The pablum press suggests homeopathic effects come the doctor, not the medicine?
What a load of bullshit. Anyone can go buy a tube of a homeopathic remedy at the grocery store, take it and FEEL IT, without Dr. Nosewipe anywhere in sight.
No one has to say a damn thing.
The homeopathy haters simply aren’t satisfied unless they can make people doubt themselves as much they do themselves. Only people who are afraid to confront their own feelings can support an attitude as ignorant as that.
Science, or what they think is “science,” is one way to avoid confronting those feelings because it puts the onus of belief on somebody else, something else, other than their own feelings.
So this is for them.
A good decider, for them, would be the results obtained by in vitro testing of homeopathy.
In vitro testing, what is it?
As opposed to in vivo, which means in the living subject, in vitro means “in the glass.” It refers to laboratory experiments, done in test tubes and petri dishes.
Does anyone think we’d even have much of an argument about homeopathy if more was known about pre-clinical testing?
What a concept! All these monkeys in man suits blathering on about how the only way to prove homeopathy isn’t a placebo is in a large, double-blind random controlled clinical trial, using people, real live human beings who have real complaints they don’t want a placebo for. So if someone has to prove homeopathy works on something other than himself and is too chicken to try it out for themselves, then why not the dog, the cat, lab rats or a house plant?
While the homeopathy haters are crying about the lack of double blinding in clinical tests (which poses ethical problems) and insisting that homeopathy is dependent on the homeopathic interview, the real question being posed sub-textually is simply whether or not these substances have any objective, measurable effects at all. There are numerous ways to test for them using non-human subjects. I’ve tested their action on yeast and seeds and saw dramatic results.
Addition to proof, biochemical tests are ways to study posology.
There are very specific in vitro tests of homeopathy that get left out of the argument over homeopathy that would quickly end it. Homeopaths don’t present them as proof of efficacy and so they’re ignored by the pseudoscientists. But they are key to the argument over homeopathy. They are more easily blinded and randomised without any concern for the subject.
If the homeopathy haters are the scientists they claim to be, and if homeoapths are the phshyicians they should be, they’d be asking, are there any in vitro tests of homeopathy, and if so, what are the results?
The best review of in vitro testing I’ve seen so far is the 2007 Witt review of biochemical tests done by a group of Germans: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TF, Baumgartner S, Willich SN Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):139-41.
The Witt review covers 67 experiments on homeopathics in six different categories: Non-cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, basophil granulocytes, neutrophile granulocytes and lymphocytes.
Witt grades these tests with eight criteria, with potential values as noted: Objectives (1), Controls (2), Blinding (1), Randomization (1), Consistency (1), Standardization (2), Statistics (1) and Presentation of Results (1).
A perfect score then is 10 points.
Most of the testing covered in the Witt review, ¾, show positive results. The most replicated in vitro test is the basophil degranulation test, introduced by Murieta in 1985, first done successfully by Poitevin in 1985 and made notorious by Davenas et al (with Benveniste) in 1988.
In the basophil category there are only three trials that unequivocably found no results. Three tests rated a perfect 10 by Witt: Hirst in 1993 found positive results, but dismissed them as being due to unknown factors since Hirst could not explain the mechanism; Belon in 1999, unequivocally reported positive results and Guggisberg in 2005, found positive action, but couldn’t match it to the objectives of exact replication.
The basophil degranulation test has been successfully replicated at least two dozen times. It is only one in six categories of biochemical testing. The other categories show similar results as the basophil degranulation test.
Witt concludes “Results have been reproduced in several independent laboratories, as well as in a multi-centre series of experiments. “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.”
The evidence is clear. Whereas the effect is not stable and the mechanism not known by the experimenters, homeopathy works.
The biochemical tests prove it.
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)
Hahneman College of Homeopathy