an opposing view regarding homeopathic medicine

[Guest guest]

Hi guys! Well, I presented one favorable view regarding homeopathic

medicine; I will post an opposing view.

It looks like there is certainly a lot of conflicting information

out there. I haven't done much research at all about it.

Anyway, the first link will give you a starting point to do look at

some research already done by professor here in my neck of the woods

at U of L.

http://www.biochemistry.louisville.edu/grad/alternative_med/Homeopath

y.htm

The second link is to the article I'm posting.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

Ok, here's the article, along with some reader responses that were

underneath the article. WARNING: THE VERY END OF THE READER RESPONSE

SECTION DOES USE THE " F " WORD, SO IF THIS OFFENDS YOU, PLEASE DON'T

READ IT. I DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND ANYONE. I AM JUST POSTING WHAT WAS

AT THE SITE.

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake

Barrett, M.D.

Homeopathic " remedies " enjoy a unique status in the health

marketplace: They are the only category of quack products legally

marketable as drugs. This situation is the result of two

circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

which was shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who

was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances included in the

Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the FDA has

not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs.

Today they are marketed in health-food stores, in pharmacies, in

practitioner offices, by multilevel distributors [A], through the

mail, and on the Internet.

Basic Misbeliefs

Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician, began formulating

homeopathy's basic principles in the late 1700s. Hahnemann was

justifiably distressed about bloodletting, leeching, purging, and

other medical procedures of his day that did far more harm than

good. Thinking that these treatments were intended to " balance the

body's 'humors' by opposite effects, " he developed his " law of

similars " -- a notion that symptoms of disease can be cured by

extremely small amounts of substances that produce similar symptoms

in healthy people when administered in large amounts. The

word " homeopathy " is derived from the Greek words homoios (similar)

and pathos (suffering or disease).

Hahnemann and his early followers conducted " provings " in which they

administered herbs, minerals, and other substances to healthy

people, including themselves, and kept detailed records of what they

observed. Later these records were compiled into lengthy reference

books called materia medica, which are used to match a patient's

symptoms with a " corresponding " drug.

Hahnemann declared that diseases represent a disturbance in the

body's ability to heal itself and that only a small stimulus is

needed to begin the healing process. He also claimed that chronic

diseases were manifestations of a suppressed itch (psora), a kind of

miasma or evil spirit. At first he used small doses of accepted

medications. But later he used enormous dilutions and theorized that

the smaller the dose, the more powerful the effect -- a notion

commonly referred to as the " law of infinitesimals. " That, of

course, is just the opposite of the dose-response relationship that

pharmacologists have demonstrated.

The basis for inclusion in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia is not

modern scientific testing, but homeopathic " provings " conducted

during the 1800s and early 1900s. The current (ninth) edition

describes how more than a thousand substances are prepared for

homeopathic use. It does not identify the symptoms or diseases for

which homeopathic products should be used; that is decided by the

practitioner (or manufacturer). The fact that substances listed in

the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia are legally recognized as " drugs " does

not mean that either the law or the FDA recognizes them as effective.

Because homeopathic remedies were actually less dangerous than those

of nineteenth-century medical orthodoxy, many medical practitioners

began using them. At the turn of the twentieth century, homeopathy

had about 14,000 practitioners and 22 schools in the United States.

But as medical science and medical education advanced, homeopathy

declined sharply in America, where its schools either closed or

converted to modern methods. The last pure homeopathic school in

this country closed during the 1920s [1].

Many homeopaths maintain that certain people have a special affinity

to a particular remedy (their " constitutional remedy " ) and will

respond to it for a variety of ailments. Such remedies can be

prescribed according to the person's " constitutional type " -- named

after the corresponding remedy in a manner resembling astrologic

typing. The " Ignatia Type, " for example, is said to be nervous and

often tearful, and to dislike tobacco smoke. The

typical " Pulsatilla " is a young woman, with blond or light-brown

hair, blue eyes, and a delicate complexion, who is gentle, fearful,

romantic, emotional, and friendly but shy. The " Nux Vomica Type " is

said to be aggressive, bellicose, ambitious, and hyperactive.

