Do you ever feel when Prince Charles's name comes up, that you must be going slightly mad?
Surely not, I thought. Surely not. Why would Prince Charles have anything to do with lobbying the NHS to stop criticising homeopathy? Homeopathy - the 'alternative medicine' that time and time again has proven to have effects literally NO BETTER THAN A PLACEBO. (Disclaimer - I'm not being close minded here - please google it for yourself and see. It even says as much on the NHS website, but I don't think Prince Charles read that bit).
Real or not, there seems to be something very powerful in homoeopathic water making intelligent, people all around the world discard any shred of skepticsm in favour of the belief in magic water. Wait, I feel I'm going crazy again, or did you not know that infinitely diluted water hit with a stick for a specific number of times until it is MAGIC is available in Hogwarts potions classes and on our NHS?
But if you still think that this is all harmless, then please remember that Mother three months ago who tried to legally stop her cancer riddled son from having potentially life-saving radiotherapy in favour of homeopathy treatments.
Anyway, this is all a bit heavy, so here is a lovely little video I'd like to share with you, that I prepared earlier for Prince Charles and other hopeful wizards about the miracle life cure they all desperately need:
Follow Gemma Hurley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gemmoonsquirrel
Homeopathic research is like trying to tell the time with a broken clock. It doesn't matter how many times you look at it, the result will almost always be wrong and pointing to those few times when it shows the right time doesn't mean the clock actually works.
When skeptics start actually DOING some original research maybe someone will give some serious consideration to their opinions.
In the meantime we all realize that the acceptance of various theories are governed by a little thing called CONSENSUS but that doesn't mean an issue is settled, finalized, etc.
Skeptics seem to have arrived at a group consensus. What does this mean in terms of real world medical practise?
Nada, because nobody in any medical field consults skeptics.
The consensus among medics and scientists is that homeopathy is bunkum. It is a consensus reached by examining the evidence and finding that high quality trials cannot distinguish between shaken water and water.
You make the implication that skeptics are close minded but in fact it is homeopaths who will not accept evidence and will never be able to. This is shown by the complete silence to the simple question; what evidence would you accept to show homeopathy doesn't work?
Varshney JP, Naresh R. Comparative efficacy of homeopathic and allopathic systems of
medicine in the management of clinical mastitis of Indian dairy cows. Homeopathy. 2005, 94, 2,
81-5. Bovine mastitis is a serious problem in India and for many Indian dairy farmers, standard
veterinary treatment, because of its cost, is not a viable option. With this in mind, researchers treated 96 lactating dairy cattle suffering from mastitis using a homeopathic combination product (Group A). These were compared with a group of the same number of lactating dairy cattle suffering from mastitis that were treated with antibiotics (Group B). The treatment outcomes, duration and costs were then compared. Cattle from Group A had a successful treatment response rate of 86.6%, a mean time to recovery of 7.7 days and a total cost of (US) 47 cents. Cattle from Group B had a successful treatment response rate of 59.2%, a mean time to recovery of 4.5 days and a total cost of (US) $3.28
But it does raise the point made by homeopaths in this column. If they deny some negative clinical trials on the basis that they are non-individualised, why do they accept trials such as this which are also non-individualised?
Have you read that study? It's a hoot!
http://www.hawl.co.uk/fileadmin/HAWL/user_upload/articles/comparativeefficacyindiastudy.pdf
All sorts of basic issues and errors that render it poor science.
Guimaraes FS, Abud AP, Oliveira SM, Oliveira CC, Cesar B, Andrade LF, Donatti L, Gabardo J,
Trindade ES, Buchi DF. Stimulation of lymphocyte anti-melanoma activity by co-cultured
macrophages activated by complex homeopathic medication. BMC Cancer. 2009 Aug 22;9:293. This study, carried out by a team from Brazil’s Universidade Federal do Parana, sought to determine the effects of a complex of homeopathically prepared ingredients on the in-vitro response to melanoma cells. To do this, mouse lymph node lymphocytes were co-cultured with macrophages in the presence or absence of the homeopathic complex, and B16F10 melanoma cells; a particularly aggressive melanoma cell line. When compared to controls, it was found that the lymphocyte and macrophage cultures exposed to the homeopathic complex had greater anti-melanoma activity, reducing melanoma cell
density and increasing the numbers of lysed tumor cells.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...HOMEOPATHY NEVER FAILS....I CURES EVEN THE SO CALLED INCURABLE DISEASES.
