Wikipedia’s pathological skepticism

Wikipedia, the immensely popular, collaboratively written, online encyclopedia, is under indictment  for bias against energy psychologists, dynamic medical practices and holistic medicine. It is a similar bias Wikipedia has exhibited against ionized  pharmaceuticals for legal use in homoeopathy, characterizing them as “placebos.”

My name is John Benneth. I practice homoeopathy. This is my journal.

On December 16th, 2013 I received from the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) a request to sign a petition to Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, to “create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing” for  the online open source encyclopedia.

The  ACEP petition, which opens in a new tab, says,

“. . much of the information related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong. For five years, repeated efforts to correct this misinformation have been blocked and the Wikipedia organization has not addressed these issues.  As a result, people who are interested in the benefits of Energy Medicine, Energy Psychology, and specific approaches such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and the Tapas Acupressure Technique, turn to your pages, trust what they read, and do not pursue getting help from these approaches which research has, in fact, proven to be of great benefit to many. This has serious implications, as people continue to suffer with physical and emotional problems that might well be alleviated by these approaches.”

The problem the ACEP is having and will have is that it’s not enough to simply voice discontent with summary judgments. To prove pathological skeptics wrong you have to actually read the articles they cite as proof, show them how they misquoted and deliberately misinterpreted them, and then prove your own assertions right with links to published, replicated scientific experiments, studies, tests and trials . . and then this will only get them to change their links from the citations, that failed to substantiate their conclusions, to even more credible ones that will still fail to substantiate their conclusions.

About a year ago I made an entry in my journal on a similar gripe about their article on homeopathy as the ACEP’s on holistic medicine entitled

“Wikiliars: Wikipedia and the Case Against Homeopathy.”

In this article I went after Wikipedia’s reliance on a Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy to shore up their assertion that materials used in homoeopathy are placebos. In Wikiliars I revealed that the author of the footnoted “systematic review” had stated  that the conclusions of the Linde meta analysis, a “technically superb meta analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos.”

For the present I signed the petition, as I hope you’ll do as well, although I don’t think it’s going to happen . . it being a Wikichange in the Wikiweather.   I think what’s going on is that the pharmaceutical industry has got a gun to Wales’ head. And I don’t think its just because of  money. I think the only way the pharmaceutical industry can get away with their current drug induced murder rate is to keep shoring up this belief that they have the only answer to epidemic, affliction, malady, malaise and deadly disease.

So when Wales even coughs up a little phlelgm he hears the ratcheting clicks of the hammer on a Smith and Wesson .38 being pulled back, and feels its cold muzzle getting shoved in a little deeper inside his ear.

Here’s what I tried writing on the ACEP petition before it coughed it back up for being too long.

“Wikipedia’s entry on ‘Homeopathy’ is provably wrong in declaring that an article by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims “Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more than a placebo,” The NIH article makes no such claim. The word “placebo” does not appear anywhere in its text.

“No major meta analysis of clinical trials or review of the literature has concluded homeopathic medicine to be a placebo. Yet Wikipedia characterizes the literature to conclude just the opposite!

“Here is a list of the major reviews and meta analyses of homeopathy with a brief summary of their conclusions and a link to the study if you can‘t believe it: (So as to keep outbound links to a minimum, copy the URL into a new address line and add a dot after tinyurl)

FISHER: high quality repeated experiments yield positive results tinyurl com/7666q5g
JOHNSON 2007: metas find homeopathy 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

“The placebo claim is indefinite, leading the reader to infer that the materials used as medicine in homoeopathic practice are inert. Numerous biochemical tests, some conducted under the highest standards of scientific research, show that these materials have in vitro action.      tinyurl com/7n9sedq

“Physical tests reveal that these materials are radio-pharmaceuticals with radiant indices. tinyurl com/Montagnier

“These materials are demonstrably medical isotopes, i.e. mildly radioactive.

