The current editorial in the Journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’ is entitled “A Turning Point for Homeopathy?”. It hinges on the often discussed wishful thinking of homeopaths that the mechanism of action (MoA) of homeopathic remedies is explicable by the presence of nanoparticles in the remedy. Here is the crucial section:
… the homeopathy community should consolidate a modern collective view on homeopathy’s physical mechanism of action as one based on the presence of nanoparticles in its ultradiluted medicines. The nanoparticle theory is given further weight in the current issue with the Original Research article by Van Wassenhoven et al, ‘Characterization of aqueous ultra-high homeopathic potencies: nanoparticle tracking analysis’, which concludes that the material nature of the potencies investigated is ‘most likely […] a mixture of nanobubbles and elements from the atmosphere and container’.[2] The latter authors’ statement, ‘The idea that homeopathic medicines are non-material, proposed both by opponents of homeopathy and traditional homeopathic practitioners, cannot be sustained in the light of these findings’, independently mirrors Professor Dei’s viewpoint.
On this blog, I have repeatedly pointed out that this is utter nonsense. What are the nanoparticles of the many non-material homeopathic remedies such as vaccum or X-rays? Even if nanoparticles of, for instance, Arnica were contained in a remedy, how would that explain its MoA?
- Target Identification: The specific biological target(s) the medicine interacts with, such as proteins (enzymes, receptors), nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), or other biomolecules.
- Binding and Interaction: The type of interaction between the medicine and its target, including binding affinity, specificity, and the molecular forces involved (e.g., hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions).
- Biochemical Consequences: The effects of the medicine-target interaction on the target’s function, such as enzyme inhibition or activation, receptor agonism or antagonism, or modulation of gene expression.
- Signaling Pathways: The downstream signaling cascades or pathways affected by the medicine-target interaction, including the key molecules and cellular processes involved.
- Cellular and Physiological Effects: The resulting changes in cellular behavior, physiology, or biochemistry, such as changes in cell growth, differentiation, or survival, or alterations in tissue function.
- Therapeutic Outcome: The ultimate clinical effect of the medicine, including the alleviation of symptoms, modification of disease progression, or cure of the underlying condition.
- Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: The relationship between the medicine’s concentration, its effects on the target, and the resulting therapeutic outcome, including factors such as absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination.
- Dose-Response Relationship: The correlation between the medicine’s dose and its effects, including the optimal therapeutic dose range and potential toxicities.
- Molecular Specificity and Selectivity: The degree to which the medicine selectively targets the intended biological pathway or process, minimizing off-target effects and potential side effects.
55 Responses to A Turning Point for Homeopathy?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
If there is a mechanism of action (MoA) observed in vivo (in humans or animals), it should also be possible to detect an effect in vitro (in the lab). Although the in vitro effect might differ significantly from the in vivo effect, it will still be measurable and significant.
@Christian Bolliger
One of the Big Problems with homeopathy is that so far, even after 229 years, no mechanism of action has ever been observed. In fact, no action (effect) has ever been observed in high-quality trials – also see below.
Anyone can come up with dozens of mechanisms of action, and homeopaths just love to go on about those imaginary mechanisms, like Ullman with his nanobabble and that other homeotroll with his biophotons and quantum physics. This focus on mechanisms of action only serves one purpose: draw the attention away from the big elephant in the homeopath’s room: that there is no action in the first place.
Here’s the thing: before wasting time on discussing possible mechanisms of action, this action itself must be proven in a clear and independently replicable (and replicated) manner.
Exactly: first and foremost, homeopaths must show that a 12C+ homeopathic dilution has clear, consistent and independently repeatable effects. So far, they never succeeded to fulfil this simple requirement(*).
Only IF they can show us such effects, will it be sensible to start exploring and discussing HOW those effects come about.
*: Sure, individual homeopaths claim that they observed such effects – sometimes even repeatedly – but there is not a single positive experiment that arbitrary scientists have been able to replicate successfully.
Indeed.
(Ray) Hyman’s Categorical Imperative:
“Do not try to explain something until you are sure there is something to be explained.”
1. All authors of the global meta-analyses, ironically including Ernst and Shang et al., have found at least one high-quality trial with positive results. Even some Cochrane reviews mention that some trials were of high quality. So, Rasker, what you’re saying isn’t true.
2. I’m not a “homeopath,” Richard. Biophotons are already a mainstream phenomenon in biophysics, and the only ones who denied their existence were physicists like Robert Leslie Park and other “skeptics.” Quantum field theory is one of the best-established theories in physics, and when applied to liquids, it has been able to predict general phenomena about behavior at “high dilutions,” such as those in homeopathy. QED is in fact related to photon emission and condensed matter (as in this case, liquids).
You haven’t provided evidence against biophotons or QED in liquids. In fact, you focus on diverting attention by calling the rest who disagree with you “homeopaths.”
The demonstration of homeopathy’s effect has already been supported by clinical trials and meta-analyses, with high-quality studies in a proportion similar to those in “allopathic” medicine. In fact, homeopathy has a lower rate of reporting bias than trials in “allopathic” medicine. The clear effects of high potencies have been observed in numerous in vitro, in vivo, and plant studies.
3. Richard, you’re not a physicist, a biologist, or a doctor; your authority in the field is nil. The little you’ve written is a rather poor book, and that’s thanks to the help of your friend Ernst at Springer. Incidentally, it sounds like you copied the book from Wikipedia.
@Sandbox
You are lying. I often stated that the number of positive trails gets lower with increasing quality. This implies that through simple statistics, there will inevitably be SOME higher-quality trials that show a positive outcome. These trials are however few and far between, and cannot be replicated. Which means that they are very likely false positives.
