or like any argument at all,
where one side is being held to account
for some nasty business,
and violently changes the subject . .
so it is
when homeopathy holds allopathy
to account for genocide.
Man oh man
I’ve never seen such traffic in all my days. I was about to write that yesterdays numbers were the highest ever, ten times that of my most highly viewed blog, one of the most viewed blogs on WordPress — but today’s has already broken that record.
I’m a star, just like mama used to say.
Fire PZ Myers, in one and a half days garnered over 17,000 views. But judging from the commentary, only a few really bothered to read it. They wrote mostly obscenities for commentary. If someone did ask a question, it was a leading one, or a question that was already answered in the article. Or it was complaining about their obscenities in previous commentaries not being published, and then complaints that their complaints weren‘t being published, etc. etc.
But every now and then a gem appeared, like something from Kaviraj, what for him is a scrap, what for the rest of us is a meal.
It just proves my point, that that the only intelligent commentary is coming from the homeopaths, and all the idiocy from the allopaths.
Let me give you a profound demonstration of what I say.
The allopaths say there’s nothing to homeopathy, that it’s a placebo. Of course they don’t define what they mean by placebo, they don’t show any tests that prove placebo either. The next thing we hear from these whiz kids is how powerful the Placebo Effect is. SO does that mean that homeopath , compared to placebo, is powerful medicine? LOL!
The next tact from these acolytes of scientism is to fire off another broadside from the other side of their sinking ship, like “there‘s no science to back it up.”
Okay, so when we show them some clinical trials they say, “they weren’t properly double blinded.”
Okay, so when we show them clinical tests that were double blinded, they say “it wasn’t published in a peer reviewed magazine.”
Okay, so when we show them double blind clinical tests published in peer reviewed non-homeopathy journals, they say “there are no reputable tests published in prestigious, non-homeopathy peer reviewed journals that show the effects of high dilutes to be no greater than placebo.”
Well, here’s one that was published in an AMA journal.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional
Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
Michael Weiser, MB; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MB; Peter Klein, MS
To this the answer has been “it was discredited.”
In other words, somebody didn’t like it because it compared homeopathic treatment against an allopathic drug without a third set of victims given . . placebo.
But wait a minute . . I thought they said homeopathy was the placebo! Oh, bwahahahahahaha!
[Note the interjection of the word “victim.” How would you like to be somebody’s science project. If PS Myers had have a real problem, do you really think that he would take a chance and be part of the placebo group. This is the main problem with clinical testing, which, if you read on, I shall correct]
Here’s an exhaustive collection of references to homeopathic research in a google knol by Dr. Nancy Malik. . Google it.
Scientific Research in Homeopathy
by Dr. Nancy Malik
Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-based Medicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies
130+ studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 52 peer reviewed international journals out of which 46+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded
So we’re answering allopathy’s wild shots with pinpoint accuracy, and they’re going down with the ship, sinking under an epidemic of heart failure, diabetes, cancer . . diseases sufferers could be helped with through homeopathy.
Look, at this point we’re not trying to make assertions about how well homeopathy works, we‘re just trying to show that it does. The problem is that the public is getting that mixed up in their minds. The anti-homeopathy crowd is substituting evidence for how well it works for evidence that it does work. We are avoiding simple decisive tests.
We have extensive records comparing homeopathic with allopathic treatment, both modern (Bracho) and old (Bradford) . . but comparison is a point that should be examined after we see that the substances used in homeopathy have objective indices not found in clinical trials.
Just as no one symptom should be taken alone as the only indicator for which homeopathic remedy should be used, neither should any one test for homeopathy be used to determine its efficacy, and pre-clinical testing should come first in examining homeopathy as a potential clinical modality.
If you’re out in the woods and you’re scrounging around for food and find something that looks palatable but you’re not sure of, you feed it to the dog first. If he doesn’t get sick, then you eat it. That would be a pre-clinical test.
But oh no, the pseudoscientists dive into this subject answers first . . and the questions that support the answer second, without first finding out if these substances have physical, biochemical and biological action.
What the wise will do is first consult the literature on the subject.
That brings us to the first real question in this investigation. What do we know of pre-clinical tests for high dilutes?
In 2003 Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn TER, Ludtke R, Willich SN sought answers to that question in a study entitled, “Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy” . J Alternative Complementary Med. 2003;9:113–32.
“Objectives: To assess the evidence of published experiments on homeopathic preparations potencies) that target physical properties (i.e., assumed structural changes in solvents).
“Method: A suitable instrument (the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy SAPEH]) was developed through consensus procedure: a scale with 8 items covering 0 criteria, based on the 3 constructs, methodology, presentation, and experiment standardization.
“Reviewed publications: Written reports providing at least minimal details on physical experiments with methods to identify structural changes in solvents were collected. These reports were scored when they concerned agitated preparations in a dilution less than 10^23, with no other restrictions. We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments (the identity of 2 was unclear). They were classified into 6 types (dielectric strength, 6; galvanic effects, 5; light absorption, 4; nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR], 18; Raman spectroscopy, 7; black boxes of undisclosed design, 4).
“Results: Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH , 6), only 6 were of high quality
(SAPEH . 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.
“Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except\ for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.”
To summarize, Becker-Witt found six different physical tests for homeopathy. Eight criteria were rated, generating a potential total score of zero to 10. Reports for tests that had scores of six or less were considered to be of low quality, which they said constituted most of them.
Seven trials were found positive results were of high quality. Two out of seven high quality studies claimed distinctive features for homeopathic remedies.
What is important about Witt is she reveals more than one method for finding distinctive features which “science,” inplied by the Myers mindset, says does not exist.
Out of NMR 18 studies, only two were unable to get positive results.
The highest NMR SAPEH scores, went to three studies conducted by one name, Demangeat et al.
Since the 2003 Becker Witt review, Demangeat continued with his NMR investigation
Here is a 2008 report by Demangeat that can be read online.