“Suggesting that they are inert leads to their misuse.
“The statement following Wikipedia’s unproven placebo hypothesis is merely defamatory. It says that “homeopathy is widely considered a pseudoscience.” This reveals that Wikipedia in itself is practicing pseudoscience by its own definition. Wikipedia defines pseudoscience as a field, practice, or body of knowledge that when presented with the norms of scientific research demonstrably fails to meet them. There is no body of literature that upholds the placebo hypothesis for homeopathy. There is not even any known protocol for adequately testing the placebo hypothesis for homeopathy. The effect is universal. If it infects homeopathic tests, it also infects allopathic tests. The primary issue, the determining question, is whether or not the materials used as medicine in the practice are active or inert.
“I have repeatedly asked those who claim homeopathics are placebos to see the literature that supports the hypothesis: Not one has been forthcoming. Nor will there be. It doesn’t exist!

“The hoax, the sham, the fraud is he one perpetrated by Wikipedia on curative medicine.

“Support for the assertion that ionized pharmaceuticals, the materials used in homoeopathic medicine, are not inert, can be found in the reports of their biological and biochemical action, the indices for which have been repeatedly observed and published. Between 1982 and 2008 there have been over 24 published replications of the basophil degranulation (BD) test alone. The BD test was made famous by Jacques Benveniste when the results were published in Nature magazine and attacked by sleight of hand ‘magicians’ and “skeptics” seeking to sabotage the test and prevent further experimentation.

“However, there have been numerous biochemical tests for ionized pharmaceuticals other than the BD spanning 75 years, tests on non cellular systems, cultured cells and blood cells, successfully showing the action of these materials. (see the Witt review ibid) There have also been numerous tests on plants and animals that show the materials in question are not inert.

“So by the methodology of science and its literature, the assertion by Wikipedia that homeopathic medicine is the use of placebos has been repeatedly falsified. Anyone can see for themselves that these are not ‘placebos.’ They are FDA regulated drugs that conform to the standards of science.

“What they don’t conform to are the standards of commercialized patent medicine, the third leading cause of death in the US.

“Its time for Wikipedia to rid itself of pathological skepticism before anymore damage is done. Homeopathic medicines are US government defined and regulated drugs. To repeatedly infer or assert that these materials are inert and that the practice of their administration is a sham, an obstruction of interstate commerce and it should cease and desist immediately.

“Conclusion: The actual literature on the subject of homeopathy supports that the assertion that Wikipedia is misleading the public about holistic medicine. The conflicts of interest should be stated.”

So there’s my contribution to the cause, although I got to say, I’m beginning to wonder what all the fuss is about. Homoeopathy has historically appealed to the upper classes, who tend to be more educated, just the opposite of what Michael Shermer, Jame Randi and the people who brought you Thalidomide and the H-bomb want you to believe,so maybe I’m just wasting my time fighting Darwinism, let the process of natural selection run its course.

The horrors stories of the use of patented medicine vs. tales of the seemingly miraculous cures of homoeopathy go on and on.

The challenge to Ernst, Wales and others . . anyone else . . is to produce by the standards and criteria they demand of homoeopathy . . scientific proof . . just one published study, test or trial that proves the placebo hypothesis for homoeopathy.

For every published paper they can produce that proves homoeopathy is the sole use of placbeos, I’ll produce a dozen that show it is not.

Advertisements

59 comments on “Wikipedia’s pathological skepticism

  1. Tham says:

    No end to this, really.

    They’ve created a fake profile of me.

    It’s all about cyber warfare.

    However, nothing what these people say or do
    is going to affect a form of medicine which has
    been around for more than 200 years, and will
    be here for all eternity.

    If physical action or words has not touched
    homeopathy for over two centuries, virtual actions
    and talk certainly are not going to do so either.

    One fine day, when any of them gets struck down by
    cancer, body ravaged by chemotherapy, out of options, clutching at straws – I won’t be surprised if
    homeopathy fleetingly crosses their deranged minds
    at those last few moments of their lives.

    Like

  2. martien says:

    coming from Europe I say: if they can’t master Lionel Messi a world famous footballer outside the US ;-)), they kick at his shins. it hurts but does not prevent him from winning the play. so people who need tricks to dominate a debate admit they fall short of good arguments.. keep cool

    Like

  3. Roslyn Ross says:

    I would just make the comment that I find it curious how so many anti all that is not Allopathic websites use the word sceptic or skeptic in their title.