And you are lying again about what I said wrt biophotons: I clearly stated that yes, biophotons exist, and are produced by all living organisms. But these biophotons are just byproducts of chemical reactions, without any further function or meaning. No, they do NOT support homeopathy in any way, and no they do NOT convey information within those organisms.
Yes, I am not a physicist, biologist or doctor(*). BUT NEITHER ARE YOU.
*: Also note that 99.9% of the professionals in these fields reject homeopathy.
However, I LISTEN to and READ what real scientists say, and I UNDERSTAND what they are saying. And that is what I base my viewpoints on.
YOU on the other hand are an arrogant fool who rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus, and thinks that mumbling terms like ‘biophotons’ and ‘quantum mechanics’ somehow lends credence to the useless pseudoscience that homeopathy is.
My advice to you: go talk to real physicists, and ask them if what you believe about quantum physics and homeopathy is correct. Then come back here and apologize for having been such an imbecile all the time. Yes, apology accepted.
Meanwhile, I will do what all scientists have done before: I’ll stop wasting any more of my time on homeopathy, and thus on people like you and Ullman. You are members of an obsolete cult who will never abandon their foolish beliefs, and will never accept that you are completely wrong.
Rasker, you said that “there is no action in the first place” because “no action (effect) has ever been observed in high-quality trials.” I responded that both proponents and detractors (ironically) have noted that some high-quality trials. The difference is that detractors (like Ernst) dismiss their own black swans claiming that “it’s impossible” or that “they’re artifacts” (like Ioannidis) or simply exclude them from the analysis (like Shang et al. with the eight URTIS trials) or apply double standards (like the Australian report with its strange threshold of at least 150 patients while curiously excluding trials not written in English).
Ironically, you tell me that “by simple statistical means, there will be some high-quality trials.” If this is true, then “allopathy” trials should be discarded because the vast majority are of low quality (as Ioannidis ironically demonstrated). Now, you say they “haven’t been replicated,” and this isn’t true either. A basic example is the Oscillococcinum trials (which, although not classical homeopathy, have been replicated even in some high-quality trials (as Andrew Vicekrs himself admitted). The Sinfrontal, Vertigoheel, and Traumeel trials have also been replicated independently. These trials are more than “simple statistics.”
As for classical homeopathy trials, their reproducibility cannot be measured so easily because homeopaths have to change medications during the course of the trial and because not all patients receive the same treatment. However, the use of a control group allows us to deduce that there are differences if they outperform the control group. Furthermore, that’s what global meta-analyses (which don’t evaluate by indication) are for. This allows us to demonstrate that, according to your assumption, there are more than 5% favorable trials (based on a 95% chance of negative results): in fact, the estimate is that 80% of high-quality trials are favorable. Of these, 5 to 10% are of high quality, which is the same proportion as those in “allopathic” medicine.
In my comment, I pointed out the irony that you can no longer deny biophotons, while your other colleagues continue to deny them as “magic” or “quackery.” So, in all honesty, you should classify the 95% or more of quack “skeptics” and anti-biophotonists as being on par with anti-vaccines.
Biophotons are only part of the process of possible mechanisms (or rather, mechanisms) of specific action. Since you are not a physicist, biologist, or chemist, your point of view is irrelevant in these matters. Unlike you, I have read what real scientists who publish have to say; I have even taken the time to read your book and those of Ernst and other “skeptics.” The “scientific consensus” you speak of is nothing more than propaganda based on a few (debunked) studies or Wikipedia. Biophotons, like QED in liquids, have been discussed in pro-homeopathy literature since the 1980s. In fact, thanks to homeopathy, biophotons are now accepted in mainstream medicine, just as QED in liquids has been making a strong push to overthrow the homogeneous model of water (promoted by Felix Franks in the 1980s but which is limited in many ways).
This is not a “cult”; what is a cult is pseudoskepticism, and it should be removed from every scientific journal. Any editor or reviewer with ties to pseudoskeptic groups should be immediately dismissed for hindering the progress of science.
Were you one of the loons who did some special pleading to the ombudsman about the Australian NHMRC report, Sandbox?
That turned out well, didn’t it?
The conclusions stand.
There are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.
Lenny, do you ever have anything to say that isn’t a lie?
The ombudsman issued a letter claiming they had found nothing “adverse against the Australian review,” yet at the same time they say, “it was not possible to engage an expert (or experts) to provide independent advice to our Office on this subject. In the absence of independent, expert scientific expertise we have not been able to conclusively determine those matters of scientific methodology.” When they issued that statement they hadn’t even finished their investigation because they were still “finalizing” it.
They didn’t favor you or the pro-homeopaths. And the Ombudsman’s letter only served to recommend a new report that has been available since early this year, whose conclusions were that there is generally low but some moderate evidence (for secondary outcomes). Curiously, this new report mentions that some positive trials had a low risk of bias and are of high quality (like James’s, which Edzard Ernst himself admitted he couldn’t find any flaws in). Why don’t you say anything about the new report that ended in 2024 and that doesn’t use an absurd cutoff of “at least 150 patients”?
If you’re going to mock, let me remind you of your friends’ failure with the Frass et al trial in Oncologist: your buddies’ letter wasn’t even published, and the Oncologist editorial found nothing adverse in the Frass et al trial.
Frass?
Oh please. Have any of his previous serial exercises in risible Texas Sharpshooting ever been heeded. Nope.
The small-cell study was a blinded RCT and has it been recognised to be transformative and homeopathy has subsequently been adopted globally as a valuable adjunct in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer?
Nope.
It’s been seen as the poorly-conducted, bias-ridden piece of shit that it is and ignored. The original paper has also been subject to two notes of concern and revisions have been needed.