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids, Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat, Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France
“We measured 20-MHz R1 and R2 water proton NMR relaxation rates in ultrahigh dilutions (range 5.43·10-8 M–5.43·10-48 M) of histamine in water (Hist-W) and in saline (Hist-Sal), prepared by iterative centesimal dilutions under vigorous agitation in controlled atmospheric conditions. Water and saline were similarly and simultaneously treated, as controls. The samples were immediately sealed in the NMR tubes after preparation, and then code-labelled. Six independent series of preparations were performed, representing about 7000 blind
measurements. R2 exhibited a very broad scatter of values in both native histamine dilutions and solvents. No variation in R1 and R2 was observed in the solvents submitted to the iterative dilution/agitation process. By contrast, histamine dilutions exhibited slightly higher R1 values than solvents at low dilution, followed by a slow progressive return to the values of the solvents at high dilution. Unexpectedly, histamine dilutions remained distinguishable from solvents up to ultra high levels of dilution (beyond 10-20 in Hist-Sal). A signi!cant increase in R2 with increased R2/R1was observed in Hist-W. R1 and R2 were linearly correlated in solvents, but uncorrelated in histamine dilutions. After a 10-min heating/cooling cycle of the samples in their sealed NMR tubes (preventing any modi!cation of the chemical composition and gas content), all of the relaxation variations observed as a function of dilution vanished, the R2/R1 ratio and the scatter of the R2 values dropped in all solutions and solvents, and the correlation between R1 and R2 reappeared in the Hist-W samples. All these results pointed to a more organized state of water in the unheated samples, more pronounced in histamine solutions than in solvents, dependent on the level of dilution. It was suggested that stable supramolecular structures, involving nanobubbles of atmospheric gases and highly ordered water around them, were generated during the vigorous mechanical agitation step of the preparation, and destroyed after heating. Histamine molecules might act as nucleation centres, amplifying the phenomenon which was thus detected at high dilution levels.
“These unexpected findings prompted further investigation, notably in other conditions, in order to rule out artefacts, such as possible interactions of silica with the glass material used for the preparation, or possible misinterpretation of the NMRD data due, for instance, to an unknown dependence of the frequency dispersion on the dilution level. So, the present study was carried out at a fixed frequency of 20 MHz and with histamine as solute, beyond the 4th centesimal dilution, i.e. beyond the known threshold of NMR sensitivity to detect histamine protons or any paramagnetic contaminants of the solute. It will be shown that the variations in R1 observed as a function of ultrahigh dilution in the NMRD study  are reproducible with histamine at a fixed frequency, and that these variations totally vanish after heating of the samples.
Here is the most recent and what I think is the best physical test of all:
2009 Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Luc MONTAGNIER1,2*, Jamal A¨ISSA1, St´ephane FERRIS1,
Jean-Luc MONTAGNIER1, Claude LAVALL´EE1
1(Nanectis Biotechnologies, S.A. 98 rue Albert Calmette, F78350 Jouy en Josas, France)
2(Vironix LLC, L. Montagnier 40 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019, USA)
Abstract: A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce
electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial infections in human and animal diseases. Key words: DNA, electromagnetic signals, bacteria.
Montagnier, being a Nobel laureate, strikes a hard blow for homeopathy, so a lot of pseudonymous posters want to say that Montagnier wasn’t testing the kind of dilutions used in homeopathy.
These criticisms come from pseudoscientists who haven’t read the study carefully enough. The equipment Montagnier used was designed by Benveniste for detecting EM signals in high dilutes.
The Montagnier study is one of the most remarkable scientific studies ever published, for it confirms the Benveniste assertion that homeopathy is a new medical paradigm.
The operative mechanism for homeopathic can be found in clathrate hydrates, nano-crystalline gas inclusion molecules, what Montagnier refers to as aqueous nanostructures. These liquid aqueous structures produce an amplified analog signal of the guest molecule.
Montagnier was able to actually filter them out, and in doing so was able to give them actual physical dimensions.
Once filtered out, the signal stopped.
Read the study, it’s fascinating for these and other anomalies it reveals.
In an article referencing homeopathy (online) entitled “The Memory of Water,” the world’s top authority on water physics, Professor Martin Chaplin, states “water does store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network,” once again implying hydrogen bonding as being critical to the homeopathic mechanism.
Exactly what I’ve been saying for years.
So here we have two studies that support my hypothesis that the action of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic and produced by measurable structuring in the solvent, nucleated around clathrates.
Material scientists Roy et al, in their seminal work, . The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. (Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell IR, Hoover MR Materials Research Innovations, 2005; 9-4: 577–608.) confirm polymorphic structuring in water at liquid temperatures as the key to the homeopqthic mechanism.
“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent . .
[YOU ARE NOW READING THE WORLD’s MOST READ HOMEOPATHY BLOG]
“The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”
It is not such a difficult matter to explore this phenomenon, if you’re not PZ Myers, or one the similar horde. If that’s the case, then putting homeopathy to the test becomes impossible.
If you have comet his far in reading this it shows that you have the spirit of inquiry and not take the easy route by fashionably dismissing the evidence. Now that we have looked at the physical tests, let’s take a look at the biological.
Be assured that I’m moving in for the killshot. As tedious as it may seem, it is exploding myths propagated by phony challenges made by people like James “the Amazing” Randi, of whom I’ve included a picture of, sans phony disguise of Darwin like beard and glasses, as I did with my revelation of Myers in a previous blog. This is working up to a challenge to PZ Myers. More specifically, within Myer’s claimed realm of biology, there are more biochemical tests beyond those referred to prior.
After the 2003 review of physical tests, Witt and her team turned their attention to biochemical testing. Here, Myers ought to wake up from his napping.
For the biochemical assessments they used a modified version of the SAPEH test.
Their investigation found six different types of biochemical tests reported for homeopathy: non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, neutrophile and basophil granulocytes, and lymphocytes.
(NB: If you think this is tough reading, consider what it’s like to type. But it’s important for this discussion. I haven’t seen this posted anywhere before.)
Witt produced the best and most exhaustive review of the literature for pre-clinical testing of homeopathics.
The WItt review shows that the basophil degranulation test has been done more than any other kind of biochemical test, but nevertheless is still only one type of biochemical testing among six.
Some of the most remarkable biochemical testing was done by William E. Boyd, MD, whose team spent years examining the action of dilute mercuric chloride on starch at Glasgow.
The Boyd experiments were designed by two Barbour scholars and overseen by Professor Sir Gowland Hopkins. The reporting panned 15 years, was extensive and elegant, designed for replication, representing a project that would be cost prohibitive by today’s standards.
Now we’re squarely in the bailiwick of Myers, reportedly an academic biologist who has taken what appears to be a knowledgeable stance on this problem. Neither opponent or proponent would be likely to say that it isn’t a problem.
If you’re looking at this problem objectively, you can see that there is a wide spread in the reported quality of testing results. However, most reporters, like Ennis, conclude there should be more testing.
Where is the prudence in the face of this evidence, of not putting it to the test?
Since 2007, the basophil degranulation test has been done specifically for replication by two of its finest conductors, Sainte Laudy and Belon.
Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.
Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P.
