‘Agoro’ is a German (all texts are my translations from German) website that claims this:
“We specialize in alternative methods of treatment from the field of natural medicine. Our mission is to ensure that the ancient wisdom of our grandparents and ancestors is not forgotten.”
Unsurprisingly, this subject interests me. In particular, I was fascinated by an article entitled
Nux vomica Globuli in der Homöopathie
Nux Vomica in homeopathy
Nux vomica is (after arnica) amongst the most popular remedies in homeopathy. Therefore, we should all be keen to learn all about it.
Here is the translation of this article:
Nux vomica is one of the homeopathic remedies that you can get in all pharmacies. It can help you with various diseases, such as stomach pain. You can also use this homeopathic remedy for nausea and heartburn. You can buy it in the city pharmacies, but you can also make it easy for yourself and use the online pharmacy for globules. Here you will be well advised on the dosage of homeopathic remedies. Similarly, you can also contact the homeopath or naturopath for good advice.
Nux vomica is a remedy derived from the medicinal plant nux vomica. You can use the homeopathic remedy in the potencies D6 and D12. In some cases, it can be recommended to you also in C6, C12, or C30.
You can use the homeopathic remedy in many ways, including for constipation or exhaustion. You will find out which dosage you can take if you consult a professional. In this way, you will be recommended the appropriate potency to experience help from it.
It is crucial that you always seek advice before taking the remedy. As already mentioned, you can use several contact points for this. Whether it is the pharmacy, the naturopath, or the homeopath. In addition, there are many family doctors who now also use homeopathy and could recommend you the appropriate dosage. The consultation is important in any case because the homeopathy must be adapted to your complaints. Otherwise, the remedy will not work or will not work properly.
If you want to use the remedy for yourself, you always need patience. Homeopathic remedies need a little time to work, that is their only disadvantage. How long this always depends on the person and the remedy. Sometimes it takes only a few hours, sometimes a few days or weeks. You can also get advice on this.
Indications for nux vomica
Stomach and intestinal problems
You can use the remedy for you in case of abdominal pain, mild biliousness, and various stomach and intestinal problems. The remedy can also be of great help for nausea, flatulence, nausea, and constipation.
Headaches and migraines
The remedy Nux vomica can help you if you suffer from headaches that are located just above the eye. It can also help you with migraines. Even with a hangover, the remedy could help.
Moods
If you suffer from autumn depression or are often easily frustrated, you can use the remedy.
_______________________
Yes, I do get easily frustrated with texts like this!
But I doubt that nux vomica can help me with this or any other problem.
Some might say that doubting is not good enough, evidence is needed!
I agree but was unable to find sound evidence to show that homeopathic nux vomica was better than a placebo for any condition (in case any of our regular defenders of homeopathy know more, please let me know). On the contrary, I only found studies that suggested its ineffectiveness. Here is an example:
In a monocenter prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was investigated on children with adenoid vegetations justifying an operation. Patients were treated with either homeopathic remedies such as Nux vomica D200, Okoubaka D3, Tuberculinum D200, Barium jodatum D4 and Barium jodatum D6 or with placebo. The duration of the study for each patient was 3 months. Examination of the ears using a microscope, rhinoscopy, stomatoscopy and pharyngoscopy, as well as tympanometry and audiometry were performed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Out of a total of 97 children studied between the ages of 4 to 10 years 82 could be analyzed. At the end of the study no operation was required in 70.7% of the placebo-treated children and in 78.1% of the children treated with homeopathic preparations. These results show no statistical significance.
So, where does that leave us in relation to the “ancient wisdom of our grandparents and ancestors“? I fear, that this story shows yet again that, when it comes to homeopathy, the scrutiny of ancient wisdom quickly turns it into old bullshit.
68 Responses to “Nux Vomica in homeopathy”: ancient wisdom turns out to be old bullshit
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
That “ancient wisdom” did nothing for a child mortality figure of about 30% and an average life span of maybe 50 years – many years of which were spent suffering from various illnesses and parasite infestations that we now consider insignificant and easy to solve – using real, modern medicine, NOT homeopathy.
And oh, ‘Nux Vomica’ is derived from strychnine, an extremely toxic substance that can cause a particularly unpleasant death in doses of less than a hundred milligram. So we better hope that the quacks diluting this stuff into oblivion indeed know what they’re doing, and make no mistakes.