    The irony is, that as a true sceptic I question everything and yet the sceptics who oppose any view which runs counter to that of science/medicine, clearly do not apply their scepticism to science or Allopathic medicine.

    Why not? You are either a sceptic by nature or you are not. As a true sceptic I question all of it and come up with conclusions based on a great deal of research across the spectrum where all and sundry have been subjected to my sceptical approach.

    That is what I believe is actually in line with the rigorous, generally objective approach of science. And interestingly, I find others who question the dogma of science/medicine are generally true sceptics.

    I guess if you live it you don’t have to use it as a tagline.

    Like

    • Roslyn Ross says:

      And why are they generally anonymous? How often is a skeptic or sceptic anonymous? They will list their experience, credentials and the like but they won’t give their name? Why is that? Is it because with a name their credentials could be checked? Again, hardly fitting anything approximating rigorous science.

      Like

      • johnbenneth says:

        Roslyn,
        Brava! Thanks for your brilliant posts and great defense of homoeopathy! Great stuff! There’s been a huge shift in the commentary from just a year ago. The skeptoids are on the run.
        And get this weird conincidence . . I had just read the quote from The Economist the night before you posted it and was going to use it in my next blog!
        and regarding the anonymity of so called skeptics, I’ve noticed the same thing you have. It’s almost as if the same person has been posting 100’s of comments to me over the years. I don;t think I’ve ever met one who will admit he didn’t know something that contradicts his claim it didn’t exist, as in replications and double blind trials, or in the case of the placebo hypothesis, that it did. Invariably their accusations boomerang, but they refuse to admit it. REpeatedly I have asked themk to back up their assertions, as you have done, and they come back and keep making the same hollow accusations. Certainly if they had the courage of their convictions they’d come forward in their own skins. If the facts are important, then simply post them. In the past, when they say there aren’t any double blind trials or studies that don’t conclude placebo, I have found that nothing silences pseudoskeptics better than just posting the online links to them witout commentary. THey usually forge htem and go bnack to making htem, but I have noticedd that there arae many more of us now stnading up for homoeopathy. Nancy Malik has been a great resource in posting links.
        At first it seemed to me that this anonymous, sciencey, ridiculing behavior fit the Lycopodium pattern, but when I rep’d it recemtly, Lyc. didn’t even show. The remedies that did show for all of five symptoms . . critical and censorious; doubtful; quarrelsome; mania to ridicule; and suspicious . . in rank highest to lowest are: Lach., Ars., Acon., Nux-v., Verat., Ign. and Hyos. When symptoms of hiding and deceit are factored in, only Lach. and Hyos. fit all seven criteria, snakes and exhibitionists. 😉

        Like

        • Roslyn Ross says:

          Thanks John. I have wondered more than once why the naysayers are so visceral. As a psychologist friend said years ago: Where there is outrage, there is inrage. Why do they care so much? Homeopathy does no harm and the ‘argument’ that people will turn to Homeopathy and ‘die’ when Allopathy could have saved them does not hold water, given that the data shows most people either use Homeopathy with Allopathy or turn to it after Allopathy has failed.

          Those who would face serious disease and only use Homeopathy or non-Allopathic methodologies are a minority and people who take a very holistic view of life in general. Needless to say, we don’t have the data on those for whom it works since such research is not done so for the four who die using such methods (against the legions who die using Allopathy) there are no doubt hundreds if not thousands who are cured.

          But I digress. My ‘reading’ of most naysayers who post vigorously and viciously is that they have had an experience in their early lives where someone they loved had a ‘bad’ experience with non-Allopathic medicine; or was very much into an alternative lifestyle; and it has damaged them emotionally and created a deep subconscious ‘fear’ which is projected onto traditional medicine and therapies.

          The other factor at work, I feel and think, is that many if not most of these people have inferiority complexes – perhaps unconscious. And they associate science with intelligence and being rational and in control and so either as scientists themselves or as acolytes, they see themselves, by association, as being intelligent, rational and in control.