It has also, same as any notionally positive bits of positive homeopathic clinical research, not been independently replicated.
Extraordinary claims – that shaken water has clinical effects – need extraordinary proofs, Sandbox. You are unable to provide any. Because there aren’t any. But keep yammering and stamping. You remain as inconsequential and idiotic as you always have been.
Oh and have YOU published anything? You seem to be very keen on this being fundamental to being able to critically appraise the claims of others. I ask you this every time you pitch up here with your tooth-fairy claims. You never answer.
Wonder why?
Yes, Frass.
1. Why do you call it a “small study,” Lenny? The trial is with 150 patients, which is the minimum requirement (together with JADAD quality = 5) that the NHRMC required in 2015 to be of high quality. In fact, the Frass trial was designed to test the NHRMC’s assumption. Even more interestingly, the Frass trial was not included in the 2024 NHRMC update (which no longer assessed 150 as the magic number for the minimum sample size) because they didn’t cover that clinical condition.
2. The trial received letters attempting to retract it, all curiously from pseudoskeptics. The German GWUP engineer and his friend believed they had discovered fraud due to a lack of understanding of the protocols and published their findings in the Skeptical Inquirer (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/05/homeopathy-research-hits-new-low/), which led to the story being swallowed by German and other newspapers, as did the Austrian agency OAWI. Edzard accused the authors of falsifying data (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2024/06/data-falsification-fabrication-and-manipulation-by-a-prominent-homeopath/). Unfortunately for them, The Oncologist received all the raw data and analyzed the data, resolved the discrepancies, and the trial remains published. https://academic.oup.com/oncolo/article/29/11/e1631/7766098
And the OAWI’s subsequent assessment was that there was no anomaly, but rather a misunderstanding. https://jumpshare.com/s/LqENAbGSHSSXOGNFB9T8
3. The only ones saying the trial was poorly conducted are members of the GWUP. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00432-022-04239-z This article curiously does not declare any conflicts of interest on the part of Jutta Hübner with the GWUP. Hamre et al. have criticized Hübner’s review as incompetent or even lacking knowledge of how to conduct reviews. https://www.ifaemm.de/wp-content/uploads/go-x/u/71c7cdb3-60ad-4414-8526-dd8265821b0e/Hamre_et_al_2024-02-21_Richtigstellung_gegenueber_INH.pdf
Lenny, Lenny. You have no arguments or evidence against it, all you have left is insults (it’s all you know how to do). You only have empty, clichéd phrases that you repeat without understanding, to dismiss evidence you don’t like and that contradicts your cult.
The phrase “extraordinary claims” is a David Hume-inspired reference to miracles under anecdotal conditions. But it’s well known that the phrase doesn’t apply when it comes to controlled conditions. Since systematically controlled trials in homeopathy have existed since the 1950s or earlier, it should have been clear by now that quoting an empty phrase you don’t understand is pointless. No, “extraordinary evidence” isn’t needed; science isn’t based on that. And in fact, Marcello Truzzi himself, who introduced that phrase, which Sagan and Randi later copied without judgment, dismissed it as nonsense after leaving CSICOP.
It’s a bit curious how you dismiss studies you don’t understand, and how you think you can assess the quality of studies when you don’t cite any criteria, nor have you published anything at all in any peer-reviewed journal (at least your friend Rasker has a letter to the editor in a journal, ironically, about complementary medicine). But you don’t even have that. It’s easy to see, based on your history of blog discussions, that you lack the minimum knowledge to engage in a debate, much less the education or patience to do so.
Oh, by the way, you should check out this study. In chapter 33, they address the “extraordinary claims…” nonsense. Unlike you, that study has the appropriate citations, and they also discuss the nonsense of David Gorski and Edzard Ernst.
https://www.academia.edu/126469005/Bolitas_y_chochitos_la_homeopat%C3%ADa_bajo_fuego_Disertaci%C3%B3n_antropol%C3%B3gica_epistemol%C3%B3gica_e_hist%C3%B3rica
Why do you keep trotting out this meaningless canard? Just repeating bollocks doesn’t stop it being bollocks.
And I note another load of pompous handwaving to avoid confronting the paucity of evidence to back up your claims. The link you provide is paywalled.
So much hot air, Sandbox. As ever, if you wanted to shut us up, you could do it with the knock-down, unarguable, independently-replicated trial results.
But you can’t.
Because there aren’t any.
And you know it.
So you continue to bloviate your high-handed and pompous nothings, dragging out the same arguments you always use, glorying in your pathetic, blinkered stupidity.
I called it a small-cell study, bozo. As with all homeopathy freaks, you read only what you want to read. And rarely understand it. You do know the paper was about small-cell cancer, don’t you? Do you want me to explain what that is?
And you obviously missed this bit.
The study has been recognised for the bumwash it is and ignored.
Suck it up.
Oh and another thing, Sandbox. The Frass study was of the A+B vs B design which will almost always generate a positive result for an inert therapy. But you would rather wave that away. Unlike the people who do know what they’re on about and have ignored Frass’ notional findings. You know. Clinicians. Experts. Lots of whom have published papers which seems to be very important to you.
1. The point, Lenny, is that you had mentioned the example of the Ombudsman not acting as the pro-homeopaths had hoped against the NHRMC. I gave you a similar example, but of pseudoskeptics who failed in their attempts to retract the Frass et al. article.
2. Are you telling me there’s a “dearth of evidence” just because you couldn’t access a paid article?
3. “Convincing” for you is what you don’t want to accept. If “convincing” is the nonsense of “extraordinary claims,” I remind you that this phrase has no empirical basis and doesn’t apply to contexts under controlled laboratory conditions. So, eliminating that nonsense condition (even rejected by the person who reintroduced it, Marcelo Truzzi), then your rejection is irrational.