Nux-vomica is not derived from strychnine. Nux is latin for nut. Nux-vomica is a nut that has small amounts of strychine in it. Sounds like you should familiarize yourself with it.
‘stan’ wrote: “Nux is latin for nut… Sounds like you should familiarize yourself with it.”
As usual, ‘stan’ is incorrect and he ignored the red banner:
Please remember: if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.
Latin nux [noun]:
1. a nut
2. a nut tree
3. a fruit with a hard shell or rind
…
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nux
Species: S. nux-vomica
Binomial name: Strychnos nux-vomica L.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strychnos_nux-vomica
Thank you for making my point. Nux-vomica is not derived from strychnine. Strychnine is extracted/derived from the nux-vomica nut (which is taken from the tree that you helpfully provided the wiki link to).
If ‘stan’ had bothered to read and understand the Wikipedia article then he would know that Strychnos nux-vomica does not have nuts, it has fruit.
Furthermore, if ‘stan’ had bothered to learn and understand homeopathy then he would know that the ‘remedies’ named nux-vomica have nothing whatsoever to do with nuts, nor fruit, but are made from the seeds, which contain (amongst many other things) both of the highly poisonous alkaloids strychnine and brucine; and other poisonous compounds.
I’ve emphasised the following for ‘stan’:
“Nux vomica is a tree. The seed is used to make medicine. Nux vomica contains strychnine and brucine, two toxic chemicals.
People use nux vomica for erectile dysfunction (ED), swelling of the stomach, constipation, anxiety, migraine, and many other conditions, but there is no good scientific evidence to support these uses. Nux vomica is also unsafe.”
[https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-58/nux-vomica]
“Homeopathic Nux vomica is made from the seeds of the Strychnine tree (Strychnos nux-vomica), which is native to Southeast Asia, particularly India. The raw seeds contain a toxic amount of strychnine alkaloids that have therapeutic action at certain, lower doses.”
[https://www.boironusa.com/nux-vomica-for-when-too-much-of-a-good-thing-goes-wrong/]
As usual, ‘stan’ is incorrect and he ignored the red banner.
How clever you are, stan. Please tell us how the Nux or nut or strychnine works when it is no longer in the pills?
@Björn Geir
I think you are clever enough to learn how it works by doing a homeopathic proving of it. Take a high potency repeatedly over several days and you can experience for yourself the resulting changes mental, emotional and physical. After a period of time it will wear off leaving you as before. Then you can read the same symptoms that others have experienced by doing the same experiment, here:
http://homeoint.org/books/boericmm/n/nux-v.htm
I will let you speculate on a mechanism for what you experienced. Or you can dismiss it as your own private fantasy, if you wish. But then you could repeat the experiment likely achieving identical results.
@stan
Homeopathic proving may well be the stupidest ritual in homeopathy there is, and only total imbeciles believe that it does anything at all.
“Then you can read the same symptoms that others have experienced by doing the same experiment, here: [URL] But then you could repeat the experiment likely achieving identical results.”
I thought provers were supposed to be healthy before the proving.
Strychnos nux-vomica is the species name for a tree whose seeds contain about 1.5% strychnine. Nux vomica is a common name for that tree (along with “strychnine tree”).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strychnos_nux-vomica#Toxicity
@Richard Rasker
Only a stupid imbecile responds to hearing about a process that has been well-documented for over 200 years, by saying ‘that doesnt work. Said imbecile could try it out for themselves as hundreds of thousands already have and experience it working directly. But that is the MO of the So-called Skeptics. Bizarre.
Dear Edzard,
you are talking here about a study being published in 1997. The aim was to find out, if treatment with a homeopathic approach could avoid removal of adenoids – and the outcome of the study that after treatment with either homeopathic remedies or placebo no child has to go under the knife – all of them were cured. What statistical effect would you expect if in the end all are healed?
The other aspect of this study is that Nux vomica does not have the core of its intended use for this kind of health problems.
As homeopathic treatment looks like the perfect placebo, it may be not fair to test them against a placebo. Placebo effect seems to be a great healer and for this reason, I do believe that this effect should be under consideration for almost all cases of illness where there is no risk of fatal developments that could be avoided by a more drastic therapy.
Best regards
Holger
Your idea would be great, Holger, if it were not for the fact that there is no such effect.
Here’s one of many interesting reads on this subject.