          I suspect the ‘anger’ is sourced in the fear – because fear is always behind anger and rage- of the unknown; that which cannot be reduced by empirical method to a material and mechanical ‘known’ and is therefore threatening to the ‘known’ and understandable world, the scientific world, and speaks loudly of chaos, the abyss and ‘death’ – ancient and archetypal fears.

          But what is perhaps most surprising, given the association with, or at least the claims of association with the world of science, which prides itself on being rigorous, rational, empirical and objective is how sloppy, irrational, visceral and subjective so many of the comments regarding Homeopathy are.

          You would think, if one were to take a scientific approach that the first step would be toward a thorough understanding of Homeopathy – complex and time-consuming I know, but important – so that one could make a solid and reasoned case instead of relying on magicians, medical charlatans (as Ernst clearly is) and website authors who feel compelled to reveal their subjectivity by labelling their site Sceptic and using terms like quacks, woo-woo, pooh-pooh etc., which most of us left behind in kindergarten or at least primary school.

          But I agree, the opposition has no ‘clothes’ but, it is wise to remember that any methodology, particularly medical, must and should be held to the highest of standards and the naysayers are providing Homeopathic practitioners with an opportunity to review, assess and establish the very highest standards for the methodology and the profession.

          Like

  4. Keep kick’in em in the shins John!

    Like

  5. Jatinder Aulakh says:

    http://jimmywales.quora.com/Homeopathy-Oscillococcinum-in-particular

    Following as is from the above link:
    “My understanding is that the legal situation in the UK is particularly bad. Homeopathic remedies of no value whatsoever are legally marketed as cures for specific diseases.

    Who should I talk to about this in order to encourage the creation of a campaign to stop this? This is not my primary area of interest and so I am not the right person to lead it myself. But I would like to help.”

    The above should make it clear to anyone that he himself is an instrument against homeopathy. When he uses language like “Homeopathic remedies of no value whatsoever” and “Who should I talk to about this in order to encourage the creation of a campaign to stop this?” and “I would like to help.”, this should make it clear to anyone what he is upto – whatever his reasons for doing this may be (I would not be surprised if he gets big pharma funding/donations either directly or through third party).

    This is why misinformation spread on wikipedia and “factual information” is blocked/suppressed.
    I will not keep any hope on Jimmy Wales doing anything in this regard.

    @Hentrich
    http://nccam.nih.gov/about/naccam/roster.htm
    As you can see from the above link, NCCAM is mostly composed of allopaths (including the director Josephine P. Briggs, M.D.) amongst medical practitioners. If it was truly a Complementary and Alternative Medicine organization, almost all the members should be CAM practitioners, which is not the case.
    Seeing the history of how vigorously allopathic system has opposed homeopathy since its inception, I would be highly suspicious of the intent of NCCAM with its composition.
    Something like letting the fox look after the hen house….

    Like

    • Hentrich says:

      @Jatinder
      You can’t rebut what NCCAM says based on evidence, so you’re trying to impugn their integrity by pointing out that they’re mostly medical experts and professionals. That’s called “poisoning the well”, and it’s a logical fallacy.
      If you won’t believe that homeopathy doesn’t work unless it comes from the mouth of a homeopath, then I refer you to John’s favorite, Edzard Ernst.

      Like

      • Roslyn Ross says:

        @ Hentrich,

        There is no question that Homeopathy works – even science/medicine can admit that. What they cannot do is explain how it might work and that is a very different thing. And because science/medicine is unable to explain how it works, and demonstrably it does work, the ‘solution’ is to dismiss it as placebo. Except of course homeopathic remedies have been shown to work in situations where placebo cannot be involved. There lies the problem for science/medicine.

        Homeopathy does not have a problem – it works, end of story. Those who practise the methodology and those who use it know it works.

        How is irrelevant. It would be interesting to have an explanation of the How and Why but it is not required for the methodology to continue to heal and cure as it has done for more than two centuries. Science will of course advance beyond its limited materialistic and mechanistic paradigm and ultimately understand how Homeopathy works but in the meantime, the pontifications of science/medicine, sourced in ignorance, are best ignored.

