Good find, ZanyZebra, and one would hope that could be the last word required on the vaccination issue.

Another that popped up was homeopathic 'remedies', and I just came across another New Scientist article on that great fraud as well:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527455.800-homeopathy-overdosi....html

I think this section sums it up quite nicely:

"Homeopaths claim that the application of these three laws results in a remedy that, even though it contains not a single molecule of the original ingredient, somehow carries an "energy signature" of it that nobody can measure or detect.

Unsurprisingly, when tested under rigorous scientific conditions, in randomised, controlled and double-blind trials, homeopathic remedies have consistently been shown to be no better than a placebo. Of course, the placebo effect is quite powerful, but it's a bit like justifying building a car without any wheels on the basis that you can still enjoy the comfy leather seats and play with the gear shift."

Hi Broadbean,

Since homeopathy has popped up for you, here's what I found about the modern form of homeopathy, "homotoxicology":

Homotoxicology is a (sophisticated) modern form of homoeopathy and is the most prescribed form of natural medicine in Germany, where it has been used for over 50 years and is practised by conventional doctors and natural therapists alike. In fact, 80% of orthodox doctors in Germany prescribe homoeopathic or antihomotoxic preparations for their patients. The efficacy and safety of homotoxicology is supported by close to 100 clinical trials.

In Australia, too, there are medical doctors as well as vets who use this form of homeopathy successfully, not to mention naturopaths.

To my knowledge, no-one has ever died from using these medicines.

Must be a lot of "quack" doctors / vets out there, especially in Germany!

"Placebo" and "nocebo" effects are well documented in the research literature. As far as I know, there is NO evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments other than that found for placebo effects. Just because no-one has died from using homeopathics (more evidence for the lack of effect) doesn't mean it is ethical to promote it. What better way to rip people off than to provide a treatment that is guaranteed to do no harm and might even elicit a placebo effect.

Hi Artemisia,

I'm not surprised no one has ever died due to taking homeopathic remedies - you cannot be harmed by something that has no effect!

As for your claims about homotoxicology, it doesn't matter how well the building is constructed if the foundations are still rotten to the core.

Homeopathy is irrational and unsupportable nonsense, period.

The quote you provided above comes from Heel, a German company with a less than illustrious reputation, it would seem.

If you really want to get an understanding of just how big a bunch of quacks they really are, and how worthless their claims are, try reading the following site. In fact, at one stage they even had many of their products banned by the FDA for violating US drug laws, claiming that their homeopathic products (which can and have been proven to be clinically useless, beyond the placebo effect), could successfully treat "cancer, gallstones, glaucoma, kidney failure, multiple sclerosis, smallpox, syphilis, tuberculosis, and more than a hundred other diseases and conditions". These people are recklessly endangering the lives of innocent but gullible people, all in the name of pure profit - talk about modern-day snake oil salesmen!

http://www.homeowatch.org/reg/BHI/bhi.html

You can also read:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Homotoxicology

Hi Broadbean,

I don't know about the American FDA's position towards Heel's range of homeopathics. I do know these homeopathic medicines are approved as homeopathic medicines in Australia by the Australian equivalent authority, the TGA.
The TGA has very restrictive laws as to what the company may claim on the product packaging.

I personally have clinical proof that these products work. I'm wondering how much experience you have with these or any other homeopathic medicines?

No doubt you just consult the various self-appointed 'quack watch' websites for your information. If the 'quack watch' authors are right, then the Australian TGA must have got it wrong...

Sad, really,( Unneeded personal comment deleted, please keep comments to the message not the messenger, Moderator)

Artemisia, I just consulted the laws of physics, which are quite clear enough - when you dilute something to even the low end of what is used for homeopathic remedies, you would be lucky if even one single molecule of the original substance remained in any given dosage. Quite simply, it is absolutely and physically impossible for homeopathic remedies to provide any clinical benefit whatsoever in their own right. Any benefits that may be assumed have been proven to be no better than for the placebo effect - in other words, homeopathic remedies are clinically no different to sugar pills, and you cannot claim otherwise unless some method has been discovered by which the laws of physics can be circumvented.

The websites are merely provided as a courtesy to kickstart the research of others who may not be as familiar with them (ie. the laws of physics and science in general) - they are fairly simple in the way they explain everything, but are quite accurate in what they describe, and thus are very useful for people without a science background.