@Richard Rasker
J D Rockefeller was the father of the horror show of conventional medicine largely responsible for making it a monopoly in much of the world, and the third leading cause of death in the USA. His medicine of choice was homeopathy. He lived to the age of 97, dying in 1937.
Dr Hahnemann, founder of homeopathy, lived 88 years, dying in 1843.
Queen Elizabeth whose favored medicine was homeopathy died at the age of 96.
On what grounds do you claim that homeopathy did nothing for infant mortality?
Those needing Nux-v frequently have nasty irritable type-A personalities, over-sensitive to noise and stimulants that they desire, and intolerant of those they dont agree with. You could do a proving, Richard. It might turn out to be curative as sometimes happens during provings. It might mellow you out and make you more tolerant. But we would miss your pleasant disposition here.
@stan
And my great-uncle who smoked two packs of cigarettes and drank half a bottle of wine a day, and in addition took something like a dozen medicines, lived to be 91.
But you were saying?
Queen Elizabeth favored medicine while she was healthy; as soon as she fell ill she called the best conventional physicians around.
So you and others speculate. How did she remain so healthy for such a long life time?
it’s not speculation – I leave that to you – it’s a historical fact.
Stan
Much as I hate to burst your fatuous bubble of speculative ignorance, The Queen had a personal physician. A consultant professor called Huw Thomas. She did not favour homeopathy.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/prof-huw-thomas-the-role-of-the-queens-personal-physician
Meanwhile we can look at those high-profile homeopaths like John Benneth, Kaviraj and Tinus Smits. How old were they when they died?
@Lenny
Much as I hate to burst your fatuous bubble of speculative ignorance the Queen also had a case of remedies that she used on the advice of homeopathic physicians.
why don’t you go a bit further and claim that the Queen only died because Peter Fisher, her homeopathy, had been killed a few months earlier?
https://edzardernst.com/2018/08/peter-fisher-1950-2018/
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
And yet you ignored this part of my post, Stan. Wonder why?
Those are some of the few areas that conventional medicine does well, acute care, especially Emergency Room treatment and end of life care where someone is on deaths door and they keep the almost lifeless body marginally functioning, at great expense. I wouldnt be surprised if in the final hours they did put her on life support, which didnt do anything to change outcome.
Of potential greater importance to society is how they kept her healthy and active almost to the end of a 96 year long productive life , using homeopathy. Fortunately there are such high profile individuals that are willing to stand up for homeopathy, not silenced by the onslaught of the So-called Skeptics who want to censor.
My father in law is 96 years old and healthy apart from mild hypertension. His mind is clearer than most people’s and he still drives his car to various activities.
He has never in his life seen a homeopath, never held a bottle of homeopathic remedies in his hand and much less taken a single globule of Nux Vomica or any other preparation of homeopathic nature (if you do not count in tap water, of course).
My conclusion from this case is that abstinence from homeopaths and homeopathic remedies (apart from tap water) is consistent with longevity.
@Richard Rasker
You were claiming that homeopathy was somehow responsible for all the early childhood mortality prior to conventional medicine, or at least making no improvement in general health. Just giving some examples of longevity, likely due to homeopathy.
@stan
In all fairness, homeopathy may have contributed to a slightly better public health in the early days – not because it was any good, but because regular medicine of the day was atrociously bad. Homeopathy simply boiled down to doing nothing.
Nowadays, homeopathy generally has a negative impact on public health for exactly the same reason: it does nothing, where real medicine does help people.
That trope about the negative impact of homeopathy is repeated so often by the So-called Skeptics, one might almost be tempted to believe it. Its not documented except in the occasional rare case, that is trumpeted loudly by the SS. Meanwhile conventional medicine routinely murders and maims to the point of being the third leading cause of death in the USA. Definitely a case of the Pot calling the Kettle.
Homeopathy was documented to be effective in many of the epidemics that passed through Europe in the early days and later up through the pandemic of flu 1919-1920. That is what accounted for its tremendous growth and popularity.
https://edzardernst.com/2017/02/homeopaths-love-it-the-epidemiological-evidence-suggesting-that-homeopathy-works/
Homeopathy does nothing? I disagree, Richard.
Homeopathy feeds the delusions of people like stan and Dana.
Any idea what made it stop working?
@Mojo
Yes, one major reason it stopped working was because the Flexner report and lots of money from the Rockefellers & Carnegies was used to bludgeon & bribe medical schools to shut down their homeopathy programs or close their doors. There were fewer homeopaths to treat people.
nice story!
pity that it’s not true though
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8885813/
@Edzard
I trust Harris Coulter, a medical historian, on this subject.