The " Sulfur Type " likes to be independent. And so on. Does this

sound to you like a rational basis for diagnosis and treatment?

The " Remedies " Are Placebos

Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances,

and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one

part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled

water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if

insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions

with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine

is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the

desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are

designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X =

1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the

Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most

remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are

marketed.

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a

cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater

than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more

than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red

dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly.

Homeopathy's " law of infinitesimals " is the equivalent of saying

that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will

possess an essence of redness. L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent

physicist who is executive director of The American Physical

Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a

solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least

one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more

than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product " for the relief of colds and flu-

like symptoms, " involves " dilutions " that are even more far-fetched.

Its " active ingredient " is prepared by incubating small amounts of a

freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant

solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly

diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule

of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its

concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400

zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in

the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100

zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report

noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the

product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine

dubbed that unlucky bird " the $20-million duck. "

Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the

dilution that can be made without losing the original substance

altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number,

corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024).

Hahnemann himself realized that there is virtually no chance that

even one molecule of original substance would remain after extreme

dilutions. But he believed that the vigorous shaking or pulverizing

with each step of dilution leaves behind a " spirit-like " essence --

" no longer perceptible to the senses " -- which cures by reviving

the body's " vital force. " Modern proponents assert that even when

the last molecule is gone, a " memory " of the substance is retained.

This notion is unsubstantiated. Moreover, if it were true, every

substance encountered by a molecule of water might imprint

an " essence " that could exert powerful (and unpredictable) medicinal

effects when ingested by a person.

Many proponents claim that homeopathic products resemble vaccines

because both provide a small stimulus that triggers an immune

response. This comparison is not valid. The amounts of active

ingredients in vaccines are much greater and can be measured.

Moreover, immunizations produce antibodies whose concentration in

the blood can be measured, but high-dilution homeopathic products

produce no measurable response. In addition, vaccines are used

preventively, not for curing symptoms.

Stan Polanski, a physician assistant working in public health near

Asheville, North Carolina, has provided additional insights:

Imagine how many compounds must be present, in quantities of a

molecule or more, in every dose of a homeopathic drug. Even under

the most scrupulously clean conditions, airborne dust in the

manufacturing facility must carry thousands of different molecules

of biological origin derived from local sources (bacteria, viruses,

fungi, respiratory droplets, sloughed skin cells, insect feces) as

well as distant ones (pollens, soil particles, products of

combustion), along with mineral particles of terrestrial and even

extraterrestrial origin (meteor dust). Similarly, the " inert "

diluents used in the process must have their own library of

microcontaminants.

The dilution/potentiation process in homeopathy involves a stepwise

dilution carried to fantastic extremes, with " succussion " between

each dilution. Succussion involves shaking or rapping the container

a certain way. During the step-by-step dilution process, how is the

emerging drug preparation supposed to know which of the countless

substances in the container is the One that means business? How is

it that thousands (millions?) of chemical compounds know that they

are required to lay low, to just stand around while the Potent One

is anointed to the status of Healer? That this scenario could lead

to distinct products uniquely suited to treat particular illnesses

is beyond implausible.

Thus, until homeopathy's apologists can supply a plausible

(nonmagical) mechanism for the " potentiation " -through-dilution of

precisely one of the many substances in each of their products, it

is impossible to accept that they have correctly identified the

active ingredients in their products. Any study claiming to

demonstrate effectiveness of a homeopathic medication should be

rejected out-of-hand unless it includes a list of all the substances

present in concentrations equal to or greater than the purported

active ingredient at every stage of the dilution process, along with

a rationale for rejecting each of them as a suspect.

The process of " proving " through which homeopaths decided which

medicine matches which symptom is no more sensible. Provings

involved taking various substances recording every twitch, sneeze,

ache or itch that occurred afterward -- often for several days.

Homeopathy's followers take for granted that every sensation

reported was caused by whatever substance was administered, and that

extremely dilute doses of that substance would then be just the

right thing to treat anyone with those specific symptoms.

Dr. Park has noted that to expect to get even one molecule of

the " medicinal " substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would

be necessary to take some two billion of them, which would total

about a thousand tons of lactose plus whatever impurities the

lactose contained.

