like cures like (which most of you dont really grok), but you dont want to really understand it.
@stan
I bet homeopaths have already thought of a remedy to dampen the effects of Dunning-Kruger.
What is there to grok when homeopaths are making remedies with shit, literally.
@stan
The amusing thing is that the Dunning-Kruger effect cannot apply to homeopathy, since studying homeopathy does not lead to improved knowledge and insight. Quite the opposite, really: the more time one spends studying homeopathy, the less one finds there is to know about it.
Read: completely absent in most cases
Read: is supposed to work by magic.
Please note that there is no evidence at all for the viability of ‘like cures like’ or ‘dilution makes it stronger’, nor that one can determine any therapeutic effects by administering it to healthy people (‘proving’).
As I said: once you take a thorough, open-minded look at homeopathy, the less there turns out to be. Which, in a twisted sort of logical way, is indeed what one would expect from homeopathy 🙂
Well at least it’s not bullsh*t……
An interesting account of a case where a homeopath used this dogshit treatment.
In this case, the homeopath was acting as a sort of therapist, and they seem to have actually helped the patient, who “presents with the diagnoses of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, hypertension, and herpes zoster of the left eye”. The homeopath gave him an Excrementum caninum preparation without telling him what it was made from. They chose Excrementum caninum because the patient said “I had this morose, sick feeling. I just felt like shit!”, and that he was suppressed and controlled a lot. And he said he loved dogs, and this was suggestive.
Psoriatic arthritis, which often causes hypertension, has psychosomatic aspects.
The homeopath listened to the patient talk about his emotional issues and their upbringing, and this and the suggestion of help with a placebo, may have helped the patient change his approach to life, and helped with his psoriasis. He doesn’t say his shingles are better, though.
Many diseases have psychosomatic aspects, so showing (over and over!) that super-diluted homeopathic preparations are placebos is not the end of the story.
Are they good placebos? Does combining short-term therapy with a heavy dose of magic help with psychosomatic diseases? Do the effects last – was this patient permanently helped?
And how does short-term therapy without a dose of magic compare to short-term therapy combined with sympathetic magic (homeopathy) in treating diseases with a psychosomatic aspect?
Those are all great questions, Robin.
But my questions are: Do the homeopath’s ego get a boost when he/she acts as a doctor and a therapist, and successfully feed some unsuspecting patient a highly diluted solution made of dogshit? Are there any other ways a homeopath’s ego could be boosted, without involving a patient?
@R. Daneel
It was made of water.
The homeopath’s profession probably is part of their self-esteem. And it would also make the patient feel good and confirm their world view, that their attempt at helping themselves actually worked. That’s part of the placebo effect.
Also, a patient might be intimidated or want to be polite, and give a more positive report than what they actually experienced, and that’s also part of the placebo effect.
So there would have to be an objective measure of efficacy in a clinical trial comparing placebo effects.
Patients should be warned that homeopathy is less effective than the standard medical treatment, when this is true.
The placebo effect of therapy plus sympathetic magic could also be compared to the placebo effect of the standard medical treatment. Standard medical treatments are probably good placebos, at least for people who trust in them.
Right, it is made of water. I meant to say “highly diluted solution of dogshit”
I doubt many homeopath’s realize that their treatments are no better than a placebo. They may have to drink the koolaid themselves before they can effectively convince others to do so.
Would the placebo effect work if the patient is informed ahead of time that the treatment they are getting is a placebo?
Huh? Are you implying that all standard medical treatments (conventional medicine) are placebos?
Thanks for your link “interesting account”, Robin.
The following BS caught my eye, especially as you’ve already noted: “The most concentrated solution they offer is 12X, i.e. one in a trillion. At 12X, the vial would actually still have some dogshit in it 🙁”
Regarding placebos, I thoroughly recommend reading the following, which includes the term “true placebo effect” proposed by Edzard Ernst (1995) [1]:
Placebo, Are You There?, by Jean Brissonnet, translation by Harriet Hall, MD.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-are-you-there/
[1] Ernst E., Resch KL.(1995). Concept of true and perceived placebo effects. BMJ 311: 551-553.
Well, there’s a shock! Not. LM2! If Nat mur LM2, or any ‘remedy’ LM2, was reliably demonstrated to have any effect on any living organism, the whole of chemistry and physics would come tumbling down…..