See Divided Legacy, 3 volume history of medicine from the Greeks to the present day, by Harris Coulter
in this case, you ought to start blood letting
@Stan
Can you explain why data seem to show an inverse relationship between the use of homeopathy and longevity?
In India, where homeopathy is said to be most commonly used of all countries, the life expectancy at birth is less than 70 years but on average the use of homeopathy is about 26% overall. In some states like West Bengal more than 80% have used homeopathy during the past year, if memory serves me right. Still, the life expectancy in West Bengal is only about 72 years.
Meanwhile countries where homeopathy is rarely used, e.g. Japan with 0,1-0,3% homeopathy use during the past 12 months, have a very much higher life expectancy, about 85 years in Japan.
What do you think might be the confounding factor in this apparent enigma?
What about access to modern healthcare and pharmaceuticals, which has
a clear and positive correlation with life expectancy.
@Björn Geir
Gee, what could it be? What a mystery.
Wait! I think I see a confounding factor! Poverty.
Maybe you dont see that comparing India with Japan?
Have you been to India? I would say living to 72 in West Bengal is a massive victory.
I like the term “bullshit” it is concise and to the point. I frequently use it.
Another good article would be on the clinical efficacy of CBD oil whether used orally or topically for almost everything. I hate to call it b.s. but so far it seems to me to be that way.
The most respected physician of the late 1800s and early 1900s is/was, without doubt, Sir William Osler.
Osler’s most famous two medicines were: Nux vomica and hope.
Reference: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76363615.pdf
In Osler’s farewell address to the American medical profession, he said:
It is not as if our homeopathic brothers are asleep: far from it, they are awake—many of them at any rate—to the importance of the scientific study of disease. … It is distressing to think that so many good men live isolated, in a measure, from the great body of the profession. The original grievous mistake was ours—to quarrel with our brothers over infinitesimals was a most unwise and stupid thing to do. (Osler, 1905)
Time magazine reported that before Osler’s death in 1919, he expressed even greater support for homeopathy and its founder, asserting that “No individual has done more good to the medical profession than Samuel Hahnemann” (Homeopathy, 1940).
Nothing like a little history lesson to put a little (or a lot) of humility into your pseudo-knowledge of a subject.
Dana,
The 1999 biography of William Osler by Michael Bliss makes no mention of this.
Neither does the 1905 report of Oslers farewell address in the BMJ.
Is it possible that the quotes you attribute to Osler were in fact just made-up by some homeopath somewhere to support their position? (Though I’m sure most homeopaths have the highest intellectual integrity and would never do anything like that).
It certainly is not a ‘history lesson’ in the sense that it is widely known. If I google for the literal sentence “nux vomica and hope”, I get the astounding amount of no less than six (6!) hits – one of which features a mugshot of one Dana U..
This truly homeopathic search result must be real potent!
Oh oh Richard…you crack me up!
The references of Osler to “Nux vomica and hope” even show that this was one of his most favorite prescriptions. Heck, it is referenced in a short bio published by the University of Pennsylvania (it is so curious that you refused to acknowledge this…how convenient is your ignorance?).
And other people here are really embarrassingly ignorant by their assertions that Nux vomica is poisonous…though in allopathic doses, it certainly is…but in homeopathic doses, there are good reasons that Nux vomica has persisted in its usage for 200+ years.
I suggest that you try it after a night of drinking alcohol, and you may get down on your knees and thank me.
Here’s another reference — do a search for Osler or just Nux vomica, and you’ll find it.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76363615.pdf
Mr Ullman stated on Friday 10 March 2023 at 15:41:
Whereas Ullman’s source states:
Mr Ullman wrote: “And other people here are really embarrassingly ignorant by their assertions that Nux vomica is poisonous…”
Let’s go through this again:
1. Strychnos nux-vomica L. is a tree.
2. Its seeds, which contain the highly poisonous alkaloids strychnine and brucine, are used to make the (real) medicine nux vomica: one of the circa 50 medicines used by William Osler.
3. The cosplay medicine homeopathic Nux vomica 12C and beyond, is, of course, completely non‑toxic, thereby enabling its cosplay practitioners to vend it to their clients without fear of causing a physiological reaction.