Cell Salts

Some homeopathic manufacturers market twelve highly diluted mineral

products called " cell salts " or " tissue salts. " These are claimed to

be effective against a wide variety of diseases, including

appendicitis (ruptured or not), baldness, deafness, insomnia, and

worms. Their use is based on the notion that mineral deficiency is

the basic cause of disease. However, many are so diluted that they

could not correct a mineral deficiency even if one were present.

Development of this approach is attributed to a nineteenth-century

physician named W.H. Schuessler.

" Electrodiagnosis "

Some physicians, dentists, and chiropractors use " electrodiagnostic "

devices to help select the homeopathic remedies they prescribe.

These practitioners claim they can determine the cause of any

disease by detecting the " energy imbalance " causing the problem.

Some also claim that the devices can detect whether someone is

allergic or sensitive to foods, vitamins, and/or other substances.

The procedure, called electroacupuncture according to Voll (EAV),

electrodiagnosis, or electrodermal screening, was begun during the

late 1950s by Reinhold Voll, M.D., a West German physician who

developed the original device. Subsequent models include the Vega,

Dermatron, Accupath 1000, and Interro.

Proponents claim these devices measure disturbances in the flow

of " electro-magnetic energy " along the body's " acupuncture

meridians. " Actually, they are fancy galvanometers that measure

electrical resistance of the patient's skin when touched by a probe.

Each device contains a low-voltage source. One wire from the device

goes to a brass cylinder covered by moist gauze, which the patient

holds in one hand. A second wire is connected to a probe, which the

operator touches to " acupuncture points " on the patient's foot or

other hand. This completes a circuit, and the device registers the

flow of current. The information is then relayed to a gauge that

provides a numerical readout. The size of the number depends on how

hard the probe is pressed against the patient's skin. Recent

versions, such as the Interro make sounds and provide the readout on

a computer screen. The treatment selected depends on the scope of

the practitioner's practice and may include acupuncture, dietary

change, and/or vitamin supplements, as well as homeopathic products.

Regulatory agencies have seized several types of electroacupuncture

devices but have not made a systematic effort to drive them from the

marketplace.

For more information about these devices and pictures of some of

them, click here. If you encounter such a device, please read this

article and report the device to the practitioner's state licensing

board, the state attorney general, the Federal Trade Commission, the

FBI, the National Fraud Information Center, and any insurance

company to which the practitioner submits claims that involve use of

the device. For the addresses of these agencies, click here.

Unimpressive " Research "

Since many homeopathic remedies contain no detectable amount of

active ingredient, it is impossible to test whether they contain

what their label says. Unlike most potent drugs, they have not been

proven effective against disease by double-blind clinical testing.

In fact, the vast majority of homeopathic products have never even

been tested.

In 1990, an article in Review of Epidemiology analyzed 40 randomized

trials that had compared homeopathic treatment with standard

treatment, a placebo, or no treatment. The authors concluded that

all but three of the trials had major flaws in their design and that

only one of those three had reported a positive result. The authors

concluded that there is no evidence that homeopathic treatment has

any more value than a placebo [2].

In 1994, the journal Pediatrics published an article claiming that

homeopathic treatment had been demonstrated to be effective against

mild cases of diarrhea among Nicaraguan children [3]. The claim was

based on findings that, on certain days, the " treated " group had

fewer loose stools than the placebo group. However, Sampson and

London noted: (1) the study used an unreliable and unproved

diagnostic and therapeutic scheme, (2) there was no safeguard

against product adulteration, (3) treatment selection was arbitrary,

(4) the data were oddly grouped and contained errors and

inconsistencies, (5) the results had questionable clinical

significance, and (6) there was no public health significance

because the only remedy needed for mild childhood diarrhea is

adequate fluid intake to prevent or correct dehydration [4].

In 1995, Prescrire International, a French journal that evaluates

pharmaceutical products, published a literature review that

concluded:

As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with

variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their

placebo-responsiveness), these treatments are widely considered to

have an effect in some patients. However, despite the large number

of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that

homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in

identical conditions.