4. You’re just insulting; you contribute nothing with either references or studies. You limit yourself, if anything, to quoting clichés or, like your friends, reciting what the guru Ernst said on his blog.
5. Of course I know what the article is about. But you brought up the topic of the Ombudsman, so when you mentioned “small” without specifying, it’s not difficult to deduce that you were talking about the sample size. But then you suddenly decided to change it to the type of cancer. Still, what difference does this make because you failed in your attempt to retract that article? What difference does it make because Frass is a renowned internist who holds patents, while neither you nor Ernst have a single patent in the field of conventional medicine?
Edzard Ernst: 0 patents
https://patents.google.com/?q=(edzard+ernst)&oq=edzard+ernst
Michael Frass: 6 patents
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=michael+frass&oq=michael+frass
6. From what I can see, you have no judgment of your own. You simply repeat what your guru tells you, that all A+B designs “will yield positive results.” Of course, if Ernst is so good at designing studies, why are his homeopathy trials consistently rated as low quality, even by Shang et al. themselves? Perhaps because Ernst himself found promising results, as he stated in his Desktop Guide to Alternative Medicine?
So much deflection, Sandbox. So much handwaving. So much hot air.
Please point out to me which of the Frass papers on homeopathy has had any influence on clinical practice?
None of them have. Not one.
And that is the bottom line. Flail and stamp all you like. Attempt rhetorical tricks. Roll out the ad homs. Misrepresent. Nitpick.
It’s all you’ve got because the bottom line will always be ours.
Homeopathy is bunk, always has been, always will be and those who believe otherwise are delusional fools.
The Oncologist paper is included in a clinical practice guideline in Germany. How come you didn’t know that, Lenny? Now, could you tell me which of your contributions (if any) have had the slightest relevance?
You’ve been saying for years that you’re always right, but all I see is the opposite. The only way you can claim victory is by applying pressure with public humiliation (insults, mainly) and misinformation.
Hahnemann had surely read about Anton Mesmer’s work.
And knew perfectly well that ‘placebo’ or ‘animal magnetism’ (‘animale’ being ‘soul’ in French) was responsible for the outcomes he observed. Plus wisely denying his patients the harmful bloodletting, enemas and emetics offered by so many of his contempories.
Enlisting folks to ‘prove’ his remedies (German ‘prufung’ meaning ‘experiment, not ‘proof’ in the English sense) was the act of a genius charlatan.
He certainly took in many folks – including the authors of the paper cited above!
Hahnemann knew about Mesmer because in his own book he mentions animal magnetism, but he doesn’t attribute its action to this, but rather possibly to the magnetism of magnets. He was also aware of the placebo; there’s already an article about that in the journal Homeopathy. You’re not discovering anything new!
The fact that the meaning of “prufung” was experiment actually makes sense for the era in which he lived: experimenting on himself. Hahnemann was certainly not a “charlatan”; he was an experienced chemist and physician, who contributed more to medicine than you (ironically) and will remain better known than you.
Only a person with a totally unscientific mind, like Richard Rawlins, would he spin the definition of “experiment” as a strategy from a “charlatan”!
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, page 97, Paul Starr explained why homeopathy attracted so many of the educated and wealthy classes: “Because homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox medicine.”
It is gonna to fun watching these dinosaurs yell and scream…before their fall.
@DUllman
Experiments can have negative results. All experiments on the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies were ultimately negative. You lost, genius.
Oh, and one more thing: You like to insult Richard and other sceptics by comparing them to dinosaurs. Dinosaurs lived successfully on earth for around 160 million years. Modern homo sapiens, which you count yourself among (although I sometimes have my doubts), have only been around for around 40,000 years. 😉
It’s clear that experiments can have negative results; no one has said otherwise. Hahnemann reported negative cases, a rare gesture at the time, and contrary to many of his contemporaries who hid their negative results.
Contrary to what you say, most controlled experiments show that homeopathy outperforms placebos. Even your friend Ernst admits this several times in his books (I have several and have followed his claims over time). However, in the face of this, he focuses on high-quality trials, saying that this is the “totality of reliable evidence.” Ernst’s only basis is “official verdicts,” and all of them (EASAC and the Russian memorandum) are lumped together in the 2015 Australian report based on just five trials with non-standard and unrecognized quality criteria. The French High Authority report reported a proportion of positive trials and half of negative trials, so ironically, that report would actually end up proving you wrong.
I’m guessing he has some degrre of autism (no offense), RPG, but when Ullman talks about dinosaurs, he does so as a metaphorical example of how pseudoskeptics behave like those grumpy old professors who spread dogma. I hope you understood; calling them dinosaurs isn’t an insult to them, it’s a metaphor. I suggest you look up what that is and don’t just read Wikipedia.
😃😂🤣
Homeopathy editorial board (has some familiar names):
https://lp.thieme.de/open-access-files/175/editorial_board.pdf
yes – many years ago, it also included my name; but then I was fired by the late Peter Fisher.
I remember reading your article and the comments:
https://edzardernst.com/2013/03/ive-been-fired/
With my background in some of the applied sciences (other than medicine), I’d like to know who in that PDF I posted has made contributions, that amount to more than sod all, in an applied science.
Edzie has chosen to mock a recent editorial in the journal, HOMEOPATHY, where the editor summarized an important “Letter to the Editor” by Professor Andrea Dei. What Edzie didn’t tell his readers was that Professor Andrea Dei is a professor of physics at the University of Chicago.