        Science will be dragged beyond its mindset by quantum physics and biophysics where research is done at the energy level, beyond the mere material and mechanistic in the sense that classical physics would have the world.

        Perhaps you could also provide an explanation or at least a theory Hentrich as to where the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million, of Allopathic Doctors who are also trained Homeopathic Doctors fit into the scheme of things. Are you suggesting that all of them use Homeopathy as a placebo? Do you believe they spent years training to be Homeopathic Physicians and grasping the deep complexity of Homeopathy – some MD’s have said it is harder than their conventional medical training – in order to use it as a placebo?

        Why would they bother going to that time, effort and expense if they, like you, with their feet firmly stuck in conventional science/medicine, believed Homeopathy to be placebo at best and quackery at worst?

        By the criteria of the naysayers there should not be one Allopathic physician on the planet who also practises Homeopathy – and yet they are legion. Why do you think that is?

        Like

        • Hentrich says:

          “There is no question that Homeopathy works – even science/medicine can admit that.”
          Science/medicine CAN admit that, but that must be proven first. Homeopathy is not a placebo, as you phrase it. A placebo is an intentional part of a blinded study which is INTENDED to have no active effect. Placebos are used to create a control group. The handful of studies that show a measurable effect either cannot be replicated, or are shown to have been poorly designed and executed. When submitted to rigorous, blinded testing, homeopathy performs no better than a placebo, or a control group in the case of cellular-level studies.

          If homeopathy worked, Ryan Lovett would still be alive, and his mother wouldn’t be facing charges of negligence.

          Like

          • Roslyn Ross says:

            If science/medicine can admit that Homeopathy works why does it have to be proven? Who says it has to be proven within the narrow and limited materialistic/mechanistic paradigm which is scientific belief? Science? Who says science is the arbiter on what humanity can utilise, particularly something which is cheap, cures and does no harm?

            The efficacy of Homeopathy is demonstrable and has been for more than two centuries. How it works is what messes with science because at this point in time, the how of the what may well bring the materialistic/mechanistic paradigm which is modern science/medicine, crashing down and in the doing, destroying egos, profits, careers and scientific dogma which has taken on theological import.

            I understand what a placebo is. Allopathy makes use of placebo effect – all medical methodologies have a level of placebo effect and nocebo to varying degrees. But the claim is that Homeopathy is only placebo, as in, there is an effect because of belief or expectation, whereas patently it is not and it has been demonstrated in studies to be more than placebo.

            The placebo card keeps being played by opposers but it has no substance.

            As to Ryan Lovett being alive and his mother facing charges of negligence – are you saying to me that given the fact that modern medicine is now the third biggest killer that you would take the same position toward it that you appear to take toward other systems of healing and you would reject Allopathy completely because of the millions of deaths?

            Or would you be applying a double standards? One case, of which I have not heard but presume has links to Homeopathy where someone died and you reject an entire medical methodology on that basis, against millions around the world, yes millions, every year, because of Allopathic treatment and you accept that? Is hypocrisy a word which has meaning to you? Or egregious hypocrisy?

            Like

      • Jatinder Aulakh says:

        @Hentrich
        Allopathy has been attacking homeopathy since its inception, they are the ones “poisoning the well”. Throwing such phrases from the skeptics dictionary carries no weight. Even in those days homeopathy were medical doctors too. When Cats decide what is good and/or bad about mice, that opinion is flawed to start with.

        Regarding “Edzard Ernst” now that you have metioned that name, can you please provide a single authentic source that shows that he is a qualified homeopath. I hope you will have the courtesy to provide that information.

        Like

        • Hentrich says:

          “Poisoning the well” came from Cardinal Newman’s dictionary, not the skeptical community’s. You still haven’t made any cogent argument against what the NCCAM said. Remember, this organization was founded to legitimize alternative medical modalities like homeopathy. If skeptics had their way, it would be abolished.
          Edzard Ernst was the first person to chair a department of Complementary Medicine. Specifically, he studied homeopathy at a homeopathic hospital in Munich.
          http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/sep/25/scienceinterviews.health
          http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110530/full/news.2011.322.html

          Like

          • Roslyn Ross says:

            @Hentrich,

            but skeptics and sceptics will not have their way for the simple reason that Homeopathy works and is in fact the fastest growing medical methodology in the world. Too late! And it has been too late since Homeopathy was developed….