In December 1996, a lengthy report was published by the Homoeopathic

Medicine Research Group (HMRG), an expert panel convened by the

Commission of the European Communities. The HMRG included

homeopathic physician-researchers and experts in clinical research,

clinical pharmacology, biostatistics, and clinical epidemiology. Its

aim was to evaluate published and unpublished reports of controlled

trials of homeopathic treatment. After examining 184 reports, the

panelists concluded: (1) only 17 were designed and reported well

enough to be worth considering; (2) in some of these trials,

homeopathic approaches may have exerted a greater effect than a

placebo or no treatment; and (3) the number of participants in these

17 trials was too small to draw any conclusions about the

effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for any specific condition

[5]. Simply put: Most homeopathic research is worthless, and no

homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic

purpose. The National Council Against Health Fraud has warned

that " the sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions

about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers. " [6]

In 1997, a London health authority decided to stop paying for

homeopathic treatment after concluding that there was not enough

evidence to support its use. The Lambeth, Southwark, and ham

Health Authority had been referring more than 500 patients per year

to the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London. Public health doctors

at the authority reviewed the published scientific literature as

part of a general move toward purchasing only evidence-based

treatments. The group concluded that many of the studies were

methodologically flawed and that recent research produced by the

Royal Homoeopathic Hospital contained no convincing evidence that

homeopathy offered clinical benefit [7].

Proponents trumpet the few " positive " studies as proof

that " homeopathy works. " Even if their results can be consistently

reproduced (which seems unlikely), the most that the study of a

single remedy for a single disease could prove is that the remedy is

effective against that disease. It would not validate homeopathy's

basic theories or prove that homeopathic treatment is useful for

other diseases.

Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential

benefit of relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed

against the harm that can result from relying upon -- and wasting

money on -- ineffective products. Spontaneous remission is also a

factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe that most people who

credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would have fared

equally well without it.

Homeopaths are working hard to have their services covered under

national health insurance. They claim to provide care that is safer,

gentler, " natural, " and less expensive than conventional care -- and

more concerned with prevention. However, homeopathic treatments

prevent nothing, and many homeopathic leaders preach against

immunization. Equally bad, a report on the National Center for

Homeopathy's 1997 Conference described how a homeopathic physician

had suggested using homeopathic products to help prevent and treat

coronary artery disease. According to the article, the speaker

recommended various 30C and 200C products as alternatives to aspirin

or cholesterol-lowering drugs, both of which are proven to reduce

the incidence of heart attacks and strokes [8].

Illegal Marketing

In a survey conducted in 1982, the FDA found some over-the-counter

products being marketed for serious illnesses, including heart

disease, kidney disorders, and cancer. An extract of tarantula was

being purveyed for multiple sclerosis; an extract of cobra venom for

cancer.

During 1988, the FDA took action against companies marketing " diet

patches " with false claims that they could suppress appetite. The

largest such company, Meditrend International, of San Diego,

instructed users to place 1 or 2 drops of a " homeopathic appetite

control solution " on a patch and wear it all day affixed to

an " acupuncture point " on the wrist to " bioelectrically " suppress

the appetite control center of the brain.

America's most blatant homeopathic marketer appears to be Biological

Homeopathic Industries (BHI) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, which, in

1983, sent a 123-page catalog to 200,000 physicians nationwide. Its

products included BHI Anticancer Stimulating, BHI Antivirus, BHI

Stroke, and 50 other types of tablets claimed to be effective

against serious diseases. In 1984, the FDA forced BHI to stop

distributing several of the products and to tone down its claims for

others. However, BHI has continued to make illegal claims. Its 1991

Physicians' Reference ( " for use only by health care professionals " )

inappropriately recommended products for heart failure, syphilis,

kidney failure, blurred vision, and many other serious conditions.