I don’t believe in homeopathy, I believe in real science but it has failed mankind. I caught covid after vaccination, at current state of research with this common flu. We shut down the whole world for a flu that killed just slightly higher death rate than a regular occurring flu. We should have shut down the 2% of those who were likely to die, not the 98%. I have lost faith in medical research, the medical field ruined us do to politics. Prove me wrong! You are a sham just like other charlatans. A middle class citizen is starving now, we cannot afford food, gasoline to get to work, what was the endgame with you idiots? We relied on your expertise, it has failed those who died and those who are living the life of poverty due to inflation.
How did you manage to put so much misinformation into just one short comment?
Please enlighten me in a rebuttal. If scientists knew of their calculations of 2%, why quarantine 98%.
far beyond enlightenment!
I am guessing you are not a professor in good standing because you fought a politician (actually royalty). Were you forced to resign as a professor because your grants were cancelled? Politics sway scientists, sorry you didn’t win with the truth. Very ironic.
oh, dear!
I will enlighten, why is homeopathy even practiced? They paid a politician off to approve it, it’s in the law books to freely practice it, no?
‘jim’ wrote “why is homeopathy even practiced?”
Why is X even practised, where X is a stand-in for such things as:
• astrology
• cosplay ‘Doctor’ (e.g., by a chiroquacker)
• applied kinesiology (a cosplay ‘Doctor’ prop)
• Cygnus X-1 homeopathy
• cartomancy (e.g., tarot card reading)
• tasseography (tea leaf reading)
• mediumship (not the fake kind, obviously)
Jim, what happens to the virus when it spreads among the 98% who are supposedly unlikely to die? How does it change?
@john
It spreads, you quarantine the vulnerable. Scientific evidence has stated who the vulnerable are. Do you believe in science?
The 98%, over half of them have received vaccination. It spreads to most of us vaccinated, regardless.
Jim
I asked you what happens to the virus and how it changes?
I caught covid after vaccination, at current state of research with this common flu.
Total nonsense.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu
@RPGNo1
Yes, many times more deadly… FOR A SPECIFIC age population, not for the entire world !
Jim did mention that.
@James Joromat
Wrong.Covid-19 is still at least 5 times as deadly than seasonal flu for all age groups – even for children. So far in the US, Covid-19 killed over 1100 patients up to the age of 18. The average influenza season kills about 100 patients in the same age group. Even in the worst influenza season of the past 2 decades, the number of paediatric deaths did not rise above 300.
Jim is not very smart.
Anyway, this is completely off-topic here.
@Richard Rasker
Wrong Richard
The delta is much smaller than you depict.
This recent statistic is different than your 1100 number. (950)
The pandemic has occurred now for more than two years. So your annual mortality statistic needs to be doubled.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
First of all, the seasonal flue seemed to have disappeared since the pandemic began… hmmm. So nobody died of the seasonal flu after 2020 ? Those number can’t be trusted.
Beyond that, MD’s and hospitals were incentivized to report/determine covid outcomes for everything under the sun that may have actually been the patients cause of death.
To make my point, my wife and I had a close friend that passed away a couple months back. He battled covid for 6 weeks. After the six weeks, he was rid of the covid virus, but unfortunately for him he got a staff infection while still recovering and thus was his actual cause of death…. but not reported that way. True, the covid landed him in the hospital, I still don’t count it a covid death. Your millage may vary.
“Those number can’t be trusted”
Personally, I think it’s you and anything you write that cannot be trusted.
@James Joromat
Nope.
I got my data straight from the CDC, and that should be the best data there is. Also note that it is marked as ‘provisional’, because death reports are always a couple of weeks behind the real figures.
And that is exactly what I did, but what you failed to notice: I said that Covid-19 was 5 times as deadlier than influenza for even children, and then mentioned an average of 100 paediatric influenza deaths per year. Which results in 500 paediatric Covid deaths in one year, and thus roughly 1000 in 2 years.
The flue disappeared? What chimney are you talking about? But yes, there were way less cases of the seasonal flu since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. And you know why that is?
BECAUSE THOSE MEASURES AGAINST SPREAD OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS WORKED – and yes, they also worked against influenza viruses and lots of other nasties that usually get spread around in the cold season. Those same measures that dim people such as you claim didn’t work, weren’t necessary, only harmed everyone etcetera etcetera. Well done for noticing.