Why is it that someone who comments on this subject as an expert witness, as Myers does, not provided us with a greater examination of the available evidence? If Pee Zee Herman here is the expert he makes himself out to be then why . . with his X-ray vision and the mysterious, supernatural ability to make such definitive conclusions about the awesome psychogenic powers of these homeopathic placebos, WHY does he not enlighten us as with the Holy Protocol for Placebo?
Come on, Jesus of Science, if it truly exists, then give us the Placebo Commandment! Where are the Holy Writs, the double blind studies published in the sacred texts of prestigious peer reviewed journals?
Why is P MYers not conducting his own biological tests, and proving to us, without a grain of prejudice, that homeopathy, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is NOT what the evidence has led many of his misguided colleagues have concluded it to be . . biologically active.
If this is a scientific inquiry and not a political argument, then why is it that so many people are trying to answer a pre-clinical question with clinical evidence?
The Myers mindset isn’t posing a question, it is merely answering an implied one with evidence that will lead the unwitting away from non prejudicial answers.
Let me answer it first philosophically. The anti-homeopathy argument, the infrastructure of which is atheistic, is based on the concept of non-Being. It is a decided feature of solipsistic thinking that has crept its way past the scientific method into science, to change it from science into scientism, from global skepticism into local skepticism, i.e. pseudoscience, that which masquerades as science, but in reality is serving the masters of capital and fashion.
For in order to believe in non-Being, one has to put Parmenidean logic aside. There is no such thing as non-Being. Placebo or not, homeopathy is a reality.
If this isn’t so in this case, then let us see PZ Myers put homeopathy to a simple yet proper biological test:
There is the literature, here are the methods, now let’s see some results!
And if Pee Wee Myers cannot reasonably find biological indices, then let us see him provide us with psychological indices drawn from trials that test for psychogenic effects, trials that show beyond the shadow of a doubt that homeopathy is nothing more than The Placebo Effect, and all the pre-clinical evidence the result of error and lies.
Let me put it more explicitly:
Professor Myers, do these substances, as used in homeopathy, as defined in the literature, have biological action on subjects not influenced by the placebo effect?
Simple question , simple answer that can be determined thorough simple tests. If Myers isn’t purposely avoiding the question and the literature that addresses it, then why isn’t he accepting that literature as evidence of non psychogenic action or why isn’t he submitting these substances to his own superior testing?
PZ Myers will have so much explaining to do, he’ll have to schedule extra classes in Pseudoscience and Advanced Prevarication!
For instance, we have reports from numerous sources, myself included, that have witnessed the phytopathological action of homeopathics on plant growth and diseases. That’s a simple, biological test any school kid can do. So why is it so far beyond the reach of Myers, reportedly a professional biologist?
The problem here that now confronts Myers, in order to meet my challenge, is that he’ll have to fish the evidence out of the looney bin, and if does find an effect, by his own previous criteria, he’s screwed.
Do you understand? Myers has effectively recused himself from obtaining negative results by having shown his bias.
The only way for him to back out of this trap now is to collaborate with others who are experienced in biological testing, such as M. Brizzia; L. Lazzarato; D. Nani; F. Borghini; M. Peruzzi; L. Betti at the Department of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology at Bologna University in Italy, workers who have conducted extensive testing on heat, replicating the exhaustive work of Lilli Kolisko.
Professor Myers, I challenge you to commission a design for a simple biological test, done by people who know what they‘re doing, without having a stage magician with a million dollars to lose handling the key to the double blind, as he did with Benveniste.
Put it to the test. That‘s fair enough. Isn‘t it?
And now for our movie!
Prof. Rustum Roy vs. Steven Novella, the Homeopathy Hater
If you watch carefully you will see that the man standing in the shot as Professor Roy is being introduced is homeopathy basher Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at Yale and the President of the solipsistic New England Skeptical Society. Apparently Novella thought he was going to be introduced next. Watch and listen as Professor Roy takes him down a notch or two . .
Man oh man,
I think that everything published was actually very logical. But, what about this? suppose you were to write a awesome title? I am not saying your information is not solid, however suppose you added something that grabbed people’s attention? I mean I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST! <The John Benneth Journal is a little vanilla. You ought to look at Yahoo's front page and watch how they create post headlines to get viewers to open the links. You might add a video or a pic or two to grab people excited about everything've written. Just my opinion, it might bring your blog a little bit more interesting.
Thanks Corina, good advice!
Homeopathy is a true Medical Science, just see http://adidarwinian.com/father-of-human-pharmacology/ to know why it is so.
[…] I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST! (johnbenneth.wordpress.com) […]
continuously i used to read smaller posts that also clear their motive, and that is also happening
with this article which I am reading here.
Regards from Caledon 😉
[…] I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST! (johnbenneth.wordpress.com) […]
[…] I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST 27 […]
[…] I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST […]
[…] I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST! (johnbenneth.wordpress.com) Share this:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreDiggLinkedInRedditStumbleUponTumblrPinterestSeed NewsvineLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
If it is me who is making a claim, it is me who should provide proof. Challenging PZ Myers to put homeopathy to the test is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. It is equivalent to a believer demanding that an atheist proves the non-existence of God.
Put up or shut up. Treat an AIDS or cancer patient with homeopathy and show that the treatment was effective. Treat an Alzheimer patient with homeopathy and show that his or her cerebral functions have been restored to normal levels. Treat a dog suffering from distemper, cure it, publish the results and then brag abaout homeopathy.
I’ve seen thousands of comments on my blogs and videos, but this is an extremely rare one because Piero appears to be the poster’s real first name and he’s had the courage to put his face above it. Most o the commenters are hiding behind pseudonyms an avatars . . but apparently not Piero. So for that i have to congratualate him, an aso for opening some ialogue on this topic, I would hope, and asking some revealing questions . . which means that the rest of his post is pure flaming, hypocrisy. Talk about intellectual honesty, he’s no different from the rest of the strutting atheist mob that parades through here every day, and no different in that every opponent of homeoapthy inevitably turns out to be one, a self-contradicting athist, and and angry, bigoted hypocrite. Right out of the mold of PZ Myers and the rest of them, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett, Steven Novella, the list goes on and on of people who couldn’t make it as real scientists, so they became exhibitionists instead hiding behind the veil of “atheism.”