Proof that HOMEOPATHY WORKS BETTER THAN PLACEBO
Widrig R, Suter A, Saller R, Melzer J. Choosing between NSAID and arnica for topical
treatment of hand osteoarthritis in a randomised, double-blind study. Rheumatol Int. 2007
Apr;27(6):585-91. Using a double-blind protocol, 204 people suffering from radiologically confirmed and symptomatically active osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive either topical arnica or topical ibuprofen to be applied to the area where the condition was active. The success or failure of the treatments was assessed according to functional ability of the affected part and pain intensity in this area after 21 days of continuous treatment. Assessment of the results at the end of this period found that topical arnica was as successful as topical ibuprofen for the management of osteoarthritis.
Wiesenauer M, Haussler S, Gaus W. Pollinosis therapy with Galphimia glauca. Fortschritte der
Medezin, 1983, 101, 17, 811-814. Using a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-centre
design in this trial, 86 people suffering from hay fever were treated for 5 and a half weeks with either
homeopathic Galphimia glauca 4X or placebo. Therapeutic success was seen in 83% of those using the Galphimia and 47% of those using placebo
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17318618
The second reference has an abstract so brief it makes little more than a claim. The area of clinical allergy is confounded by the very high placebo response caused by spontaneous remission, age effects and difficulty of diagnosis. Most good trials would expend time on discussing how they overcome these problems, but here, there is nothing.
The media skeptics don't seem to comprehend that the theory/purpose behind using meta-analyses in the first place is to inform practitioners in their own particular field which particular therapy might be the best (to date) for a particular medical condition.
The use of meta-analyses to substantiate whether or not Homeopathy "works" is actually a distortion/perversion of that process in the first place.
Since we all know that Homeopathy treats the patient and not the named disease, any study that looks for a condition-specific remedy is likely not going to pan out. This has been known for over 200 years already. That's why Homeopaths fit the patient to the remedy, and not the other way around.
The analysis of clinical outcomes of patients treated with Homeopathy always shows an overwhelmingly positive result.
But if these 'treatments' don't work because they fail to follow the rules somebody made up 200 years ago, where are the 'real' homeopaths complaining about these 'false' homeopaths.
And incidentally, much of NancyMalik's (for she is no doctor) spam concerns treatment of plants and cell cultures. Please explain how this fits your statement that the 'therapy' is applied to the patient.
Pick one of the studies at random and you will find one or more of the following:
No control is used.
Trial in not randomized.
Trial is not double blind.
Very often the trail does not support homeopathy.
Link is dead.
Published in a homeopathy journal and not a peer-reviewed medical publication.
And sometimes all of the above.
Nancy thinks that clogging these comment sections with enough durge will drown out the legitmate criticism of homeopathy, and to be fair, it works.
There are a number of these people carpet-spamming the comments pages, not expecting you to follow up on their claims. But if you do so, and I urge you to, you will find it wanting.
Slandering her doesn't get you any brownie points.
You can bet that there are more patients who consult her (and not you) regarding relevant medical issues.
Armchair critics (eg. you) are no more arbiters of medical studies than my poodle is a food critic.
FYI Homeopathic journals ARE peer-reviewed, just like the other medical specialties (eg. pediatrics). Note that not all relevant medical research is published in major journals -- there simply isn't room. There is also this small matter of publication bias and the fact that pharma advertising underwrites publication costs.
Aw.... depends what trail you're on !!
"Nancy thinks that clogging these comment sections with enough durge will drown out the legitimate criticism of homeopathy, and to be fair, it works."
Ah! So you finally agree homeopathy works !!! Splendid !