Hi again Broadbean,

I concede that our limited knowledge of the laws of physics to date may not provide all of the answers on how anomalous phenomena occur. However, lack of evidence for WHY something occurs does not mean that it does not occur.

H Walach et al in "Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions" - see: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/29 , suggest that the current system of evidence-based scientific enquiry may need to be reformed to accommodate more complex medical interventions.
Might this be a solution?

I think true scientific enquiry must remain open to new and unorthodox information if it is to avoid a cult-like status.

Here are some points to ponder.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAFETY & EFFICACY OF HOMEOPATHY:

The journal ‘Homeopathy’ publishes peer-reviewed articles that will appeal to a multi-disciplinary audience. Homeopathy is an international journal aimed at improving the understanding and clinical practice of homeopathy by publishing high quality articles.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623042/de...ption


American Institute of Homeopathy
http://homeopathyusa.org/homeopathy-now.html

“Research has been performed in plants and animals, in particular, with the conclusion that, in fact, there is a biological effect using substances that are diluted beyond Avogadro's number and therefore with no remaining molecules of the original substance. ALL OF THIS RESEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY RESEARCHERS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED TO THE HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY IN ANY WAY, and actually, have disclaimed that their research has anything to do with it. (Merizalde B, "Samuel Hahnemann, Hormesis and a probable mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies", Am J of Homeopathic Med, Winter, 1995, 249-254)”

Also:
http://www.homeopathyworks.com.au/research.html


BIOLOGICAL MODELS

One of the main areas of basic research in homeopathy has been in in-vitro or in-vivo biological models of the action of ultra-molecular dilutions and their potential mechanisms of action, including the Similia principle (the concept of treating like with like).
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/about-homeopathy/basic-research/biolog...odels


High Dilution Effects on Cells and Integrated Systems
BASIC RESEARCH ON HIGH DILUTION EFFECTS - MADELEINE BASTIDE
Laboratory of Immunology,Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Montpellier I, France
http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/Bastide_1.pdf



CONCEPTS IN HOMEOPATHY:

A key concept in research into homeopathy (how it works) is THE ELECTROMAGNETIC NATURE OF MOLECULAR SIGNALING IN THE LIVING ORGANISM. These signals are said to be "memorized" by fluids (water) and can, thus, interact with its target molecules within the body.


See also:  The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
http://site.fixherpes.com/roy_structure_water.pdf


Bruce H Lipton’s book “The Biology of Belief – Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles”. (Lipton is a former medical school professor and research scientist).

The book discusses that genes and DNA do NOT control our biology but that DNA (and presumably other living molecules) respond to signals from outside the cell and our environment. The definition environment includes input from the outside world and our own thought processes transmute this input into energetic signals that our physical body responds to.

Thus, the nature of these signals to which our body responds are ENERGY not material (matter).
He writes: “Hundreds upon hundreds of … scientific studies over the last fifty years have consistently revealed that “invisible forces” of the electromagnetic spectrum profoundly impact every facet of biological regulation.”


The ability of human consciousness to change the structure of
water is indicated by experiments utilizing light scattering indicatrix recordings.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_1_pyatnitsky.pdf

Research by MASARU EMOTO in “The Message from Water”, “The Hidden Messages in Water”, etc,  into the “memory” effect of water – i.e. actual physical particles do not need to be present in a solution for the solution (water, alcohol) to have a targeted physical effect on the body.


THE POWER OF WATER - Are Its Secrets the Keys to Solving Today's Most Vexing Problems?  -  By Jeane Manning

Topics include:
- experiment with transferring, from water to us, the life-force energy chi, also called prana
- measure physical qualities of "holy water," or effects of conscious intent upon water's crystalline structure
http://www.implosionresearch.com/pdf/power_of_water.pdf



Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: An overview – by Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 253: 339–345, 2003)
Available at:     http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/Khuda-2.pdf


Also see: “How homeopathy might work”
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf121/sf121p07.htm



QUESTIONING THE IMPOSITION OF THE REDUCTIONIST MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY:

Why the reductionist approach in scientific enquiry cannot fathom homeopathy:

“Scientific reductionism is not a viable theory in modern science, because the processes governing the universe are so complex and intertwined that they can never be understood fully”.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/scientific-reductionism.html


Dictating that the randomized clinical trial be the only mechanism via which to test a medical theory or a system of medicine is a bit like one dominant group insisting that another group determine how many pounds six apples weigh using a tape measure, since the tape measure is considered to be the only valid measuring instrument for this purpose.