Now, speiiically, it is you, Piero, who is making “the claim.” That you can’t seem to see that indicates to me that you spend most of your time lying to yourself. And it seems to me one laim is jusst minimiing it. You’re making all sorts of claims, both explicit and implied. Add the implied ones would only take a fewmoments to diff out of you in a ae dialectic. You imply there’s no proof for God, there’sno scientifi tessting for homeoapthy, that’s it fraud, blahblah blah, buthnothingg you an prove, a totally IMPOTENT assertion tht goes limp as soon as its confronted with taking some action to prove what he’s claiming, throwing over his shoulder that he’s not the one who has to prove something, which of course is wrong. The buren of proof to prove that homeopathy is a fraud is on Piero an his ilk, toprove it ilegal, not me to prove its legal. Inocent until proven guilty in the world live in. The world Piero lives in sounds more like Inner Mars. All Piero is blathering about is the same stupid perennial argument from your typical impotent, drug abusing, atheist coward drunk.
Piero, you imply no one has ever with a serious disease has recovere from it using homeopathy.
Piero says, treat an AIDS or a cancer patient, puish the results an then brag about it.
Okay, Piero, read this:
“The work at the Banerji Foundation first came to the attention of the West in 1995 when Dr Prasanta Banerji and his son, Dr Pratip Banerji, presented a study at the 5th International Conference of Anticancer Res-earch of 16 cases of brain tumour that had regressed, using only homeopathic remedies.
“At the time, they had been testing homeopathic remedies on cancer patients since 1992 at their Foundation, and they say they now treat around 120 cancer patients every day.”
The legendaary Md Anderson Caner Clinic ollowed up with both in vitro an in vivo stuies:
nternational Journal of Oncology Feb 2010 V.36, 2
Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 23: 975-982, 2003
Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but
proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes:
A novel treatment for human brain cancer
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional
Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):343-9.
Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth?
homeopathic remedies for the present study have no direct cellular anticancer effects but appear to significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in Copenhagen rats
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):356-61.
Homeopathic medicines do not alter growth and gene expression in prostate and breast cancer cells in vitro.
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72.
Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models. tinyurl.com/integrcancerther12-2006
MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth.
Rutgers Possible Use of Ultra-Diluted Medicines For Health Problems During Lunar Missions tinyurl.com/moonhomeopathy
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
“Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo” tinyurl com/7htoejq
DAVENAS: Human basophil de-granulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE,
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research, 1999; 48 (Suppl 1): S17–S18.
Vecchi Experiments past and future: Hirst et al. , the Burridge report, Ovelgönne et al. , the BBC Horizon “scientific experiment” and more …
UK Parliament 2009
UNCORRECTED EVIDENCE Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research, Fisher high-quality and repeated experiments have yielded positive results.
CHAPLIN: Memory of Water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html .
RAO: “The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy”
Click to access 800.pdf
Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
MONTAGNIER Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures
Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences http://tinyurl.com/montagnier
Click to access MontagnierElectromadneticSignals.pdf
Comp Therap Med
WITT: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature
Click to access in-vitro-evidence-high-potency.pdf
Bornhoft: Homeopathy in Healthcare Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs tinyurl.com/78fzhl2
Click to access homeopathy%20in%20swiss%20healthcare.pdf
BMC Public Health.
WITT: Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. http://tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
JONAS tularemia tinyurl com/7s92a3h
JONAS/DILLNER: Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue. Jonas WB, Dillner D
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35–52, 2000
Click to access 14.1_jonas_dillner.pdf
JONAS tularemia tinyurl com/7s92a3h
International Journal of Oncology Feb 2010 V.36, 2
Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells tinyurl com/7n9939c
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 23: 975-982, 2003
Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but
proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes:
A novel treatment for human brain cancer tinyurl com/6m2dpnd
Click to access ruta6.pdf
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):343-9.
Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth?
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec
Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.
MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
LANCET Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted
VITTORIO ELIA AND MARCELLA NICCOLI
Click to access Elia.pdf
RAO: The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy
Click to access 800.pdf
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
Click to access Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf
2009 MONTAGNIER Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
DNA waves and water
L. Montagnier , J. Aissa, E. Del Giudice, C. Lavallee, A.
Tedeschi, and G. Vitiello
They come on spouting as if it’s all been proven by the material sciences that the spiritual sciences are delusional, until you point out material sciences are now supporting the spiritual sciences, proving the Randiots wrong. tinyurl com/7fap5m4 tinyurl com/6nbl9jv
Ernst: Systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy
Click to access Ernst.pdf
Ernst Exposed http://tinyurl.com/ernstexpose
WIKILIARS Wikipedia&Ernst: http://tinyurl com/wikiliars
Ludtke Rutten re Shang “significant effect beyond placebo” tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
Analysis by statisticians of Shang meta pub’d in the Lancet showed a significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
Shang’s meta-analysis based its conclusion on a subset of 8 larger trials out of 21 high quality trials out of 110 included trials. We performed a sensitivity analysis on various other meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials. Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
The Homeopathic Mark Twain
After writing the following article Twain became a consistent patron of homeopathic doctors.
Ober’s Mark Twain and Medicine:“any mummery will cure” http://tinyurl.com/homtwainmum
“When you reflect that your own father had to take such medicines as the above, and that you would be taking them today yourself, but for the introduction of homoeopathy, which forced the old school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business, you may honestly feel grateful that homoeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists to destroy it, even though you may never employ any physician but an allopathist while you live.”