WHO should intelligent people gonna trust on issues surrounding the physics of water: Edzard Ernst…or a professor of physics at a major university?
And why do you think that Edzie chose to not mention the above fact? Curious minds want to know.
And for the record, it seems that Edzie has no appreciation for the long-time controversy within physics about wave vs. particle. The bottom line is that there are and will be other explanations for how various homeopathic medicines that are made from non-particle fields have upon water…but rather than asking questions, like a good scientist, he instead prefer to baste in his ignorance on the subject…and he tries to keep people uninformed about anything that may lend any credence to nanopharmacologies.
@Dana Ullman
The presence of particles (nano or otherwise) of the original substance in a homeopathic dilution 12C+ says just ONE thing: the water-shaking fool who prepared it messed up the dilution process, and/or contaminated the dilution.
That is all. It says NOTHING about any efficacy of homeopathy. Which can be assumed to be zero, given that there is not a single homeopathic preparation with clear, consistent and independently repeatable effects.
Oh my god…the double-distilled water that homeopathic pharmacies use is “contamination” with 6ppm of silica fragments from the glass walls of the vials in which they are made…oh my friggin’ god, these silica fragments can kill ya…IF you are the size of that silica fragment!
Thanx for the laffer!!!
Oh, the fun keeps happening…they are dropping one-by-one.
The idea that the presence of nanoparticles is due to the “incompetence” of those who prepared it only makes sense if it was done in highly contaminated places (in fact, this is the thesis defended by pseudoskeptic Abby Phillips Cyrac in her new article https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2025/07250/the_placebo_project__an_observational_study_and.40.aspx). The point of this study is that they detected lead in some commercial products, and the one they found substances typical of labels is in mother tinctures, but Abby is so dumb she says mother tinctures “can’t be homeopathic.”
Let’s analyze your argument, Rasker. I cited Abby’s research because it’s the only one that would support your argument, since you haven’t contributed anything. So I’m playing devil’s advocate. 1. If Abby’s research is correct, then he admits that Mother Tinctures can indeed have substance. The flaw in his conclusion is that Abby is very stupid and ignores that low potencies are in fact used and have been used by homeopaths for centuries. Abby’s failure to cite the research of the Robert Bosch Foundation (a world authority on the history of homeopathy) speaks volumes (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229905001159).
2. The point is that Abby analyzed samples from some pharmacies in India. Assuming what he says is true, it would only demonstrate that those pharmacies do not have minimum hygiene and quality controls, and that the Indian government should implement control measures and require Indian manufacturers to improve their quality controls.
3. Come on, Abby’s study supports you regarding laboratories that have poor quality control, not because they are “badly made.” But your argument falls apart when there are studies that find not only the presence of industrial contaminants, but also the starting solute (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491610000548). This has also been found even when the authors prepared the batches in a controlled manner (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/la303477s). And in other studies when rigorous cleaning measures have been employed in European laboratories (https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0044-1787782). These studies have been independently confirmed (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732224005932, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386142525009229, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021007076).
4. It’s obvious that a study whose sole objective is the characterization of nanoparticles won’t demonstrate whether it works. But a multidisciplinary study can, and it was recently conducted and published (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949834125000315).
Rasker, you’re a denier. You’re not an expert in any scientific discipline. You haven’t published anything (except, ironically, in a complementary medicine journal you hate so much). It’s you against the scientific consensus!
Thank you for providing such great information for these deniers of science (when the science doesn’t supoprt their worldview).
Usually, it is 50+ skeptics against just ME…so, I’m glad that you’ve come onto this scene.
Contact me privately…
Cool…it is so funny that you prefer to self-identify as dinosaurs.
Perfect, absolutely perfect.
It seems that I found the seemingly incorrect Professor Andrea Dei. He is not a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, but is a professor of chemistry at the University of Florence. In EITHER case, Ernst is out of his league (again)…and even more interesting, Sandbox has taken him to the woodshed…and now, deafening silence.
I predict that he will resort to personal attacks against me, just as the Trumpster tries to deflect his supreme guilt by blaming Obama or Hillary for something or other.
It is NO LONGER accurate to say that the mechanism of action from homeopathic medicines is “implausible.” There are working theories that incorporate modern understandings of nanopharmacology. And yet, dinosaurs yell the loudest before their fall. We should expect Ernst to cry and shout on his way down to the truth of homeopathy…and the many benefits it provides.
I don’t care a hoot who Dei is; fact is he does not understand medicine or parmacology or mechanisms of action of a medicine – and neither do you!
resort to personal attacks?
Yes, sorry, I do that sometimes but surely not as regularly as you!
Dana
Why are you trying to explain how homeopathy works when its efficacy has never been demonstrated in any robust and replicated trials? This ongoing demonstration off tooth-fairy science shows only what odd people homeopathy freaks are.
Your little circle-jerk echo chamber is the only place you can gain validation. The rest of science and medicine regards you as the insignificant fools you are.
Of course you could shut me up by showing us the unarguable evidence of efficacy but there isn’t any. There never has been and there never will, This is what grinds the gears of you and Sockpuppet Sandbox.
So much stamping and shouting and spluttering, Dana. And for what?
Nothing.
Lenny. Even if you don’t like it, the evidence for homeopathy has been sufficiently demonstrated. Clinical trials in non-human animals, as well as laboratory and physicochemical studies, confirm it. You, on the other hand, continue, as Ullman says, to be a “dinosaur” (with apologies to the dinosaurs) who doesn’t listen; you just keep talking about a “consensus” that doesn’t exist, except in your imagination. All the major sources you can cite, or that your trolling colleagues have cited, have already been cited and contrasted in this study:
https://www.academia.edu/126469005/Bolitas_y_chochitos_la_homeopat%C3%ADa_bajo_fuego_Disertaci%C3%B3n_antropol%C3%B3gica_epistemol%C3%B3gica_e_hist%C3%B3rica
“the evidence for homeopathy has been sufficiently demonstrated”
https://edzardernst.com/2017/04/official-verdicts-on-homeopathy/
Apparently you didn’t read the study, Ernst!