            Like

        • Jatinder Aulakh says:

          @Hentrich

          http://edzardernst.com/2013/09/my-double-life-as-a-homeopath/
          following from above link:
          “I graduated from medical school in Munich in the late 1970s and, looking for a job, I realised that there weren’t any. At the time, Germany had a surplus of doctors and all the posts I wanted were taken. Eventually, I found one in the only hospital that was run almost entirely homoeopathically, the KRANKENHAUS FUER NATURHEILWEISEN in Munich. Within about half a year, I learned how to think like a homeopath, diagnose like a homeopath and treat patients like a homeopath. I never attended formal courses or aspired to get a certificate; as far as I remember, none of the junior doctors working in the homeopathic hospital did that either. We were expected to learn on the job, and so we did.”

          In his own words he did not attend formal courses or aspired to get a certificate. So he has no formal homeopathic education, has not even done a certification. Am I supposed to take him as a homeopathy expert.

          At a basic level Allopathic system works on one to one basis.
          This one disease/condition treated with this one medicine.

          At basic level Homeopathic system works on complex many to many basis.
          Patient has many symptoms(say 10) and there are many remedies(say 30) that cover one or more of those symptoms. I used the word complex because further causation, uniqueness of symptom(s), constitution, weightage etc. have to be taken into account. Many times a remedy has to be followed by another remedy to complete the treatment/cure.

          Double blind Trials is a tool to measure effect of a medicine for a disease with
          “one to one” relationship (as in allopathy) and not
          “many to many complex relationship” (like in homeopathy – success of which is better noted through anecdotal evidence)
          Using double blind trials for homeopathy is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
          They are two different systems, so cannot be evaluated the same way.

          If we have to go that route (not intended to be) trials still have to be based on individualized remedies for the person for condition(s). Could you please point me to any individualized trials that Edzard Ernst has done for any further discussion on the subject.

          Like

          • Roslyn Ross says:

            @ Jatinder

            Well said. Enzt has no credibility and is clearly not a homeopath. ‘As far as I remember’ he says, other doctors had no training either – now there is rigorous science for you. If anyone supporting Homeopathy said that the naysayers would be apopleptic. Double standards.

            One suspects that some of the other doctors working were Enzt was were trained Homeopaths and that was his only exposure to it and he ‘ran’ with it when he found it was useful. Dodgy from the beginning if you read about him. Then again, fits perfectly into the scheme of things with magicians, skeptics, sceptics, pooh-poohers and the general ragbag of non-scientific, non-credible, non-substantial ‘experts’ the opposers come up with.

            What they don’t see is how ridiculous it makes them look and how professional, by comparison, are those putting the other case.

            As I have said before, they are a great resource for Homeopathy.

            Like

          • Roslyn Ross says:

            Given that it takes years to train as a Homeopathic physician and some MD’s who went on to train as Homeopaths as well have said it is more difficult than Allopathic training, Edzard Ernst became an expert in a few months as he states:

            Here it is again my training in homeopathy: in the late 1970s, I worked for several month in a German homeopathic hospital as a junior doctor. There I learned how to treat patients according to the principles of homeopathy. Later I used homeopathy occasionally in clinical practice. Since 2 decades I research the subject mainly through clinical trials and systematic reviews. It is therefore correct to say that I have trained in homeopathy.

            It is therefore correct to say he has less training than the average person who an interest in Homeopathy…. ridiculous.

            And:

            In this interview Ernst claims that he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title”. In fact, a crucial ‘prerequisite’ in Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, is to have passed an exam at the relevant regional branch of the German Landesaerztekammer (medical council), and Ernst never did this. As the interviewer points out:

            “So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?

            Ernst: “I never completed any courses.”