This is an old lie. The rest of your drivel is not worth responding to.
And once again: this is off-topic here. Please keep your comments on-topic or simply shut up.
Funny, I am not smart but your country has approved homeopathy as a legitimate practice of medicine and pays for it with taxes, keep voting brother. Back on topic.
I am an educated high school graduate, no other schooling, yet, you responded.
You are very smart.
@jim
I don’t even have a high school degree or any kind of formal education. It is very liberating to not be shackled by so-called scientific knowledge or any knowledge for that matter. Do not fall for what all these educated elites have to say. You are free to make up your own alternative facts and act on the knowledge you have acquired naturally and organically and not via a college or university. When you are not bound by limitations of scientific knowledge, you are free to say whatever comes to your mind, no matter how idiotic and delusional that may sound to these knowledgeable elites. But fear not my friend! you are always right no matter what!
You do a very fine job owning these elites with your sharp-witted humor and gotcha retorts. Keep up the great work and remember, free speech protects your right to say whatever comes to your uneducated or undereducated mind and you are free to live and die in a knowledge-free and fact-free cage of your own making.
Richard
I find it amusing that you inform me that the subject is off topic, yet you respond just the same…lol
Your parents must be so proud of you Richard, to know that their son has never been proved wrong… congratulations.
One more thing. I’m guessing you’ve read the book “How To Lie With Statistics” … at least a couple of times.
I think that’s a pretty disgraceful response.
yes, he is truly gifted at disgraceful responses
None of which has anything to do with homeopathy.
Not to mention little to do with science. You are talking about political decisions, some of which may have made a nod to science, but most of which didn’t.
Inflation, petrol prices and the rest are also nothing to do with science: this is again more to do with political decisions which were in no way informed by any science.
Also: if only figures for excess death rates in the last couple of years were available somewhere (collated by scientific means)…Y’know, if there were devices (made using scientific knowledge) that allowed one to look at this sort of information stored somewhere else (enabled using scientific knowledge) that might be good too.
Meanwhile, I’m about to go out in my car (made using scientific knowledge) and will be wearing some clothes (made using scientific knowledge) and a pair of glasses (made using scientific knowledge) and all while being kept alive by several drugs (all made using scientific knowledge). Not to forget being glad that I know lots of things because of my scientific education…
Awful stuff this science: dunno why we bother with it!
@Murmur
Although both you and Jim posted your respective messages using a computing machine made using scientific knowledge, only one of you seems to understand the significance of science and that ain’t Jim.
If only real science had invented a time machine using scientific knowledge, it would be possible to send all science haters to early medieval ages, until they understand the importance of science. I can tell you for sure that real science had failed in that regard.
@Daneel
Scientist are corrupted just like politicians, not all, but many. If you are true with above comment, let us see transparency with all politicians in office and scientists working on a government grant. Amazing how so many working class folks in those professions become millionaires leaving office. Transparency is not important to certain people. I would love to see open books, family ancestry/friendships to any sitting politician.
show us the evidence that MANY scientists are corrupted, please.
if you have none, shut up.
“Transparency is not important to certain people.”
Especially not important, it seems, to you, ‘jim’.
I have responded to some comments in blog, Edzard has cancelled some of them. His blog so understandable. Placebos and censorship might be one and one in medical scientific field. Maybe Elon Musk will buy this site as well.
it’s not for sale!
I cancel stuff that is too stupid to post
Which is more of a critique of capitalist economics and the politics which support it, rather than anything to do with science…
Perfect example of corrupted, take that back, scientists who believe in censorship to opposition. Certain people turn off the reply button so one cannot respond. It is cute, I understand private ownership and complete control of ones entities. I believe in ownership and they can control the narrative. I believe in free enterprise.
Back on subject, homeopathy is a sham, most European government leaders approved of this sham, why, you tell me mister dollar. Dr. Ernst has a right to oppose it and I totally agree with him. Hint, Drs don’t make law, politicians do and big money is spent on laws. Laws are passed for who ever has the biggest pocket, direction of money and privy, those who will benefit.
you can stop now!
I think everyone here has understood how deranged you are.
THANKS!
@jim
You have no idea what censorship means. I will enlighten you.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Countries like New Zealand almost eliminated COVID with isolation. The US couldn’t do it because of stupid and dishonest politicians.