Here’s a hint: that study, in chapter 27, lists every one of the “official verdicts” you cite in your books and blogs, and they mention you more than fifty times throughout the entire document.
It always surprises me that you, Mr. Ullman, do not seem to be a Trump supporter.
Your science-denial, irrational mindset and choleric temperament should be a perfect match.
I would be interested what you think of his decision to pick Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for the HHS.
Delighted, I expect:
https://edzardernst.com/2024/02/the-eu-will-phase-out-the-use-of-dental-amalgam/#comment-150199
In previous years, the pseudoskeptics claimed that pro-homeopathy people were very left-wing. But curiously, since 2020 there have been several news outlets saying that pro-homeopathy are “MAGA voters.” The media manipulation is obvious, and oddly enough the same thing showed up on Twitter around the same time. It’s the dumbest way for pseudoskeptics to create a fake association between “homeopaths and the far right.” In reality, pro-homeopathy people are a hugely mixed bag of both right-wingers and left-wingers, and that tells us absolutely nothing—contrary to what some silly pseudoskeptic paper (like Angelo Fasce) have tried to find.
as you now found out yourself, you were wrong about Dei and all the rubbish you wrote about physics.
“I can explain this to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.”
— Edward I. Koch
Dana Ullman wrote “non-particle fields”
Such as near‑field communication systems that function without photons. Photons are self-propagating wave packets that form in the far‑field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
Amateur radio enthusiasts and communications engineers are very knowledgeable about these things. Homeopaths are, of course, ignorant of these things; and when they encounter a new technical term, they’re stupid enough to believe that their critics are just as clueless.
Some relevant properties of water:
• electrical conductivity
• relative permittivity (deprecated: dielectric constant)
• magnetic susceptibility
• electromagnetic absorption
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)
“Oh, isn’t electricity delightfully magical to those who don’t understand it.”
— Pete Attkins on Tuesday 17 March 2015 at 11:16
Ernst, you seem to be descending into madness. A few years ago, in your books, you said that nanoparticles in homeopathy were ‘just a theory’ (due to your ignorance of the meaning of theory) and then you went on to complain that ‘they had not been replicated’. Now that there is a solid body of research in various laboratories around the world (Russia, Greece, the USA, Mexico, India, Brazil), to name a few, you say it’s ‘BS’ just because you don’t like that your prediction has failed miserably, and because you’re afraid to admit that homeopathy is no longer ‘mystical,’ but has evolved and is becoming increasingly materialistic.
About your points:
1. The target is cells. In fact, if we take nanoparticles into account, we can safely say that they pass through cell membranes. If it is with water memory, at the end of the day, nanostructures are in the range of nanoparticles, and these can emit physical signals and communicate with cells. The process is plausible.
2. Interactions with processes would not be foreign to what is known about the biology of the human body, including interaction with genes.
3. There are experiments on gene expression, and you know it, but the sig
Biochemical Consequences: The effects of the medicine-target interaction on the target’s function, such as enzyme inhibition or activation, receptor agonism or antagonism, or modulation of gene expression.
4. The pathways have also been hypothesized for years.
5. Cellular effects have been consistently observed, including those on survival through hormesis.
6. There is also a clinical effect supported by meta-analyses and their effect estimates (something you have not been able to refute).
7. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can be studied with mother tinctures and low potencies. In the case of “high dilutions,” if there are nanoparticles, it is possible to study them with nanomedicine. If it is with aqueous nanostructures, this would involve quantum biology, but it is not impossible.
8. The dose response is primarily hormetic, and you know it. This type of dose response is more difficult to study due to its greater nonlinearity, but it is not impossible. Advances in hormesis will have to reveal the dose response for each homeopathic medicine, but it is possible.
References
https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(21)00707-6
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la303477s
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491610000548
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095496418300128
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81843-y
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13237-014-0105-0
Low Doses of Traditional Nanophytomedicines for
Clinical Treatment: Manufacturing Processes and
Nonlinear Response Patterns
“The dose response is primarily hormetic, and you know it.”
I asked you on Friday 29 March 2024 at 08:11
Oh look, the very same comment in which I pointed out your erroneous claim that:
“No one in homeopathy uses ‘ultrapure water’ ”
Yet you repeated your erroneous claim today. You appear to be uneducable.
Because it’s true, no one in homeopathy uses “ultrapure water.” Some articles on homeopathy mistakenly confuse “ultrapure” water with distilled water. Remember, ultrapure water precludes the formation of structures, and there is no memory. But in distilled water, as in mixtures of water with alcohol and ethanol, water memory can exist. These are facts!
It’s so hard these days to know who to believe: Boiron, or an anonymous ignorant nymshifting persistent troll with a history of telling lies.
https://edzardernst.com/2024/03/the-pretend-scientist-talking-about-science-does-not-make-you-a-scientist/#comment-150914
1. But it’s true that homeopathic medicines are not “ultrapure water.” I repeat, manufacturers like Boiron may claim to use “ultrapure water,” but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any impurities present: from the moment the solute or solutes come into contact with the atmosphere, gases, bacteria (in a clean environment, I highly doubt they’re pathogenic; in dirty environments, they could trigger allergies or some reaction), and even dust are dissolved. Eliminating this 100% is very difficult. The memory effect in augmented (corrected) QFT models implies impurities present in small quantities (exceeding the threshold prevents formation, hence the nonsense that “water should have memory because it’s been down the toilet” and other nonsense makes no sense).