The company's publishing arm issues the quarterly Biological

Therapy: Journal of Natural Medicine, which regularly contains

articles whose authors make questionable claims. An article in the

April 1992 issue, for example, listed " indications " for using BHI

and Heel products (distributed by BHI) for more than fifty

conditions-including cancer, angina pectoris, and paralysis. And the

October 1993 issue, devoted to the homeopathic treatment of

children, includes an article recommending products for acute

bacterial infections of the ear and tonsils. The article is

described as selections from Heel seminars given in several cities

by a Nevada homeopath who also served as medical editor of

Biological Therapy. In 1993, Heel published a 500-page hardcover

book describing how to use its products to treat about 450

conditions [9]. Twelve pages of the book cover " Neoplasia and

neoplastic phases of disease. " (Neoplasm is a medical term for

tumor.) In March 1998, during an osteopathic convention in Las

Vegas, Nevada, a Heel exhibitor distributed copies of the book when

asked for detailed information on how to use Heel products. A 2000

edition is larger but does not have the neoplasia section [10].

Between October 1993 and September 1994, the FDA issued warning

letters to four homeopathic manufacturers:

BHI was ordered to stop making claims that BHI Cold, which contained

sulfur and pulsatilla, were effective against mumps, whooping cough,

chronic respiratory diseases, herpes zoster, all viral infections,

and measles. In addition, when combined with other BHI remedies, it

had been illegally claimed to be effective against otitis, pleurisy,

bronchitis or pneumonia, conjunctivitis, and tracheitis.

Botanical Laboratories, Inc., which distributed Natra-Bio products,

was ordered to stop claiming that BioAllers was a homeopathic remedy

for reliving symptoms of allergy due to pollen, animal hair, dander,

mold, yeast, and dust. The products were promoted as homeopathic

even though some ingredients were not in the Homeopathic

Pharmacopeia.

L.B.L.-Bot.Bio.Hom.Corp, of Roosevelt, New York, was ordered to stop

making false claims that products could prevent AIDS, reduce

cholesterol, cure diabetes and other pancreas disorders, and

cancerous blood disorders.

Nutrition Express, of Houston, Texas, was warned that products it

was marketing for the temporary relief of infection, minor liver

disorders, lymphatic disorders, and menstrual discomforts were

misbranded because their labels or labeling included statements that

represented that the products were intended to be used for curing or

preventing disease.

Greater Regulation Is Needed

As far as I can tell, the FDA has never recognized any homeopathic

remedy as safe and effecative for any medical purpose. In 1995, I

filed a Freedom of Information Act request that stated:

I am interested in learning whether the FDA has: (1) received

evidence that any homeopathic remedy, now marketed in this country,

is effective against any disease or health problem; (2) concluded

that any homeopathic product now marketed in the United States is

effective against any health problem or condition; (3) concluded

that homeopathic remedies are generally effective; or (4) concluded

that homeopathic remedies are generally not effective. Please send

me copies of all documents in your possession that pertain to these

questions [10].

An official from the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

replied that several dozen homeopathic products were approved many

years ago, but these approvals were withdrawn by 1970 [12]. In other

words, after 1970, no homeopathic remedy had FDA as " safe and

effective " for its intended purpose. As far as I can tell, that

statement is still true today.

If the FDA required homeopathic remedies to be proven effective in

order to remain marketable -- the standard it applies to other

categories of drugs -- homeopathy would face extinction in the

United States [13]. However, there is no indication that the agency

is considering this. FDA officials regard homeopathy as relatively

benign (compared, for example, to unsubstantiated products marketed

for cancer and AIDS) and believe that other problems should get

enforcement priority. If the FDA attacks homeopathy too vigorously,

its proponents might even persuade a lobby-susceptible Congress to

rescue them. Regardless of this risk, the FDA should not permit

worthless products to be marketed with claims that they are

effective. Nor should it continue to tolerate the presence of

quack " electrodiagnostic " devices in the marketplace.

In 1994, forty-two prominent critics of quackery and pseudoscience

asked the agency to curb the sale of homeopathic products. The

petition urges the FDA to initiate a rulemaking procedure to require

that all over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic drugs meet the same

standards of safety and effectiveness as nonhomeopathic OTC drugs.

It also asks for a public warning that although the FDA has

permitted homeopathic remedies to be sold, it does not recognize

them as effective. The FDA has not yet responded to the petition.

However, on March 3, 1998, at a symposium sponsored by Good

Housekeeping magazine, former FDA Commissioner A. Kessler,

M.D., J.D., acknowledged that homeopathic remedies do not work but

that he did not attempt to ban them because he felt that Congress

would not support a ban [14].

