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

Some articles are just too remarkable for me to alter them in any way. This one impresses already by its title: “Ameliorative effects of homeopathic medicines in the management of different cancers“. By way of a ‘Christmas treat’, here its summary:

Homeopathy is a commonly used complementary and alternative system of medicine for the treatment of various sorts of ailments throughout the world. Homeopathic medicines are made up of potential therapeutic natural products that are primarily acknowledged for their low doses as well as extended patient survival results. Homeopathic medicines are derived from plants such as arnica (mountain herb), red onion, poison ivy, stinging nettle, and belladonna (deadly nightshade); minerals including white arsenic as well as from animals such as crushed whole bees. Homeopathic medicines are synthesized as sugar pellets to be placed under the tongue and may also be used in the form of gels, ointments, drops, tablets, and creams. Homeopathic medicines can be used to treat various disorders including migraine, depression, gastrointestinal diseases, joint pain, inflammation, different sorts of injuries, flu, arthritis as well as sciatica.

Cancer is the 2nd major reason behind global mortalities. It is revealed that developing countries around the world shoulder most of the cancer burden. According to a survey conducted in 2020, low- and middle-income countries face 70% of the total mortalities worldwide which accounts for approximately 10 million people of these countries. Homeopathic medicines ensure low-cost cancer treatment with little or no side effects on the bodies of humans and animals. Besides, it is applied as a supportive and palliative therapy in a broad range of cancer patients to enhance the body’s fight against cancer, alleviate discomfort resulting from disease or conventional treatments as well as improve the general well-being of the patients. In this chapter, our primary focus will be on the anti-cancerous effects of homeopathic medicines against different cancerous conditions in the body along with their mechanism of action.

Let me just mention a few fairly obvious points:

My conclusion:

Those who advocate homeopathy don’t know what it is, while those who know what it is, don’t advocate it.

22 Responses to Ameliorative effects of homeopathic medicines in the management of different cancers

  • Why putting it all in a box and doom all of it?
    I don’t doom medicine, as it once had Euthanasia and breeding of human beings on their to-do list.
    There are always things, you may support while others look ridiculous.
    However, if we think of homeopathic remedies as especially powerful placebos, all of these remedies may have the power to help people. There are methods in traditional medicine I would refuse more strictly. However, I don’t think I would talk about it as I am free to take the good parts and let the bad things vanish as nobody asks for them.

    • have you heard about CRITICAL THINKING/EVALUATION, and the fact that it is helpful for generating progress?
      no, I thought so!
      you should learn about it and stop posting utter BS.

      • If placebo works – why not using it.
        We know that placebo works. And we also know that placebo works the better, the more it costs and the deeper the belief in its effectiveness is.
        Do you want to heal people, or do you want to demonstrate with any treatment the power of science?

        Here the evidence you are asking for:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879252/

        • “If placebo works – why not using it.”
          There are many reasons – to name just one:
          Because we don’t need placebos to generate placebo effects. An effective treatment administered with empathy time etc. does that too. And this would convey a specific therapeutic effect in addition. Thus GIVING JUST A PLACEBO IS UNETHICAL AS IT DEPRIVES THE PATIENT OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE.

          Now, do us a favour and book a course of critical thinking!

        • It was not Edzard’s intent to provide any analysis or critique of a single study…instead, he created a list of highly unusual and rarely used medicines. This “what-aboutisms” is his tactic for not providing any review of or critique of formal studies referenced.

          Many of the articles studies in this review are basic science trials for which a placebo “explanation” seems much more metaphysical than the biological, biochemical, and physical explanations for how nanopharmacology works. But instead of providing a real analysis, he feigns outrage. His strategy for criticism is the real placebo here because there is no there there here (hmmm, that was fun to write).

        • For example, because it is impossible to control the dose in case of the adverse events. Cancer drugs have sophisticated protocols regarding what to do (reduce dose and by how much, stop taking and for how long or permanently discontinue) in what cases (side effect, degree, first-time, treatable, repeated at the same degree or repeated more severe). Placebos have nothing of that kind. And then there is faith that is necessary for placebo to work. Cancer drugs work whether or not patient believes in them. As long as the tumor is not resistant, precisely measured doses of specific drugs react with specific substances in the body or tumor killing the tumor.

        • @Holger

          If placebo works – why not using it.