Isolating the vulnerable is impossible. How could you tell if that person next to you in the movie theater is vulnerable? What about people who don’t live alone?
Getting COVID when you were vaccinated would make anyone miserable, but your chances were far better. And here you are.
Biologically flu is to Coronavirus as human is to lobster. Calling it flu is like waving a flag that says no one should take you seriously.
The numbers in the trial are pitiful. Do they describe power calculations?
yes, they do, but that’s pitiful too.
How am I deranged? Answer me, who passes laws to pay for homeopathy with tax money?
” passes laws to pay for homeopathy with tax money”
In my country (the UK) no ‘tax money’ is spent on homeopathy
Nor in mine (Australia).
Not happening here either, in the Netherlands. But maybe you can provide an example?
Formerly there were five homeopatahic hospitals in the UK, funded by the National Health Service. They were at least staffed by properly qualified Doctors, who saw homeopathy as a medical specialty. But they have all either closed down, or re-branded as centres for ‘integrative medicine’ where patients will have access to proper medical care, in addition to whatever other ‘treatments’ they may receive. That’s not to say that National HealthService money SHOULD be spent on such an approach……
I hadn’t heard of an LM2 dilution before, but apparently, it is a 1:50,000(*) dilution. But the LM1 dilution is ALSO 1:50,000.
SuccussedConfused? I am …And what dosage of this 1:50,000 dilution was administered by these clowns? Was it 5 drops per day? Or was it 100 drops per hour? Or was it just 1 drop at the beginning of the ‘trial’? In real medicine, dosage is considered to be rather important …
Anyway, assuming a couple of dozen drops a day = a few millilitres a day I get approximately 50 nanograms of NaCl per day. Which is about as much as is found in one tablespoon of high-quality drinking water, and way less than what is already present in even one drop of blood – as we all have about 200 grams of salt in our body.
I really, really wonder why these crazy people still bother with this total nonsense. Still, there is one glimmer of hope: at least they were honest enough to admit that it didn’t do anything. Maybe someday in the future, they’re ready to admit this for the whole of homeopathy.
*: Which goes to show that homeopaths not only manage to mess up the Latin language, but also don’t know how Roman numerals work. To the best of my knowledge, a smaller numeral preceding a larger one should be subtracted from the larger one. So ‘LM’ should read ‘-50 + 1,000’ = 950. Oh, and then they also stick in an Arabic numeral 2 for good measure, even though according to the information linked above, there is no difference with LM1.
If you are going to do a study that purports to say something about homeopathy, you actually have to do homeopathy. Giving the same remedy to everyone is not homeopathy, even if the study has all the nice science-y buzzwords like randomized, double-blind, two-armed, parallel, single-center, placebo-controlled etc, etc.
DON’T TALK TOSH!
in ‘clinical homeopathy’, the remedies are not individualized
https://aachomeopathy.com/?page_id=308#:~:text=Clinical%20homeopathy%2C%20from%20a%20practitioner%E2%80%99s%20perspective%2C%20is%20the,clinical%20evaluation%20of%20the%20condition%20of%20the%20patient.
Thank you so much for giving that link, it was fascinating. I’m particularly horrified by the idea of a homeopathic detoxicant. Leaving aside that detox is unnecessary and homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water, in homeopathic terms, surely a detoxicant would mean taking the actual substance you are trying to detox from?
“I’m particularly horrified by the idea of a homeopathic detoxicant. Leaving aside that detox is unnecessary and homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water, in homeopathic terms, surely a detoxicant would mean taking the actual substance you are trying to detox from?”
Well, not quite. Strictly, that would be termed “isopathy” – treating same with same, as opposed to treating like with like. Similar, but not identical.
(Thus, technically, as far as I understand it, the symptoms of lead poisoning would be treated, not with homeopathic lead, but with a serially diluted and succussed preparation of a substance that in a healthy person would cause symptoms somewhat LIKE but not quite the SAME as those of lead poisoning. Although – nicely illustrating the lack of any internal logic, one of the prominent homeopaths of the 19th century – I forget whom, maybe Kent – was reported to have felt unwell after eating a certain pudding, and to have prepared a homeopathic remedy from the same pudding, serially diluted and succussed).