The clinical trial is not a suitable instrument in evaluating the validity of “classical” homeopathy, where a single substance is used to treat a patient, as the remedy is selected on the basis of a set of specific criteria unique to that individual, instead of being based on a “one drug fits all” model – i.e. the notion that all patients with a given disease can be given a particular medicine and it will work for them is not part of the classical homeopathic paradigm.

Herman et al argue that any study of a system of medicine and its concepts of health and disease must take into account the unique philosophy of that system if an assessment of its merits is to be valid.
In other words, the authors dispute the “model validity” of the standard scientific method as an applicable model for holistic modalities, such as homeopathy.

(Herman PM, Sherman KJ, Erro JH, Cherkin DC, Milliman B & Adams LA 2006, 'A Method for Describing and Evaluating Naturopathic Whole Practice', Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, vol. 12, no. 4, July/August,
pp 20-28)

Artemisia, that's a fairly hefty mountain of information there, but unfortunately it's all irrelevant to the actual issue - namely, that when not even a single molecule remains of the original solution then the homeopathic solution quite simply cannot have any effect. That's a fairly simple mathematical concept too, even though the physics/chemistry isn't all that complex itself.

I'll state it again: for ANY remedy to work, whether homeopathic or not, it must retain AT LEAST one molecule of the active ingredient. The problem with homeopathic remedies is that they don't have any active ingredient remaining whatsoever - not even one single molecule.

You can quote whatever you like, but while ever it continues to side step basic mathematics and the laws of physics (which we DO understand very well, as it happens), then the information provided just isn't really worth a whole lot, no matter how passionate you are about it.

I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just want a simple answer that respects well-established principles of mathematics and science. Nothing more or less. And I don't think that's too much to ask for.

"In other words, the authors dispute the “model validity” of the standard scientific method as an applicable model for holistic modalities, such as homeopathy."

This line of reasoning could be equally applied to faith healing.

Hi again guys,

You keep insisting that homeopathics cannot have any effect - here's the proof that they do, even if you do not believe me when I say that I have treated patients successfully with homeopathics / Heel products.

This study is "only" an in vitro study but should do to counter your argument that homeopathics do not have any effect.... The capitalisation in the abstract text below was done by me.

Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14732962

Arzneimittelforschung. 2003;53(12):823-30.
Antioxidative, antiproliferative and biochemical effects in HepG2 cells of a homeopathic remedy and its constituent plant tinctures tested separately or in combination.
Gebhardt R.

Institute of Biochemistry, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. rgebhardt@medizin.uni-leipzig.de

Hepeel is a homeopathic remedy commonly used to treat primary and secondary functional disorders of the liver. It consists of highly diluted extracts from the following plants: Chelidonium from Chelidonium majus, L., Carduus marianus from Silybum marianum, L., Veratrum from Veratrum album L., Colocynthis from Citrullus colocynthis L., Lycopodium from Lycopodium clavatum L., Nux moschata from Myristica fragans, Houtt, and China from Cinchona pubescens, Vahl.

The antioxidative, antiproliferative and biochemical EFFECTS in HepG2 hepatoblastoma cells of serial dilutions of these plant tinctures were tested, either separately or in various combinations. Upon damage of the cells with tert-butyl hydroperoxide, Carduus marianus, China and Nux moschata, in decreasing order, showed the strongest antioxidative EFFECTS. Greater than 95% inhibition of total production of malondialdehyde was reached with these three tinctures at dilutions of D4. The complete combination of the tinctures (COMB) realised in the homeopathic remedy showed an EFFECT corresponding to the combined effects of the individual tinctures. The antiproliferative influence on the incorporation of 3H-thymidine into DNA in normal HepG2 cells was significant (p < 0.01) but relatively weak, and decreased in the order Carduus marianus, Chelidonium, Colocynthis and Veratrum. At a dilution of D4 Colocynthis showed the strongest inhibition (13.5%). The effect of the combination of Colocynthis and Veratrum was markedly higher (22.3%) than that of the individual tinctures, but was not additive. With this combination, cell numbers were reduced. COMB had similar effects on proliferation and cell numbers, with the antiproliferative effect starting at a dilution of 1:40. The conjugation of 3,4-dichloronitrobenzene with glutathione was induced only by Carduus marianus and COMB, while all other tinctures were ineffective. Neither the individual tinctures, nor COMB showed cytotoxic effects in the dilutions tested.