Bibliography
The Principles and Practice of Medicine: Designed for the Use of Practitioners and Students of Medicine by William Osler, MD.
Osler Library Newsletter No. 76 June 1994, which states:
And your point is…?
We are living in the 21st century Dana, in case you didn’t notice. Medicine has progressed. Homeopathy has not, since 1799.
@Björn Geir
Homeopathy is constantly progressing. New medicines are being added to the homeopathic materia medica constantly. And new techniques for discovering the most similar medicine for a patient are being developed all the time. But the essential principle of homeopathy, like cures like, is a universal constant, valid then and valid now. Homeopathy’s definition of disease as All the symptoms – mental, emotional and physical – that the patient is experiencing at the time is a universal principle, valid then and valid now. So defining cure as relieving them of all those symptoms was valid then and is valid now.
Conventional medicine uses drugs everyone of which has “side effects” that are identical to the symptoms that it is indicated for. e.g. aspirin can Cause headaches. Conventional medicine is practicing bad homeopathy. By using partial similars instead of a fully similar (i.e. homeopathic) medicine they are just palliating/suppressing symptoms. Not curative.
What passes for progress in conventional medicine is inventing new “diseases” and inventing new treatments to palliate/suppress the symptoms. Then later they learn (if we are lucky) that those treatments have long term serious adverse consequences, so they throw them out and start again.
Homeopathy is constantly progressing. New placebos are being added to the homeopathic materia medica constantly.
And those homeopathic “placebos” are being clinically documented to be curative in serious chronic disease that conventional medicine cant touch.
clinically documented?
really?
I must have missed that!
where?
@Edzard
I have a database of 850 books and journals on homeopathy which is a compendium including thousands of cures. And you can investigate the clinical records of practicing homeopaths. Have you ever bothered to do that?
I could send you one book to finally teach you what is and what isn’t evidence.
@stan
And I have access to millions of scientific papers and books about chemistry, physics and biology from the past 150 years or so that all contradict homeopathy’s most basic premises – mostly boiling down to the fact that matter cannot and does not have any effects when it’s absent.
I also have access to millions of scientific papers and books about psychology, sociology and evolutionary cognition explaining in detail the mental processes that can make people believe in all sorts of non-existing things, and give them the illusion of legitimate observations. No need to go looking for non-existing ‘unknown phenomena’.
Well, if there’s anything telling us that you have no idea about how homeopaths work, then this is it. Homeopaths don’t usually keep proper clinical records. The only data they may record is the number of hours they can charge to their gullible customers, together with the sugar crumbs they sold – but even this is often not recorded, as many homeopaths prefer immediate cash after any consultation.
I’ve tracked down the context for that comment:
Cushing: The Life of Sir William Osler Vol 1 p.171.
Not a statement in favour of homeopathy, just that homeopathy showed the results of doing nothing.
@Dana Ullman
It happens regularly that great minds make a complete fool of themselves at a later age. If Osler started believing in homeopathy at the end of his life, then he clearly must have lost his sanity.
Also see Nobel disease.
I agree that it is unwise to quarrel about homeopathic infinitesimals. Only complete idiots believe that stuff becomes more potent the more it is diluted.
Edzard commonly claims to have knowledge. and yet, I consistently find gaping holes in this knowledge.
Here are two studies that investigated the effects of Nux vomica…and in this case, in both humans and in animals.
A single-blind and double-blind study was conducted for a month with 54 young adults of both sexes (ages 18-31) with above-average scores on standardized personality scales for either cynical hostility or anxiety sensitivity (but not both) and a history of coffee-induced insomnia (Bell, Howerter, Jackson, 2010). At-home polysomnographic recordings18 were obtained on successive pairs of nights once per week for a total of eight recordings (nights 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23). All subjects received placebo pellets on night #8 (single-blind) and verum pellets on night #22 (double-blind) in 30C doses of one of two homeopathic remedies, Nux Vomica or Coffea Cruda. Subjects completed daily morning sleep diaries and weekly Pittsburgh sleep quality index scales, as well as profile of mood states scales at bedtime on polysomnography nights.
The study found that those patients who received either of the homeopathic medicines had significantly increased PSG total sleep time and NREM, as well as awakenings and stage changes.
These findings were similar though not identical to those reported in animals with the same remedies (Ruiz-Vega, Pérez-Ordaz, León-Huéramo, 2002).