Note: We are interested in filing consumer-protection suits against

homeopathic sellers. If you have purchased a homeopathic product

within the past year and concluded that the product did not work as

represented on packaging or in any advertisement, please contact us.

References

Kaufman M. Homeopathy in America. Baltimore, 1971, The s Hopkins

University Press.

Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Review

of Epidemiology 38:139-142, 1990.

J and others. Treatment of childhood diarrhea with homeopathic

medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics

93:719-725, 1994.

Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood

diarrhea. Pediatrics 96:961-964, 1995.

Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group. Report. Commission of the

European Communities, December 1996.

NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. Loma , CA.: National

Council Against Health Fraud, 1994.

Wise, J. Health authority stops buying homoeopathy. British Medical

Journal 314:1574, 1997.

Hauck KG. Homeopathy and coronary artery disease. Homeopathy Today 17

(8):3, 1997.

Biotherapeutic Index. Baden-Baden, Germany: Biologishe Heilmittel

Heel GmbH, 1993.

Biotherapeutic Index, 5th revised English edition. Baden-Baden,

Germany: Biologische Heilmittel GmbH, 2000.

Barrett S. Letter to FDA Office of Freedom of Information, Feb 7,

1995.

H. Letter to Barrett, M.D., April 24, 1995.

Pinco RG. Status of homeopathy in the United States: Important

ominous developments. Memo to Williard Eldredge, president, American

Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists, Jan 17, 1985.

Kessler DA. Panel discussion on herbal dietary supplements. Consumer

Safety Symposium on Dietary Supplements and Herbs, New York City,

March 3, 1998.

Related Topics

Quack " Electrodiagnostic " Devices Used for Selecting Remedies

FDA Compliance Policy Guide 7132.15 for Homeopathic Products

Homoeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions (Essay by Oliver Wendell

Holmes, 1842)

Homeopathy and Science: A Closer Look

Petition to Ban the Marketing of Homeopathic Products

Why Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

Alternative Medicine and the Laws of Physics

Hahnemann's Book: Organon of Medicine

The Scientific Evaluation of Homeopathy (includes research summary)

Hahnemann's Homeopathy (Five articles debunking homeopathic theory

and practice)

Homeopathy: All the Idiocy That Fits (Satire by Bowditch)

Reader Responses

From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people " how

to reduce stress by finding their natural breathing pattern " :

I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it

takes . . . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word " fake " is

counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched

the many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum

biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining

knowledge that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and

structure the molecular level. These fields can directly relate to

how homeopathy works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE

IN THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE

FIELD THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS

INTERACTING WITH THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER

OF THE PATIENT. The problem is our limited technology can only

measure a limited band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT

ADVANCED AS A CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.

From an unidentified homeopathic enthusiast:

Homeopathy works and you simply are too narrow-minded to understand

that this world is made up of more than the mere physical and

chemical natures. You overlook the spiritual and the energetic. You

are the quack

From a retired criminal investigator:

Homeopathic practices tend to be from the biblical roots of good

natural medicine. There are millions that will fight any intrusion

on homeopathy and its tenets. God have mercy on the persecutors.

From another homeopathic enthusiast:

What a sad sorry piece of shit masquerading as science your article

is. Which drug company are you a front for? Do you know how many

people die each year as a result of prescribed " scientifically

validated " drugs? How many people do you murder (sorry treat) each

week? How it must irk you that homeopathy is making a huge

resurgence worldwide and safely treating iatrogenic and " incurable "

diseases. We must start a web site to encourage people to sue

doctors and drug companies for harmful side effects, lying and

murder. It will be a huge counter punch to established medical

quackery.

P.S. Oh I nearly forgot -- FUCK YOU!!!!

Quackwatch Home Page

This page was revised on December 28, 2003.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting this, although I would mention that Barrett is

the ultimate fake and has been discredited in a court of law. He is a

spokesman for conventional medicine. Remember homeopathy has never killed

anybody, it is used by the Queen of England and other royals, whereas

comventional medicine has killed millions. I believe the principles that

support homeopathy have been confirmed by quantum physics (maybe Chuck

knows?).