          By definition, a ‘placebo’ is something that resembles a medicine but does not work.
          An effect of placebo does not exist! The act of administering a placebo has an effect that is neither biological nor therapeutic but, depending on the expectations of effect, causes a temporary psychological relief.
          This usually “positive” effect of hope end expectation depends on deception and can be obtained by truthful care.

          In summary, using placebo as therapy involves lying to the patient*. In most cases, like in homeopathy, both the dealer and the customer are the deceived. Good, loving and truthful medical care provide better amelioration and palliation to supplement real medicine.

          *I am well aware of Ted Kaptchuk’s “research” which is incessantly cited as proof that placebo works without deception. His conclusions are a good example of self deception.

    • However, if we think of homeopathic remedies as especially powerful placebos…

      The evidence suggests that we shouldn’t, for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20129180/

      • Rick Rasker wrote: Those who advocate homeopathy not only don’t know what it is, they also lie about it. Almost every endorsement of homeopathy contains implicit and explicit claims about proven effectiveness, often made in a matter-of-fact kind of way, suggesting that this efficacy is not only proven, but self-evident.

        My answer: I do believe that most people who still use homeopathy have a lot of positive experience with it and trust it for that reason. If it is just placebo – I do not care! I am glad, if I am healthy, again.

  • “Those who advocate homeopathy don’t know what it is, while those who know what it is, don’t advocate it.”

    This motto must be on the wall of all homeopathic, camist, condimentary and SCAM practitioners’ clinics, but with the rider:
    “…while those who know what it is, and who practice with integrity and honesty, don’t advocate it.”

    I’m afraid some knowledgible advocates do intend taking advantage of gullible and vulnerable patients – and personalities.
    They know perfectly well what they are up to.
    Sigh.

  • Those who advocate homeopathy not only don’t know what it is, they also lie about it. Almost every endorsement of homeopathy contains implicit and explicit claims about proven effectiveness, often made in a matter-of-fact kind of way, suggesting that this efficacy is not only proven, but self-evident. Many homeopaths even lie that it is ‘scientifically proven’, even though all the major academies of science beg to differ – and those homeopaths know this.

    When confronted with their falsehoods, homeopaths often react with extreme arrogance, saying that critics don’t know what they’re talking about, even if those critics are reputable scientists.

    It would appear that homeopaths somehow maintain their own ‘reality’ and their own ‘science’, where magic works and shaking plain water indeed turns it into a medicine, and where anecdotal testimony ‘we gave it to patient X, and he got better’ trumps even the most elaborate real scientific research.

  • What a classic critique about “what aboutism”! Instead of providing ANY analysis of the dozens of studies published in peer-review journals, Eddie instead lists numerous other homeopathic medicines for which are not reference. How intellectually weak…and plain ole innane…but that is what you are so good at.

    Instead, I know expect the usual ad homs against me…which is just another silly strategies that magicians use to provide misdirection. How convenient and how bankrupt.

    • And “whataboutism” can be added to the list of words Dana has seen used about him and doesn’t understand but thinks he can use about others.

      Dana – Edzard takes an assertion made in the article and refutes it directly, with evidence. It shows the authors to be fools. But we know that already; they are homeopaths and therefore are already fools. Like you.

      And “homeopathic medicines for which are not reference”

      We know you can’t read. It appears you can’t write either.

      • We know you can’t read. It appears you can’t write either.

        Does Dana has a brain at all? His comments on homeopathy do not give much reason to believe this. 😉

    • @Dana Ullman

      … the dozens of studies published in peer-review journals …

      Well, there you have it, folks: in well over 200 years, homeopathy managed to get literally dozens of presumably positive studies in peer-reviewed journals. Virtually none of which could be replicated, and even fewer of which (as in: literally none) resulted in even one homeopathic product with proven consistent efficacy.
      There is vastly more and better evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than there is for homeopathy.

      But let’s not spoil the mood any further.

      Merry Christmas, also for you, Dana! And maybe, if you’ve been a good homeopath, Santa will leave a wonderful, brand new peer-reviewed homeo-positive article under your tree. Ho Ho Ho!

  • So why is the Department of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, and the Department of Parasitology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, hiding self-taught cancer specialists among their employees, and funding reviews such as ‘“Ameliorative effects of homeopathic medicines in the management of different cancers“’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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