Bell IR, Howerter A, Jackson N, Aickin M, Baldwin CM, Bootzin RR. Effects of homeopathic medicines on polysomnographic sleep of young adults with histories of coffee-related insomnia. Sleep Med. 12(2011):505-511. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673648
Ruiz-Vega G, Pérez-Ordaz L, León-Huéramo O, Cruz-Vázquez E, Sánchez-Diaz N. Comparative effect of Coffea cruda potencies on rats. Homeopathy. 2002 Apr;91(2):80-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12371461
oh dear!
you think this is GOOD evidence?
A study from twelve years ago, Dana. Which means there’s been plenty of time for people to take notice of it, replicate it and make homeopathic Nux Vomica the standard treatment for insomnia.
Hasn’t happened.
Why?
Because this study has been seen to be specious twaddle and has been ignored.
Oh and the remedies were non-individualised so the study lacks internal validity. Isn’t that your standard line when such studies are conducted properly and show no effect?
Keep kicking the dead horse, Dana. We’ll keep laughing.
in fact, seen with a minimum of criticism, the study suggests that the two remedies are equally potent placebos.
Which is to be expected:
It is so FUNNY (!) to hear you and anyone here (!) say that a specific homeopathic study should have been replicated BECAUSE Edzie has written many times how much he is AGAINST any further studies on homeopathy.
IF you or he were serious about your real interests in “science,” you all should support the governmental grants to conduct such research.
Unless and until you do this type of advocacy, you do not have the right to make such suggestions, except if you want to be laughed out of the room. Just sayin’….
“It is so FUNNY (!)”
I agree. It is, in fact, hilarious to see that, after all these years, you still cannot critically read a scientific paper.
Please, do tell me why the clinical trial you cited shows that nux vomica is effective.
Wow…you’d think that after all of these years that you’d learn to at least read the Abstract to an article…including this statement about the results of the study:
“Verum remedies significantly increased PSG total sleep time and NREM, as well as awakenings and stage changes. “
After all these years, you have not understood that the abstract and wishful thinking of some pseudoscientists are not as relevant as the actual data reported in a study.
critical thinking is not your forte, Dana.
Did you bother reading as far as the conclusions?
@Dana Ullman
High-quality homeopathic research almost invariably finds no effects except perhaps placebo effects and some inevitable statistical noise, while most homeopathic research with positive outcomes is low-quality. Together with the fact that homeopathy flies in the face of many current-day scientific principles, this is reason enough for (real) scientists to conclude that any further research in homeopathy is a senseless waste of time.
Now of course this doesn’t mean that homeopaths themselves shouldn’t do any research – in fact, if they insist that they observe homeopathy as having actual effects, then they are also the ones who should provide good evidence show that those observations are correct, and can be replicated by any halfway competent scientist. And this is where things start chafing. Homeopaths are in fact so ridiculously bad at doing science that – contrary to your utterances here – they are the ones who get laughed out of the room, to the extent that the scientific quality of their research work is better called ‘homeopathetic’.
They make all the mistakes in the book: they don’t try to prove themselves wrong like real scientists (should) do, but instead start out with the foregone conclusion that homeopathy works, and then attempt to shoehorn any and every observation they make into that conclusion; they only refer to positive outcomes, bluntly ignoring everything that conflicts with their beliefs; they never address questions with regard to fundamental principles of homoeopathy – e.g. the similia principle or the law of infinitesimals, not to mention the idiocy of proving – all things for which no evidence of viability exists at all, to put it mildly. And these are only a few of the violations of the scientific method routinely committed by homeopathic ‘researchers’.
Take for instance your ‘nanoparticles’ and ‘nanodoses’: you claim that nanoparticles in homeopathetical dilutions explain the effects that you claim(!) to observe. I read the stuff you wrote about it, but it fails to address even the most basic questions that any scientist worth their salt (more about that later) would immediately come up with:
– Supposing that you have indeed observed nanoparticles of the original matter in homeopathic dilutions (e.g. 30C), then how do you reconcile the presence of these particles with the claimed
dilution‘potency’? Doesn’t it first and foremost mean that homeopaths can’t even be trusted to dilute their water properly?– You never produced any actual evidence that your ‘nanodoses’ have any robust, repeatable clinical effects at all; you simply posited them as mechanism of action, and dreamed up the rest of your ‘scientific’ explanation from there.
– Many homeopathic base substances such as table salt don’t form nanoparticles but completely dissolve as ions, directly conflicting with your nanoparticle idea.