These results demonstrate that the complete combination (COMB) realised in the homeopathic remedy and its constituents EXERT SPECIFIC ANTIOXIDATIVE, ANTIPROLIFERATIVE AND BIOCHEMICAL EFFECTS on HepG2 cells which all point to a potential hepatoprotective and tumouristatic action.


Just because there is no conclusive evidence on exactly HOW homeopathic remedies work - though I've outlined many probable mechanisms in my earlier post above - does not mean that homeopathic medicines have no effect.


Also, if these remedies had no effect, their prescription by medical doctors, homeopaths and naturopaths around the world, including Australia, would be tantamount to fraud which, I hope, is not what you're suggesting.

I do not believe the Australian government's Therapeutic Goods Authority (TGA) would approve these medicines for use in Australia, do you?

The staff of the TGA's Office of Complementary Medicines includes:

Michael Smith who is both a licensed pharmacist and a naturopath and heads the Office of Complementary Medicines.

Michelle McLaughlin with a degree in medical laboratory science who specializes in the regulation and evaluation of herbal and homoeopathic medicines.
She is the director of the TGA’s PreMarket Assessment Section (PRMAS) which is responsible for, amongst other things, REVIEWING THE EFFICACY OF PRODUCTS FOR REGISTRATION - INCLUDING HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES.

Libby Kerr, with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biochemistry/Pharmacology and a Master of Applied Science in Biopharmaceuticals. She is responsible for managing the development of the Australian Regulatory Guidelines for Complementary Medicines, amongst other things.

Hongxia Jin, with a Master's degree in Chemistry, is the director of the Post Market Review Section which CONDUCTS TARGETED AND RANDOM REVIEWS OF THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINES, amongst other functions.

Dr Michael Dodson, with degrees in medicine, science and medical science from the University of Melbourne, amongst other qualifications, who provides medical and clinical input to all areas of the Office of Complementary Medicines.

See: http://www.tga.gov.au/about/ocmstaff.htm

Incidentally, yesterday's "truth" in science is notoriously today's fallacy.

Take the Australian doctor, Dr Barry Marshall, a gastroenterologist, who postulated a few years ago that peptic ulcers might be caused by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). He was ridiculed by the mainstream of Australian doctors until the facts were fully understood by all.

If you really believe we already know all there is to know about medicine, the human body, physics, the laws of the universe.... then I am speechless!

Cerberus, you're right. They could also be applied to meditation and its health effects on humans.

Just to play devil's advocate..

If homeopathic medicine is so incredible and valuable for use in immune system strengthening, (according to all the studies you have posted), then why are not all doctors using it and raving over it? Why would we even need antibiotics or antiseptic or hygiene practices for that matter?

I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of homeopathic medicine, especially for use instead of vaccination, beyond placebo or chance effects. Sheer luck, if you like.

Sorry to be a bore, but:

Arzneimittelforschung. 2003;53(12):823-30.
Antioxidative, antiproliferative and biochemical effects in HepG2 cells of a homeopathic remedy and its constituent plant tinctures tested separately or in combination.
Gebhardt R.

A single in vitro study is not evidence of anything, other than results of a single in vitro study.

I'm not saying that it doesn't do something in humans, but this paper doesn't provide any evidence that it does.

Thankfully modern medicine expects a higher standard of evidence than a single in vitro study.

Artemisia,

You can believe whatever you like, that is entirely your choice, and that much at least I do not dispute.

But you cannot rewrite the physical laws of the universe, which is an essential act if there is ever to be a chance for homeopathic remedies to ever work. You can throw as much information at us as you wish, but while ever it continues to violate the laws of physics it is a waste of time and effort. These people quoted may well be experts in homeopathy, but they clearly know nothing about real science.

Give me a real scientist, practicing real science, whose work has been published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, and then I'll happily read every last word they have to say about the matter. But how can I be expected to give serious consideration, on a scientific matter such as this, to people who so fundamentally reject every proven tenet of modern science?

Oh my, I've just read over some of the nonsense in this thread - I'll think I'll make a quick exit before I get too excited!

Ooops...

But before I go...

AFAIK complimentary medicines aren't required to demonstrate efficacy or effectiveness to be listed by the TGA - they only have to undergo a pre-market assessment of safety (but no demonstration of efficacy or effectiveness).

So, they can be safe but ineffective and be listed.