Gracia

> Hi guys! Well, I presented one favorable view regarding homeopathic

> medicine; I will post an opposing view.

>

> It looks like there is certainly a lot of conflicting information

> out there. I haven't done much research at all about it.

> Anyway, the first link will give you a starting point to do look at

> some research already done by professor here in my neck of the woods

> at U of L.

>

> http://www.biochemistry.louisville.edu/grad/alternative_med/Homeopath

> y.htm

>

> The second link is to the article I'm posting.

>

> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

>

[Guest guest]

Gracia,

You wrote:

> ... I believe the principles that

> support homeopathy have been confirmed by quantum physics (maybe Chuck

> knows?).

Sorry, none of the physicists I know would give homeopathy any credence

at all, let alone a connection to quantum physics. Ditto for the chemists.

With all due respect, I have a somewhat softer view of Dr. Barrett's

character. His support for conventional medicine does not qualify him as

a fake; it just makes him conventional and litigious. That is probably

bad enough for you.

In his court cases, he has been rather aggressively bringing suit

against alternative medicine folks and assumed, rather foolishly, that

the court would understand and be sympathetic to his scientific world

view without a mountain of legalistic type proof. By doing so, he took

on the legal " burden of proof " to demonstrate that something couldn't

possibly work, a Herculean task even for sky hooks and magic beans.

His defendants did not have to prove that their remedies always, or even

often, work to win the case; they only had to show that Barrett's proof

of the opposite was inadequate for the court standard and show just one

case where it did seem to work. That is enough for the court. By legal

precedent, he would need to have years worth of strictly controlled

double blind studies showing that homeopathy was no better than a

placebo. To my knowledge, such studies have never been done, so how

could he win? There have been such studies for various religious healing

practices.

As to whether homeopathy has ever harmed anyone, I would count a case

where someone refused an effective conventional treatment in favor of

homeopathy as " harm. " However, many people do not turn to it until the

conventional treatments have somehow failed them. So, it is perhaps

relatively rare but with the potential for being more harmful.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

well I appreciate your reply. You are right that I don't have much use for

Barrett b/c of his medical orientation. He is the defender of a

dangerous dysfunctional system. I work in a group home for mentally

retarded adults, and there is one person who hands out meds almost

constantly. All the clients have thyroid/adrenal symptoms but only one is

on a tiny amount of synthroid. Two hypo women are on low calorie diets! Oh

but I digress.

Seriously I have read that quantum physics proves the philosophy that

homeopathy is based on. I will try to find more info.

Gracia

> Gracia,

>

> You wrote:

>

> > ... I believe the principles that

> > support homeopathy have been confirmed by quantum physics (maybe Chuck

> > knows?).

>

> Sorry, none of the physicists I know would give homeopathy any credence

> at all, let alone a connection to quantum physics. Ditto for the chemists.

>

> With all due respect, I have a somewhat softer view of Dr. Barrett's

> character. His support for conventional medicine does not qualify him as

> a fake; it just makes him conventional and litigious. That is probably

> bad enough for you.

>

> In his court cases, he has been rather aggressively bringing suit

> against alternative medicine folks and assumed, rather foolishly, that

> the court would understand and be sympathetic to his scientific world

> view without a mountain of legalistic type proof. By doing so, he took

> on the legal " burden of proof " to demonstrate that something couldn't

> possibly work, a Herculean task even for sky hooks and magic beans.

>

> His defendants did not have to prove that their remedies always, or even

> often, work to win the case; they only had to show that Barrett's proof

> of the opposite was inadequate for the court standard and show just one

> case where it did seem to work. That is enough for the court. By legal

> precedent, he would need to have years worth of strictly controlled

> double blind studies showing that homeopathy was no better than a

> placebo. To my knowledge, such studies have never been done, so how

> could he win? There have been such studies for various religious healing

> practices.

>

> As to whether homeopathy has ever harmed anyone, I would count a case

> where someone refused an effective conventional treatment in favor of

> homeopathy as " harm. " However, many people do not turn to it until the

> conventional treatments have somehow failed them. So, it is perhaps

> relatively rare but with the potential for being more harmful.

>

> Chuck

>

>

>

>

>

>

>