2. As I repeat, you’re asking the manufacturers about that. I only said that studies frequently report hormetic responses, and that’s a general biological phenomenon. So you can close your eyes or cover your ears, but the phenomenon of hormesis is well documented and there are also these non-linear curves in various experiments.
1. Even if Boiron uses ultrapure water, it must be processed with a starting solute, and from there it comes into contact with air, dissolving gases, O2, dust, or even bacteria (if any). That’s why my argument remains correct. That’s what I mean by saying that no one in homeopathy uses “ultrapure water.” If you don’t understand Texeira’s article and what he says about ultrapure water alone not allowing the formation of stable macrostructures, you don’t understand the topic!
2. You should ask each manufacturer for that; I don’t represent them. I’m just an enthusiast on the subject. But I find it ridiculous that you want those curves, while at the same time you want to censor research and ban homeopathy.
Dear persistent troll,
You made the goddam claim, so you own the burden of supplying evidence; as requested in the red banner:
Please remember: if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.
You see, dear persistent troll, Hitchens’s epistemic razor states the logical truth that:
“What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.”
That is a libellous accusation. However, I’m unlikely to sue someone who has strikingly similar behaviour — therefore very likely has a similar net worth — to that of a random Internet troll who’s living in its mummy’s basement and using her computer.
But thank you for blatantly admitting that the dose–response curves are not available to support your unevidenced claims regarding hormesis.
Thank you for confirming my response to commentator Gustavo…
Pete Attkins on Saturday 17 February 2024 at 09:31
QUOTE
Gustavo: “the repetition of jokes ‘homeopathy is just pure water’ is no longer funny
Indeed ! We now have ‘proof’ that homeopathy is just contaminated water.
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/homeopathy-does-not-work-beyond-context-effects-not-even-in-switzerland/#comment-150315
END OF QUOTE
And finally, thank you for confirming that you are still clueless as to whether or not Boiron’s Korsakovian dilutions using
“ultra-purified water as the solvent, the machine removes 99% of the Mother Tincture and replaces it with the same volume of solvent. The vial is succussed for 10.5 seconds”
AT EACH of their 200 repetitions involved in making its proprietary Oscillococcinum® 200CK,
form stable macrostructures, without which, according to your comments, the product is bogus.
Unless you provide reliable evidence in the form of lab test conducted on Boiron’s or an identical manufacturing process, I shall continue to call out your bullshit. In other words:
Put up or shut up!
1. It’s curious that you demand proof when, regarding the Benveniste affair, you offered nothing more than a 1993 study and, after I provided you with re-analysis evidence, you simply stopped replying.
2. Hitchens was an activist atheist, trained as a philosopher, and an ultra-conservative aligned with MAGA ideas. In fact, that alone should disqualify him as any sort of authority (according to the pseudo-skeptics on X who are generally pro-trans ideology, pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine, and anti-Putin).
3. Anyway, I’ve already given you plenty of links, so I’ve surpassed Hitchens’ razor and it can be completely dismissed in the topic we’re discussing.
4. It’s not a defamatory accusation—there are hundreds of comments on Ernst’s blog calling for homeopathy to be wiped out. You only resort to ad hominem attacks because you have no idea how I live or under what conditions, and even if your assumption were “correct,” it says nothing about my arguments; you’re using the classic ad hominem.
5. We have proof that water memory requires impurities, but only in very small amounts. So it’s not “dirty water” as you think. In fact, misinformed pseudo-skeptic, tap water (as you probably believe and as many pseudo-skeptics spread with a meme of a toilet bowl) prevents water memory from forming.
6. You’re very aggressive and angry, Peter. But you need to understand things. The Cowan study on ultra-pure water that’s cited on Wikipedia and in every anti-homeopathy pamphlet doesn’t refute water memory because they simply didn’t dilute anything at all. But that study does prove that, in ultra-pure water without dilution, Texeira’s assumption is correct: memory formation is incompatible with what we know about water physics. What we do know is that ultra-pure water stops being ultra-pure once it’s used in dynamization, since it comes into contact with air and dissolves gases (argon, oxygen, CO₂, etc.) and bacteria present in the atmosphere. In labs with poor conditions (like those in India), it can dissolve sweat or heavy metals. But—the part you don’t like—is that under very controlled conditions (like certified European labs), Mr. Abby’s research makes no sense, because the few ppb concentrations of bacteria or dissolved gases still don’t explain the formation of nanostructures, and this can be discriminated using techniques that identify contaminants and separate them from nanostructures.
So, Peter, it’s simple. In India, homeopathic manufacturers and labs that don’t meet high-quality standards should be temporarily shut down until they comply. In the case of high-standard labs in other countries, it’s clear that dissolved impurities must be very low so they don’t destroy the nanostructures (we’ve known this since 2011, Richard), and dissolved gases are only cofactors (as Benveniste had preliminarily suggested in 1991 and Wassehoven et al confirmed in 2021).
Now you bring evidence that refutes the Wassenhoven studies—remember to make claims based on actual studies!
Sandbox, Ullman, or anyone, please answer two simple questions from an ordinary layman.
1) How do nanoparticles really explain anything? An example: Allium Cepa (made fron onion) is supposed to cure running eyes etc. because onion causes eyes to water. But onion has this effect because when cut, the severed onion cells release enzymes which react with amino acids to produce the volatile gas syn-propanethial S-oxide, which in turn irritates the eyes. So what do globuli of Allium Cepa actually contain? Nanoparticles of the enzymes? Of the amino acids? Of syn-propanethial S-oxide? And how does any of this, orally ingested, spark a similar respons as the airborne gas from a real onion?