So:

"Also, if these remedies had no effect, their prescription by medical doctors, homeopaths and naturopaths around the world, including Australia, would be tantamount to fraud which, I hope, is not what you're suggesting.

I do not believe the Australian government's Therapeutic Goods Authority (TGA) would approve these medicines for use in Australia, do you?"

Yes, they would, providing that they are safe - please correct me if I am wrong.

Are there fraudulent "naturopaths"? - if they are knowingly taking money for a remedy that is unproven, then yes, undoubtedly IMHO.

Oops...

Dunno why, but my last item was posted three times, hence the "oops" edits.

"Take the Australian doctor, Dr Barry Marshall, a gastroenterologist, who postulated a few years ago that peptic ulcers might be caused by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). He was ridiculed by the mainstream of Australian doctors until the facts were fully understood by all."

Medicine is not an exact science, it progresses (albeit rather slowly) by questioning established wisdom.

The key point that your H.Pylori example demonstrates is that there was a plausible biological mechanism. That mechanism was demonstrated and accepted. It was a milestone in modern medicine.

I can't think of an equivalent example from CAM.

Sadly, I really don't think the H.Pylori example helps your argument for naturopathy/homeopathy etc.

"If you really believe we already know all there is to know about medicine, the human body, physics, the laws of the universe.... then I am speechless!"

We certainly don't, but that doesn't mean that we should accept unfounded claims. There has to be a degree of plausibility!

...and I'm still confused as to where the water keeps it's memory.

Ha ha. This thread is funny. So many arguments. I personally agree with what you're saying Broadbean. I vaccinated my baby and to be honest I never considered NOT vaccinating. I can understand why Ladyleafwing and others chose not to though if they are their beliefs. We're all just doing what we consider best for our kids. :-)

Well lots of fun on this thread : ). I am somewhat distrustful of science in this field. If the science is obvious then I will accept it but when it comes to pharmacology, the power of the big corporations is enormous. So the small companies cannot afford to do a proper scientific tests while big pharma can afford to pay people to lobby government and pay scientists to conduct experiments. Their business is to make money and they will do anything to repress information that will cost them money. I am unsure how much power they have but I know enough to be sceptical of many of their claims. It may be that my mistrust is unjustified but I take a lot of convincing before I accept the products of those greedy corporations.

or even, peter, small companies can't afford the expensive testing and the big pharma refuses to do them properly (ie double blind). i'm with you.

Cerberus,

Not all doctors practice massage therapy or provide Tai Chi instruction – does this mean massage or Tai Chi as therapeutic modalities are ineffective?

Are any or all of the mechanisms by which these two modalities have therapeutic effect already elucidated by science?

Is the beneficial effect of Tai Chi only due to the exercise or is it “faith healing”?

A GP and fellow naturopathy student while I was still in college once said that he would sometimes challenge other doctors following their presentations at seminars or conferences by asking whether dietary changes would not be able to shift a particular disease state. The answers he got from the presenting doctors was that diet did not influence disease!

Which doctor was right? Does it mean that, because MOST doctors do not “believe” in diet or nutritional medicine, that nutrition is ineffective?
Dto for herbal medicine?

Or could vested interests within the pharmaceutical/medical establishment sometimes influence the denial of natural means of healing?


Anarchovegan,

The study you mention shows that homeopathic medicines do have an effect, something that Broadbean insists they do not. So, citing an in vitro trial should be sufficient evidence of an effect.

As mentioned above efficacy for natural medicines in Australia is reviewed by the TGA’s Office of Complementary Medicines.

Michelle McLaughlin is responsible for reviewing the EFFICACY of products for registration – incl. homeopathic medicines.
Hongxia Jin is responsible for the performance of “targeted and random reviews” of the safety and “EFFICACY OF COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINES” – see their website: http://www.tga.gov.au/about/ocmstaff.htm

What did you mean by putting the term naturopaths in inverted commas?


Broadbean,

I am not attempting to rewrite the physical laws of the universe.

However, I am saying that neither you nor mankind in general already know all of the laws of the universe that exist (that would imply we need not explore or learn any further), and that just because we lack the knowledge of how all things work doesn’t mean that they don’t.


A small clinical study of a homeopathic remedy:

A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL s® in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation

CONCLUSIONS
This study indicates that TRAUMEEL S (made by the company HEEL) may reduce significantly the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Cancer 2001;92:684-90. © 2001 American Cancer Society.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/85009171/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0