ZAMMIT video: An attorney analyes the fraud of the Randi Challenge tinyurl com/vzammit
FDA Homeopathic drugs generally must meet standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. tinyurl com/fdahomoe
ROYAL COPELAND tinyurl.com/coplnskptc
Copeland wiki tinyurl com/coplnbio
MASS TRIALS, EPIDEMICS
Summary of Cuban Experiences on Leptospirosis Prevention
PEER REVIEWED PUBS
Am J Pharm Educ tinyurl com/7htoejq
Int J Onc tinyurl com/7n9939c tinyurl com/6m2dpnd
Integr Cancer Ther tinyurl com/7r7zajg
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg tinyurl com/cb88aym
UK Parliament tinyurl com/7666q5g
Nature tinyurl com/6rc3jy tinyurl com/7aelcv9
Inflam Res. tinyurl com/6fj9jsn
BMC Public Health tinyurl com/7r7zajg
Lancet tinyurl com/84xt56k
NY Acad Sci.tinyurl com/6w7t4bf
RHINITIS BMJ2000;321:471 tinyurl com/bmjrhin
BORNHOFT: Homeopathy in Healthcare tinyurl com/78fzhl2
FISHER: hi quality experiments yield positive results. tinyurl com/7666q5g
JOHNSON: meta-analyses conclude homeopathic treatment significantly better than placebo tinyurl com/7htoejq
SHANG>Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
LINDE: results incompatible with placebo hypothesis tinyurl com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT homeopathy more effective than placebo tinyurl com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN clinical trial evidence positive tinyurl com/kleijnen
JOHNSON: Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo tinyurl com/7htoejq
LINDE: “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” tinyurl com/84xt56k
SHANG: Ludtke Rutten: Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
FISHER 2009: “high-quality and repeated experiments have yielded positive results.” tinyurl com/7666q5g
FISHER: hi quality repeated experiments yield positive results tinyurl com/7666q5g
JOHNSON 2007: metas find significantly better than placebo tinyurl com/7htoejq
SHANG 2005: Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
LINDE 1997: results not compatible with placebo hypothesis tinyurl com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT 2000 homeopathy more effective than placebo tinyurl com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN 1991 evidence of clinical trials is positive tinyurl com/kleijnen
BMJ homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo tinyurl com/bmjrhin
TODD ROWE tinyurl com/toddrowe
American Medical college of Homeopathy tinyurl com/ammedcol
HOMEOPATHY IN PHYSICS
ROY Structure tinyurl com/7fap5m4
RAO Epitaxy tinyurl com/6nbl9jv
CHAPLIN Memory tinyurl com/78445jp
ELIA Thermodynamics tinyurl com/6w7t4bf
MONTAGNIER tinyurl com/Montagnier
JOSEPHSON Molecular Memories tinyurl com/bdjosephson
TILLER thermodynamics tinyurl com/bill tiller
Czerlinski tinyurl com/Czerwinski
Domains of Water Molecules
Provide Mechanisms of Potentization
in Homeopathy http://tinyurl.com/czerlinski
TILLER: On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics, and Homeopathy
Benveniste at the Cavendish video tinyurl com/benveniste
The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature
Witt in vitro review tinyurl com/7n9sedq
And this is only a fraction of the people and science tht support homoepathy.
Now back, to this big mouthed blowhar Piero. How does a man who has made such vituperative ocmment of thsoe he has made, respond to this? Now I don’t know what he’ll o, maybe he’ll come after me with a gun now that he sees that he never had a legitimate gripe to begin with and I’ve popped his bubble, and he’s having to deal with reality. Or maybe he’ll give me a heart attack by being the first of his kind to recant.
But I predict what will happen is that he’ll slink away and we’ll never hear from him again.
Pardon me, I come from a completely neutral standpoint, and even because I am hoping to find that homeopathy works. But this man BG simply asked you a question and you aggressively responded with name-calling and labeling him (why, kinda like a drunk in a pub) as if questioning the findings of something automatically makes the average layperson a “pseudoscientist”. It’s healthy for people to question things instead of blindly accepting them at face value. Why, if I didn’t question things, I might’ve even just taken the scientists’ stance on homeopathy and given up there. But I didn’t.
Dealing with those whose views differ from yours in a belligerent, rigid way hurt your credibility far more than any opponents ever can.
I look forward to your response.
What a flaming, ignorant hypocrite you are. You haven’t, as you claim, come from a neutral standpoint, that’s a lie. What makes you a pseudoscientist is not questioning . . you’re not asking any questions here . . it’s making assertions based on what will put you in a position to be derisive of others and so be a false authority, which is what you’ve done here, the very thing you’re complaining about, you puffed up little ingrate. You don’t give a damn about the science, you could care less about the biochemical tests, the physical tests or any of the pre-clinical in vitros and in vivos, it means nothing to you, no less than what medicine means to you, its simply the mean-ness you can exxtract from it. All you’re interested in doing is moralizing. You want to try to discredit me by accusing me of doing what you do, which is the only thing that brought you here, the only thing you know how to do. You have no experience, knowledge or interest in real science, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine or homeopathy, you don’t even know what they are, all you have is a desire to try to put somebody down to make yourself look bigger. Go away and pick on something that’s more your intellectual equal, like a flea, and take a hammer, you’ll need it to win, because the flea will out argue you. I’m not going to let you sicken me or anybody else here with your flat Earth theories. Homeopathy has been proven ad nauseam for idiots like you, so there’s no help for you here. After you’ve killed your flea go back to peddling your poison pills, you deserve them.
Have you investigated a homeopathic treatment for anger treatment or to cure extreme aggressiveness and impoliteness?
Absolutely. There are almost 200 remedies indicated by anger, suggesting that it can spring from a number of different sources. Any good homeopath can tell you right away that the number one anger remedy is Nux-v, which is also the number one hangover remedy for drunks. You might want to check that one out.
For rudeness there are 29 indicated remedies of which Staphysagria has the highest weight. When the two are combined, the most indicated is Chamomilla, although Staph and Nux still rate high. I suggest you consult an experienced homeopath to find out which remedy is best for you, as your anger may stem from something other than just drug or alcohol abuse, a physical problem such as an infected tooth, or constitutional griping.
Once again, John Benneth, your blogs are a delight to read. Keep it up.
Thank you Didi. I could receive no better compliment than the one you have given me. If there were more homeopaths like you, the world woud be a much happier place.
Didi Ananda Ruchira, you deserve the Nobel prize for your efforts in ending misery in Kenya. It is my hope that your work will sperad throughout the world.
John Benneth, 10/17/11
In your Cavendish lecture and in an above posting you ask about why bubbles can be seen emerging from a carbonated drink or glass of water.
This is a clear example of Henry’s Law, where, at a constant temperature, the amount of dissolved gas is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the liquid (multiplied by a solubility coefficient). Therefore when you release the pressure over your coke by opening the bottle, the coke is supersaturated compared to its new environment and bubbles are released to reestablish equilibrium. The same process is responsible for decompression sickness.
Equally, the solubility generally (but not always) decreases with an increase in temperature, explaining both why the coke fizzes more if not cooled, and why bubbles form in your water glass as the water warms.
You also argued that the ability of water the support a pin due to surface tension demonstrates that the structures/”correlations” last longer than 50fs. While this is a theoretical explanation for the phenomenon, it could also be explained by a rapidly changing series of bonds in the matrix on the surface of the water.
Apologies that this is a little off topic, I struggled to find somewhere better to put it.
It’s not off topic at all, and thank you very much for sharing with us your law. It is very rare that anyone makes the kind of technical conribution that you have given us here.
The point I was referring to has to do with the internal tension created by intermolecular forces within water, that aerogeneous nucleation restructures as gas or phase transitions within the water aggregate to create larger bubbles that have the buoyancy to move upward. Chlorine, for eample, will dissipate from water within 24 hours, and the literature reports that homeoapthic remedies that are not stabilized wth ehtanol will also lose their biolgoical action within the sameamountof time.