– What’s more, table salt and many other such substances are present in the human body already in large amounts – making it absolutely impossible that a couple of extra ions or nanoparticles or whatever you may care to dream up can have any effect at all. Yet you don’t ever address these problems, let alone discard those ‘remedies’ (which are still widely used!) as serious mistakes.
– You draw comparisons between nanodoses and hormones to explain how minute amounts of homeopathic substances (amounts that in fact should be zero at 12C+, but let’s ignore that for the sake of the argument) could have certain beneficial effects. But in your utter scientific incompetence you fail to notice that hormones have evolved in tandem with highly specific receptors in the body, explaining their effects in such small amounts. No such receptor mechanisms have ever been found for homeopathic substances.
– Your nanodose idea also fails to address the concept that they should cause the same symptoms in healthy people that they supposedly cure in sick people. In fact, we all ingest ‘nanodoses’ of countless substances on a daily basis, so why do most people feel quite healthy on average? Why is it that only the ‘nanodoses’ that you have in mind have certain claimed effects, but none of the countless others?(*)
And there are many, many more questions and issues that you consistently ignore, or fail to answer, or otherwise deny that would utterly destroy your belief in magic. Yet here you are, arrogantly calling us foolish for not believing in homeopathy.
*: To answer that last question for you: because all of homeopathy happens in the mind of homeopaths and their customers. It is in other words pure fiction.
High and low quality research is in the eye of the beholder. The Sheng et al 2005 Lancet meta-analysis of homeopathy decided that only 8 studies of the hundreds that have been performed met their standards for “high quality”. Surprise, surprise, these 8 studies seemed to show that homeopathy doesnt work.
“… meta-analyses can arrive at different conclusions despite being based on virtually the same material. They are not performed according to strict methodology and are, to a variable extent, guided by creativity, interpretation, and personal bias. This is why everyone can find arguments for and against homeopathy in the meta-analyses of the pooled clinical data.” – Dr Rober Hahn, MD, PhD, 2013
“Homeopathy: Meta-Analyses of Pooled Clinical Data”
As Dr Hahn says, you have to throw out 95% of the data to prove that homeopathy doesnt work.
Homeopathy doesnt fly in the face of any known scientific principles. It just means there are unknown principles at work. There are many phenomena that science cant yet explain: dark matter, dark energy, consciousness, life itself and homeopathy. All these phenomena are apparent indirectly from their effects.
The core basis of homeopathy is the repeatable scientific experiment, the homeopathic proving. It has been repeated successfully over and over for a couple hundred years, repeatedly proving that ultra diluted remedies have a strong effect on living beings. Because So-called Skeptics dont choose to accept that evidence is not the fault of homeopathy. Every proving is an opportunity for proving homeopathy is wrong and that ultra-dilute remedies have no effect and every time it has proven they do have a strong effect.
The similia principle is demonstrated daily and has been extensively documented in the clinical record. Clinical practice is the main way that conventional medicine passes on medical knowledge also.
Conventional medicine is practicing bad homeopathy. Conventional medicine uses drugs everyone of which has “side effects” that are identical to the symptoms that it is indicated for. e.g. aspirin can Cause headaches. By using partial similars instead of a fully similar (i.e. homeopathic) medicine they are just palliating/suppressing symptoms. Not curative.
Nano-particles is just one of many possible mechanisms. When a mechanism for Consciousness is determined, maybe we will also determine a mechanism for homeopathy.
thanks: you just won the prize for the most stupid comment of the year!
Stan
Another gem in your list of fatuous special pleading and ignorance.
If this is the case, homeopaths would be able to tell apart different remedies by the use of provings. A challenge which has been made repeatedly. And one which homeopaths have repeatedly dodged.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Stan. The higher quality the trial, the worse homeopathy performs with respect to placebo. “High quality” is a matter of mathematical and statistical fact, not the whims of the researchers. That it disproves your claims is your problem, not one for science or maths.
These are PPRATTs, Stan. Points Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. That homeopaths refuse to learn and continue to claim that magic sugar pills have mystical powers is why we laugh at you. You, like Dana, continue to demonstrate your ignorance on this blog. It is why you are an irrelevance, Stan. Homeopathy is to medicine what rain dancing is to meteorology, what creationism is to developmental biology and flat-earthism to geography. A crank belief which only gets you laughed at.