"There are a number of these people carpet-spamming the comments pages, not expecting you to follow up on their claims. But if you do so, and I urge you to, you will find it wanting."
Dr. Malik sells rugs ??!!
That is indeed curious.
Are you certain about this?
Have you checked the premises ?
This is new to me, any reference to this amazing claim?
1.) See references to replication of radiant indices (using Benveniste's patent) transducting Schumann resonances (background radiation) in Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences tinyurl com/montagnier
2.) "Using atuoradiography technique we have visulaized Beta radiation emitted by granules impregnated with diluted-succussed Potassium Iodine . As a control, non impregnated granules were tested in parrallel on another film of the same type using the same exposoure. No black spots were detected on the control film."
Detection of beta radiation using scintillators indicating the presence of tritium in impregnated pellets Theory of High Dilutions by Rolland Conte et al p. 137-138
This is not a harmless intellectual exercise. Many millions of people are being cured around the world every day with homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy is a very difficult rigorous discipline. If you honestly believe that this can not be true then you are entitled to your opinion. However you cross the line into unethical abuse when you rant against homeopathy in public forums. You attack something that is good and beneficial to the human race, simply because of your rigid belief system. You ignore the huge amount of clinical evidence dating back 200 years, and you refuse to really examine and understand your subject. You cherry pick your evidence just as you claim homeopathic supporters pick their evidence.
Perhaps a healthy dose of "SELF SKEPTICISM" is in order.
If the author is right, and homeopathy is mere quackery then an article criticizing it promotion by someone like Charles who has influence but is no expert, is totally valid.
Homeopathy does not cure millions just because millions use it and aren't dead yet any more than smoking does.
If it doesn't cure ( and all reasonable evidence suggest it doesn't. I mean evidence not your hysterical support) then it is the promotion of homeopathy in these comments that is unethical.
There's a good discussion of the many reasons homeopathy and other bogus therapies might seem to work, when, in fact, they do not: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_bogus_therapies_seem_to_work/
"By the way homeopaths, Zeno001 is Alan Henness who runs the Nightingale Collaboration whose remit is to close down all natural health alternatives."
LOL! Something else you've got completely and utterly wrong!
cells exposed to remedies, but the results were shown to be long-lasting. The study also showed that gene expression was significantly influenced by exposure to homeopathic potencies.
Please also see another study (the largest ever using homeopathy, 11 million participants in Cuba), referenced below
'Homeopathy Associated With Dramatic Reduction In Leptospirosis Infection In Cuban Population'
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197128.php
Successful prophylaxis rate using homeopathy was considerably higher than placebo group AND vaccinated group of population.
If you're interested, the research exists and is out there. I don't particularly care whether you look or not, but don't say it doesn't exist just because you don't want to believe it doesn't exist and haven't bothered backing up your own statements with research. Not very scientific, ignorant and frankly, lazy.
The sugar pills were only given to 2.4 million, but perhaps you could read the paper and tell us why you are convinced by a comparison between those given the sugar pills and the unvalidated 'model' they used? How many people in the IR were also given a proven (conventional) prophylactic and why?
Also, can you say whether the Cubans have been using sugar pills for leptospirosis prophylaxis since this trial?
Perhaps a more fundamental question is whether you believe it's OK to pick out just one or two trials or whether it might be better to take a step back and take a broader look of all the trials? And then work out which are the more reliable trials? What do you think you'd find?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197128.php
'Homeopathy Associated With Dramatic Reduction In Leptospirosis Infection In Cuban Population'
Go for your life Skepticat, there is masses of research out there.
And what's with that trademark symbol beside "Skepticism"? It's not a registered trademark. In fact, some Australian skeptic was royally shot down in Court over this.
England's Royal Family has enjoyed great health and longevity due to it's use of Homeopathy. I suspect Prince Charles has more credibility than a comedy screenwriter, especially one who fails to entertain.
A dose of this type of skepticism is about as healthy as a dose of diptheria. Now THAT's funny.
Homeopathic remedies comes in many potencies. From low X (1 to 10) to high C (1 to 100).