Thanks again for your participation here,
I am curious why you disparage all who oppose your view as either rude and raving or not having read your post thoroughly.
I came from Dr. Myers site, and continue to find his view of the science more persuasive than yours, while also following your agrument with polite questions looking for more information that might sway my opinion.
While not attempting to self aggrandize, I do not understand why this is ignored. Inflammatory derisive rhetoric runs both directions, and to the descredit of both parties. Respectfully, I think you would be better served by ignoring insults and offering none in return, while refraining from producing or displaying mocking charicatures of yout opposition.
I eagerly await your post post in response to the question I put forth, at your earliest convenience.
Scott, I’m taking some extra time to respond to your previous post. There’s a lot o information to put forward here.
However, if you want to make some simple ad hominem comparisons, what’s easier to do? To present something that challenges common belief, or to simply deny it, Myers does? It doesn’t say much for anyone’s bargaining powers to simply go with the denials and ridicule.
Tell me, who am I really supposed to believe? Nobel prize winning scientists like Josephson, Montagnier, Pauling, material scientists like Professors Rustum Roy, William Tiller and Rick Hoover, psychiatrist Professors Gary Schwartz and Iris Bell, MD, researchers like William Boyd, MD; credentialed researchers like Sainte Laudy, Poitevin, Demangeat, Boiron, Conte, Witt, Baumgartner, Brizzi, Betti, who are actually studying features of homeoapthy in great depth . . or am I supposed to believe PZ Myers, a pseudobilgost who has not conducted one simple biological test for homeopathy?
SO eplain to me, how it is tht you take nohting more than the denials of amn who has done no real research on a thing ove that of those who have?
There are plenty of literary “scholars” who believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare because that’s what they heard in grade school from somebody who also hadn’t taken the time to really research the topic. It’s called go along to get along. You’ll get a good grade if you answer the test question right. Who wrote Shakespeare? If you answer Lord deVires, Sir Francis Bacon or Christopher Marlowe, hyou just might flunk English, so you answer William Shakespeare and move on to net load of crap.
But what does PZ Myers have to offer me as a consumer? I’m not his student. If I found myself in his class I’d be suing for my money back.
When I made a presentation on video, drawing upon the work of material scientists suh as Anagnostatos and Roy et al to explain a possible mechanism for how homeopathy physically works, Myers played a re-edited version of it interspersed with scenes between Star War characters in order to characterize it as technobabble, as if it was my theory alone.
Well, I let it go.
When I presented a blog on how homeoapthy could have helped in a number of different situations, Myers responded by characterizing me, once again, as a kook. Like I’m not there. Like I’m not reading it.
Myers wants you to believe that homeoapthy is like a religion, a construction of an iconoclast and his kooky followers. To suddenly bring physical indices into the disussion along with in vivo and in vtro evidence of ation of this “magic water” is a heresy, because it threatens THEIR theory of what this is. And what does that do? It makes PZ Myers look. Well guess what? He is stupid. He’s walked into this discussion unarmed with anything other than the opinion that he was told to have on this subject.
What the position of denial has is only more denial. He’s remenaded from eploring it by stating his conclusions pripor to looking at existing evidence which contradicts it. Well tht works for a while until the credibility of the reporters and the volume of the evidence become overwhelming. Now he’s fighting fifth column, rear guard action. He’s having to take on some of the world most respected scientist as kooks.
When you study the history of it along with the current research, Myers’ kook theory falls apart. There’s too much acceptance by real scientists who have examined this more closely than Myers has, and too m uch usage by real medical doctors who use it in their practice, and too many millions of people the world over who swear by it.
What can Myers say? He doesn’t like it?
There’s too much evidence to the contrary to back up the idea that there’s nothing there.
It’s like two different worlds. Reading Myers I can understand you’d be swayed.
It’s an easy argument to make. But when you hold it up to the facts, how it’s used and the literature that supports its use, Myers looks sick. I mean sick, like mentally ill sick.
I don’;t understand how it is that these universities like the University of Minnesota can go on supproting the nonsense Myers is spewing. Characterizing medical doctors and material and Nobel prize winning scientists and anyone who tries this medicine as kooks isn’t the scientific process.
Name one attempt Myers has made to replicate any of the biogoical and biochmeical studies made on high dilutes. You can’t do it because he hasn’t done it!
Where’s his data? Let’s see him back up his assertions that people who use these substances are kooks. Where’s his science? If I’m a kook because he won’t accept my science, what does that make him when he has none to offer? Show me his experiments on these substances; show me evidence that PZ Myers has made a review of the literature that supports it.
The man’s an abomination!
Anyone who takes a closer look at the evidence is turned by it. And that will include Myers if he does. You can’t wade through all these reports by teams of people and say “these people are kooks, and these people are liars, and these people are just stupid”, without offering proof that isn’t by comparison.
Proof of what I say is in Shang, the only meta analysis to conclude that homeoapthic medicine is no better than placebo.
But what is placebo? Accoring to homeopathy hater Dr. Dean Adell, the placebo effect is a very powerful one . . BUT, unless we’re goingto accept psychokinesis (and they can’t do that) it shouldn’t work on in vitro subjects.
So Myers, a professed biologist, won’t admit biochmeical evidence. and they specifically avoid saying that it is a placebo . . they say instead that it is NO BETTER than placebo. Once again, the same could be said of their own medicine.
you quoted a study by Weiser et al. as an example for a peer reviewed study on high dilutes.
In the study they used
ambra grisea D6, anamirta cocculus D4, conium
maculatum D3, and petroleum rectificatum D8
None of these are high dilutes. The low dilutes however, performed almost as good as the real drug.
As for the PZ Myers challenge… I would love to see that 🙂
BG- You’re very keen. However, just becuase they’re low dilutes doesn’t mean they’re not homeopathic. The homeopathic remedies listed are all extensively detailed within the homeopathic texts.
hat’s interesting here to note is how many remedies within the homeoapthic materia medica besides Conium, Ambre grisea and Petroleum address vertigo as a single symptom. I count 399.