People who have only vague ideas/information about homeopathy may not realise that it is not a single, coherent set of ideas. There are different views and practices regarding almost every aspect – Decimal or Centesimal potency, single-substance or multiple-substance ‘remedies’, polychrests, constitutional versus symptomatic prescribing, single or multiple dosage, avoidance of certain substances and practices while under homoepathic ‘treatment’, use of remedies based on disease matter (nosodes), and so on. There is no coherent approach, as far as I have ever read.
Well, as the great Stan Laurel observed, “You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead”…….
“People who have only vague ideas/information about homeopathy[1] may not realise that it is not a single, coherent set of ideas. There are different views and practices regarding almost every aspect …”
[1] or acupuncture, chiropractic, … in fact it applies to most of the branches of: SCAM, religion, and other belief systems.
The endless arguments over the tenets of a particular branch serve only the necessary purpose of theatrically distracting onlookers from the real issue: the branch is simply a business that has no end product. The business is not supplying resources to the customer, the customer is the resource to be exploited by the business.
”Giving the same remedy to everyone is not homeopathy(…)”
Wait what? You’re telling me there’s different kinds of magic water? My whole life is a lie!
Are you telling me that I shouldn’t have taken Boiron’s Oscillococcinum for my flu-like symptoms, because it’s not personalized? Maybe I should have taken Quietude or Cocyntal instead!
Or maybe I should just have drunk tap water, since it has memory of anything that it came in contact with.
/s
I would never think of treating those symptoms with Natrium muriatricum.
And L50 – why not C30?
For me I would take Aconitum D12 or C30 and I am done with the infection. Can’t remember that it did not work for me.
it really does not matter because nobody is able to tell the difference between these remedies. they are pure placebos!
And Julien, be careful of water’s memory. I’ve washed my feet in it. 🥺
I have done worse!
Stan
Curious isn’t it how the studies by Frass et al which provided (notionally) positive results used non-individualised remedies but were cited by homeopaths like Dana Ullman as proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Homeopathy only works when it is individualised. Except when it doesn’t. Or possibly does.
Nonsense stacked upon nonsense.
‘Giving the same remedy to everyone is not homeopathy’
Do you realize that this alone means that homeopathy can never have a reliable scientific evidence base? The whole basis of the scientific method is that if you keep doing the same thing with all the other variables controlled, you will keep getting the same results and you have made it impossible to do that!
Yes. It’s so noticeable that the homeopathy advocates are always saying homeopathy is different things, and coincidentally they always say anybody who critcises it doesn’t understand it.
The individualised approach merely shows there is no solid evidence base for homeopathy beyond individual(ised) anecdote. If there were an evidence base you would have to give the same remedy that has been proved repeatedly to work.
Can you imagine this in proper medicine? ‘Fluid retention? No I don’t think furosemide is right in your case. Let’s try thyroxine instead.
How am I deranged? Answer me, who passes laws to pay for homeopathy with tax money? I agree with every subject you have mentioned in last 20 years. I totally disagree with you ostracizing conservatives. I am conflicted and it pisses me off. You have a brilliant mind but you cannot accept differences of opinion on a minor, trivial subject. Leave politics out of it, engage all minds, not just yours.
what you write is not ‘conflicted’ but deranged
Does homeopathy admit the existence of diseases, as explained in the International Classification of Diseases? Do homeopaths order medical tests (biochemistry, images, etc)? Do you do a physical exam? In the event of the death of one of your patients, which could perfectly well occur, how do you fill in the medical certificate of cause of death if you do not admit the existence of diseases as scientifically based Medicine does? How do they certify work incapacities?
“You want me to save you from the Dunning-Kreuger effect in homeopathy? You know enough to criticize it, basically what you gleaned from wikipedia, that the remedies are extremely diluted and like cures like (which most of you dont really grok), but you dont want to really understand it.”
Stan is sounding awfully like the erstwhile Roger, with the talk in this Thread of provings.
It seems to be a common ploy, also referred to elsewhere in this august Blog, to claim that those who point out implausibilities in a treatment modality, have not properly understood it, and/or are incapable of doing so.
Stan, can you please clarify what your own background is in homeopathy, such that you understand it better than those questioning you? What books have you read? What courses have you taken? What certifications have you achieved?
Or is homeopathy more like ancient Gnosticism – you have to be specially initiated into the Mysteries?