2) How does the nano theory explain the increased power of higher potencies? Do higher potencies perhaps contain a higher concentration of nanoparticles? But how can nanoparticles form in increasing numbers when the raw material for forming them, i.e. the starting substance, gradually disappears during the dilution process? Or does the number of particles remain relatively constant while they in some mysterious way absorb and store increased levels of energy released through succussion? Seems like nonsense to me, but again, I am just an uneducated layman, so please enlighten me.
@Foffen
Nanoparticles as discussed by Dana Ullman (a.k.a. nanobabble) do explain one thing: the human tendency to believe in magic.
Your question about Allium cepa is just one (quite good) example how ‘nanoparticles’ as an explanatory mechanism for homeopathy are hugely implausible nonsense. There are many, many more:
– Oscillococcinum 200C, supposedly for ‘influenza-like symptoms’, is based on putrid duck innards. Now Mr. Ullman maintains that these innards contain avian flu viruses(*), which supposedly explain the indication mentioned. But how exactly are ‘nanoparticles’ involved here? Because influenza viruses ARE in fact nanoparticles. So does oscillococcinum contain viable avian flu virus particles? This would be very undesirable, to say the least …
*: Which in fact is impossible already: even if, in rare and extremely severe cases, those viruses could end up in duck’s liver and heart, any ducks with avian flu must be destroyed immediately, and processing them for any form of human consumption is strictly forbidden. So no avian flu viruses or nanoparticles are actually involved.
– Then there is what homeopaths call Natrium muriaticum. This is pig Latin for sodium chloride, or table salt, homeopathically diluted. It is supposedly associated with well over a hundred highly specific ‘symptoms’ and effects.
Here again, nanoparticles can’t play a role, as dissolved salt fully dissociates into sodium and chloride ions. There are no salt nanoparticles in a (non-saturated) watery solution of table salt. Which goes for any other water-soluble ingredient as well, discrediting the ‘nanoparticle
handwavingtheory’ for a huge number of homeopathic preparations. Sure, when evaporating the water from a sample, any salt ions present will aggregate into crystals, which may or may not be nanoparticles, depending on size. But those nanoparticles immediately dissociate again upon contact with water – and they certainly do not have any special therapeutic effects.Then there is the fact that each of us has about 200 grams of table salt throughout their body – so it is completely absurd to believe that the highly diluted ghost of an infinitesimally small extra amount could have any specific effects whatsoever.
All of which is of course also why the 1835 Nuremberg salt test was one of the first well-documented failures of homeopathy. And failure would henceforth be homeopathy’s hallmark, to this day.
We could come up with hundreds if not thousands of similar examples, relegating the ‘nanoparticle theory’ to the realm of fantasy and quackery on each and every occasion. Conversely, no homeopath has ever come up with even ONE example where nanoparticles could be clearly linked to any effects in independently replicated experiments with 12C+ dilutions. (And no, the mere detected presence of nanoparticles is not the same as an effect.)
And, of course, you are fully correct that it is even more implausible that a higher dilution would somehow cause more or more potent nanoparticles to come into existence, creating a more potent ‘medicine’. Nothing even remotely like this has ever been scientifically observed.
If any nanoparticles of the original substance are found in a homeopathic preparation 12C+, then that has a very simple, rational explanation: whoever concocted the preparation messed up the dilution process. There is nothing special going on, except perhaps human error and human imagination.
Homeopathic healing is based on the laws of life created by God. Those who understand the process of reincarnation know that true healing comes from the similars. From the book Physiology of the Soul, by the spirit Ramatis:
“The mentors of the Earth, responsible for human destinies, often prescribe reincarnation healing through a system we might call “spiritual homeopathy,” which occurs when certain creatures become ill due to subverting the beneficial action of the laws of life operating in the physical worlds. The cruel, the despot who abuses his power over humiliated peoples can be compared to an individual intoxicated by violent medicine; then the Karmic Law, acting under the same law of “likeness,” prescribes for the cure of this spiritual intoxication the reincarnation of the offender in a humiliating situation, linked to old adversaries incarnated in the form of relatives, enemies, or tyrannical bosses, who also torment him from the cradle to the grave, similar to true small doses of homeopathic medication.
The Spiritual Law, instead of violating the soul sick with tyranny, subjugates it to an allopathic therapy, which can drastically eliminate the effects without eliminating the cause of the illness, prefers to subject the patient to the dynamics of homeopathic doses, placing him among the lesser tyrants who then gradually refine or decant his ill state. In the first case, the tyrant would be punished “allopathically,” because tyranny is considered worthy of the most drastic elimination; in the second, the Law of Karma reeducates the tyrant, making him feel within himself the same harmful effects that he sowed elsewhere. But it leaves his reasoning open to undertake his psychic rectification, similar to homeopathy, which reeducates the organism without violating it and helps it renew itself under better mental cohesion and reflection of the patient himself.
Since God does not punish his creatures, all the fundamental laws of his Creation aim only at renewal and progressive readjustment of the “sinner,” propelling him toward his soonest spiritual happiness. This gradual treatment of spiritual recovery through various physical reincarnations acts, therefore, as a kind of spiritual homeopathy, in which the Law adjusts the psychic machinery of man, without violating his conscience already formed over time.”
are you trying to justify the bon mot: @HOMEOPATH, THE CLOWN OF THE HEALTHCARE FAMILY’ ?
By curing the person, diseases are cured. Those who “cure” the disease without curing the patient are simply saying see you soon or pushing things onto a colleague in another specialty.