This brings up an intersting point. The clincial trial by Weiser does not really test the best feature of homeoapthy, which is its power to indivualize a remedy out of those 399, dependent on various accompanying circumstances and symptoms
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. WHen I combine the search word vertigo with “fall” i narrow down the list to 134 remedies, with acompanying symptoms
Vertigo, fall: Absin., Acon., Agar., Agath-a., Alco-s., Alum., Am-c., Am-m., Anac., Anan., Ang., Apis, Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Benz-ac., Berb., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Calc-p., Calc-s., Calc., Camph., Cann-s., Carb-ac., Carb-an., Carb-v., Carc., Card-m., Caust., Chel., Chin., Cic., Cocc., Coloc., Con., Crot-h., Cupr., Dios., Dirc., Dros., Elaps, Eup-per., Eup-pur., Euph., Euphr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Ferr., Gels., Glon., Graph., Ham., Hell., Helon., Hyos., Iod., Iris-foe., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kreos., Lach., Lact., Laur., Led., Lyc., Lycps., Lyss., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Mang., Merc., Merl., Mez., Mill., Mosch., Nat-c., Nat-hchls., Nat-m., Nat-n., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Petr., Ph-ac., Phel., Phos., Phyt., Plb., Podo., Posit., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Rheum, Rhod., Rhus-t., Ruta, Sabad., Sabin., Sal-ac., Salx-f., Sars., Sec., Senec., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Squil., Staph., Stram., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Tarax., Tarent., Ter., Valer., Vib., Vip., Zinc.
Vertigo, fall, as if high objects leaned forward and would fall on him: Arn., Sabad.
Vertigo, fall, as if high walls would fall on him: Arg-n., Sabad.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to: Absin., Acon., Agar., Agath-a., Alco-s., Alum., Am-c., Am-m., Anac., Anan., Ang., Apis, Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Benz-ac., Berb., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Calc-p., Calc-s., Calc., Camph., Cann-s., Carb-ac., Carb-an., Carb-v., Carc., Card-m., Caust., Chel., Chin., Cic., Cocc., Coloc., Con., Crot-h., Cupr., Dios., Dirc., Dros., Elaps, Eup-per., Eup-pur., Euph., Euphr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Ferr., Gels., Glon., Graph., Ham., Hell., Helon., Hyos., Iod., Iris-foe., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kreos., Lach., Lact., Laur., Led., Lyc., Lycps., Lyss., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Mang., Merc., Merl., Mez., Mill., Nat-c., Nat-hchls., Nat-m., Nat-n., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Petr., Ph-ac., Phel., Phos., Phyt., Plb., Podo., Posit., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Rheum, Rhod., Rhus-t., Ruta, Sabad., Sabin., Sal-ac., Salx-f., Sars., Sec., Senec., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Squil., Staph., Stram., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Tarax., Tarent., Ter., Valer., Vib., Vip., Zinc.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, backward: Absin., Agar., Anan., Bell., Bov., Brom., Bry., Calc., Carb-an., Caust., Chin., Dios., Helon., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-s., Led., Merc., Mill., Nux-v., Oena., Ph-ac., Phel., Rhus-t., Salx-f., Sars., Sil., Spong., Stram., Sulph.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, backward, stooping, when: Caust.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, backward, walking, while: Stram.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, dark, in the: Stram.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, fever, during: Sep.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, forward: Agar., Agath-a., Alco-s., Alum., Arn., Bov., Calc-p., Camph., Carc., Card-m., Caust., Chel., Cic., Cupr., Elaps, Ferr-p., Ferr., Graph., Hell., Hyos., Iod., Kali-n., Kali-p., Lach., Led., Lyc., Lycps., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Mang., Nat-m., Nux-v., Petr., Ph-ac., Phel., Phos., Podo., Puls., Ran-b., Rhus-t., Sabin., Sars., Sec., Senec., Sil., Spig., Stry., Sulph., Tarax., Vip.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, looking down, on: Spig.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, morning, on waking: Graph., Phos.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, motion, on: Sec.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, right: Acon., Ars., Calc., Camph., Carb-an., Caust., Eup-pur., Euph., Ferr., Kali-n., Lycps., Lyss., Mill., Nat-s., Rhus-t., Ruta, Sil., Stram., Zinc.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, right, sitting, while: Stram.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, rising from bed: Rhus-t.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, sideways: Acon., Am-m., Arg-n., Ars., Benz-ac., Bov., Calc., Cann-s., Caust., Cocc., Con., Dros., Euph., Led., Mez., Nux-v., Phel., Puls., Rheum, Sil., Squil., Staph., Sul-ac., Sulph., Valer., Zinc.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, sideways, walking, while: Sul-ac.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, sleep, after: Ferr.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, stooping, on: Merl.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, to left: Anac., Aur., Bell., Bor., Calc., Caust., Cic., Dirc., Dros., Eup-per., Eup-pur., Euph., Iris-foe., Lach., Lycps., Merl., Mez., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nux-m., Posit., Sal-ac., Spig., Stram., Sulph., Vib., Vip., Zinc.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, to left, looking upward: Caust.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, to left, morning: Zinc.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, to left, sitting, while: Anac.
Vertigo, fall, tendency to, to left, walking in open air: Aur., Dros.
Vertigo, falling, sensation of, from a height: Caust., Gels., Mosch.
Vertigo, walls of house seem to be falling in on her: Arg-n., Sabad.
As you can see, out of 399 remedies there are 28 remedies that are indicted by falling to the left, and when we cross index vertigo, falling to the left in the morning, in the open air, it narrows it down to two remedies, Zincum and Aurum.
At that point the practitioner will look at his patient, and knowing the charcteritics of those two remedies, Zincum, challenges, and Aurum, depression, whill have agoo idea as to what remedy to give.
And this, believe it or not, is a rather crude guide compared to more refined methods of determinig the right remedy for the individual. There are other practitioners, like Kaviraj, who will have spotted the right remedy before the patient has even said what their compalint is, simply noted by by their individual characteristics, such as phsyical appearances and how they move, how they talk. I’ve seen Kaviraj and Dr. Sharma o Hahnemann College discuss and diagnose passerby in this way.
It says even more for a test such as Weiser’s that homeopathy can be just as good as convenitonal treatment even when routinely applied.
Re Myers, I doubt he has the guts to answer my challenge and perform a test. My bet is that he won’t. He has too much to lose, and be assured, he’ll lose if he does.
yeah I have had my share of homeopathic treatments (with classical homeopaths not the mixture remedy described in the study) so I know how they work and the amount of symptoms associated with any remedy or the amount of remedies associated with each symptom. My experiences were also quite disappointing, but this is beside the point.
My point was that this study does not have anything to do with high-dilutes while you quoted it as an example of a study in favor of the effect of high-dilutes.
Dear BG . . Oh, using your standard of proof I could just as easily claim you’re a liar and it would be true. And you are a liar, it can be seen prima facie. You lie to yourself and then you go and lie to everyone else. You even put it in writing. Anhd you know its a lie. If you really belived it you’d put your real name on it, like I do. The truth is easy, try it sometime.
Yours is a classic pseduoscientist approach. The majority of posts here focus onthat and that alone. Accuse everyone of what you do yourself. Read your own stupidity if you don’t think it’s snobvious.
What I find amazing is how even when your hypocrisy is pointed out to you, you still don’t seem to thinnk anyone will notice. Hey
HEY! EVERYONE READINGTHIS! By “BG’s” terms, for what constitutes proof, he provides NOTHING to support his assertions, not even a credible name for their authorship. WHo’s B.G.? A sock puppet! And we’re supposed to believe what a sock puppet says?
“B.G.” and thousands of others who grace this blog, as phony names . . they reject common testimony as unreliable, anecdotal evidence, and then they pop up and start spouting anecdotal evidence as if suddenly, when made in the negative, it takes on new pwoerful meaning.
Ha! I don’t know who “BG” is, there’s no way to verify his claims. I could just as easily sign up a dozen pseudonyms and use them to “testify” that “because of John Benneth” they were “cured of cancer,” or whatever.
So by BG’s own terms what he’s witten is meaningless. But the majority of pharmacies now carry a variety of homeoathic products by various manufacturers. That evidence most anyone can verify for themselves. When this is put into the context of other reports, such as the long, consistent epidemiological use of homeoapthics, evidence for homeoapthy becomes overwhelming.
Try homeoapthy. It works.
Sorry for breaking the reply chain but it would become unreadable.
I do not mean montagnier (which i did not read) but the weiser study you mention in this very article. The Montagnier might be interesting, but is has nothing to do with patients. The Weiser study you mention only uses DX dilutions where X is between 3 and 8. That is the point i have been trying to make since my first post in this thread.
Instead of reading what i wrote you went into an ad hominem calling me a liar and a pseudoscientist. Seems you are employing the same strategies you acuse your enemies of.
How is it that the truth is ad hominem. You come on here challenging the credibility of others without offering any reasonable credibility of your own. And what does the diution range have to do with anything?
These people are using what consitute high dilutes in low potency because they are addressing an acute condition. But you have no interest in that, you are here to discredit the study, not learn from it, just as you approach all learning here, to discredit it.
You think because it is comparitively low you have revealed something, that it is not technically within the dootrine of homeopathy. All that you have revealed is what a fool you are. If you looked up what it is you are trying to criticize, it might raise your eyebrows. The D3 Conium maculatum is a tincture of what killed Socrates, Poison Hemlock. Why then, if it is not homeopathic, which you seem to be trying to imply so as to disqualify the study, would these doctors have an interest in giving a person who is suffering from vertigo a substance that in its crude form can not only cause ascending paralysis, but also extreme vertigo and death?
Read the definition for “homeopathy” again. The word does not refer to dilution, it refers to the rule in which curative substances are applied. The effects of high dilutions were discovered as a result of cutting the dosage of such dangerous toxins as Poison Hemlock.
You’re not seeking the strength of knowledge, you are simply seeking to confirm your own superstitions and assure yourself that you are right about what you’ve been crowing to others, by trying to prove fault in knowledge that contradicts your ignorance.
Just curious I mean PZ Myers is more of a internet fanboy really who has many followers who are haters to people who are against him or want to challenge him ie yourself. Why not look at someone who is less known for fame and ridicule but someone who is actually unbiased. PZ Myers acts as if he knows all and is not willing to listen or look at other peoples view points. In other words no matter what he will never change his mind even if he is proven to be incorrect. Do you think that regular western medicine can work hand in hand with homeopathy? What are your feelings on the UK? http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/
They have had an inquiry into it. I am curious why it is considered more than the placebo affect? Tests have been done to find that people suffering SAD or seasonally affective disorder are affected by the placebo effect more so than any other group. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/49/13066 What do you make if the 10:23 campaign in the UK http://www.1023.org.uk/
Zane, thanks for the intelligent way in which you approach the problem.
To answer your first question, yes, if they finally adopt a truly scientific way in which to test medicines, and learn to control the dosage, so that side effects are a thing of the past. Why do they think homoeopathy is so attractive to the customer? Easy. We have complete control over the dosage and people do not suffer under the effects of the medicine, but instead recovers.
Testing medicines in such small doses repeatedly given to healthy people will give an unbiased record of causation. A medicine cannot be a medicine if it is not capable of affecting the health. This is scientific medicine, because it gives reliable information, discovered through a double blind placebo-controlled trial. (Which btw was an invention of Hahnemann, when he began to test his medicines). Therefore, they do not have to come up with new medicine every 3 months because the previous failed.
The so-called gold standard RCT is a piece of unqualified rubbish, in which 2 unmanipulable unknown variables and 1 known manipulable variable can skew the outcome in either unknown direction, making the data virtually useless. Testing on the sick with an unknown medicine as to action and side effects, which are both skewed by the influence of the disease, is a piece of folly of great antiquity in the annals of medicine. The outcomes are always uncertain and thus medication becomes guesswork. “We shall try this”, and if it does not work, “we shall try that”.
So how scientific is that, really?
The UK sees an upsurge in lambasting homoeopathy by the drunks from the pub, while not allowing their opponents the time to answer. So why shall we not employ the same tactic and expose the speculative and experimental nature of modern medicine and show how from the intake to the grave, the numbers on the machines receive more attention than the patient, who is but a numbered commodity. When he is buried, the physicians wipe their hands and blame the disease. Meanwhile, the patient is fleeced and when no longer a viable income provider, is left to his own devices with the message: “We can no longer do anything for you. You have 3 months to live.”
I think that the mere mention of integration is as a glass of beer to an AA member.
Placebos are seldom declared and often used to skew the outcome in a certain direction. Placebo has stumbled, fallen and broken his legs, after which he was run over by a truckload of tests on plants and animals. Placebo is dead.
10:23 is pathetic. They suffer from nothing but homoeophobia and cannot present more than dragging Shang out of his grave and when fudging the numbers they think they can make a case. As opposed to 200 peer reviewed reputable journal published studies that prove them wrong on all counts. None so deaf and blind as those deliberate deaf and dumbs, which do little more than rant in the pub, like every other drunk. Irrelevant, really.
I’ll wait for the barrage of silly drunks-in-the-pub comments.
Kaviraji – I’m only putting up the interesting ones. I don’t wnat the more intelligent stuff to be drowned out by the drunks.
Genius has always attracted violent opposition from mediocre minds. – Albert Einstein