            In short, it appears that the leading ‘authority’ on homeopathy, and perhaps its most referenced critic, has no qualifications in homeopathy.[2]

            http://www.hmc21.org/#/edzard-ernst/4543212059

            Like

            • Jatinder Aulakh says:

              @Roslyn

              To me Edzard Ernst looks like a pretty dishonest type of a person.

              As far as homeopathy is concerned, I have seen it work like a charm in enough cases for me to be able to make an informed opinion – that it works and works very well. I take medicine to get better, not to prove or disprove scientific theories. At the end of the day proof is in the pudding.

              Like

              • Roslyn Ross says:

                @Jatinder,

                Yes, I never cease to be surprised at the poor quality of people the opposition comes up with. An ‘expert’ who never studied Homeopathy let alone qualified; a magician; this or that skeptic or sceptic and people who use childish words like quack, pooh pooh and woo-woo in what is supposed to be a considered, intelligent, scientifically based argument.

                And yes, the one powerful thing the naysayers will never overcome is that Homeopathy works. They can rant, rage, foam, froth and tie themselves up in knots because science does not know how but those who prescribe and those who use simply don’t care – it works.

                Like

  6. zetetic1500 says:

    Guerrilla skepticism is stupid, the real name is Paramilitar Pseudoskepticism. Randi is a ideological Lord of War in the Web.

    Like

  7. Laurie Willberg says:

    Last year’s Amusing Randi convention in Vegas introduced “Guerilla Skepticism”, complete with a seminar on “How to edit Wikipedia”. Google their website which is apparently in the throes of going underground.
    Perhaps it should be renamed “Skeptipedia”.

    Like

  8. I agree that taking on people like this is a thankless task, and perhaps the best thing we can do is to publicise the fact the Wikipedia information is not impartial. Once people lose confidence in the information there is loses its credibility.

    Mind you, I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica website, looked up ‘Homeopathy’, and there is similar bias there.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Hi Steve!

      As thankless as it may be, I see it as grist for the mill. The way this has been going, the more they comlain about it, the more lies they tell, the better we look. Of course they’ll say its not true, but how do they get out of this one? They’ve been saying homeopathic remedies are placebos for years now, yet out of 250 references, not one of them actually confirms it? I mean this is wild, it is a folie a plussiere, a mass delusion we’ve stumbled on.
      Steve, we can’t let them get away with this wihtout making a trampoline out of it for a while. The longer they leave it up the better, the longer we have to draw attetnion to it and the longer people have to check it out and see for themselves that what was thought implausible has suddenly become a fact: Homoepathic remedies are NOT just placebos.

      Like

  9. Hentrich says:

    Once again, you prove that you have no idea how Wikipedia works. Jimmy Wales does not edit every article to his liking, and it’s unlikely he’s edited the article on homeopathy. Have you tried editing the article yourself?

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Of course Jimmy Wales doesn’t edit every article, but what can be seen is that the article has changed from last year’s example of Stupedia and this year’s example of Encyclopedia Prevarica, probably due to my exposing the first embarassing “attribution” and Wale’s classic homoeopathic aggravation where he’s screaming at the editors to sink homeopathy.
      And I’m not going to change it for them. If they want to continue to look like fools and present testimony that ANYONE can see is false, let ’em do it, it’s not my job to correct their errors, and even if I did try to edit it, they’ll just change it back again. They’ve been caught in a lie anyone can see for themselves. Look it up! Follow the link they give and read the NIH/NCCAM article. The longer such a glaring mistake stays up there the better, the more people will know what hachet job it is and stop believing everything they read, and try it for themselves, instead of listening to Jimmy Wales to do their thinking for them. It’s Wales job, not mine, to set a policy and strategy that insures the integrity of the articles he influences, and see that they are written by the same standards he demands in other articles.
      If I am wrong about this, show me where inthe NIH/NCCAM article there is anything about homeopathic remedies being placebos, yet this is the only reference given.
      Come on Mr. Skeptic. Let’s see what you do when you’ve been caught in one of your own little scams you accuse others of. By your implications I’m supposed to be the one who’s presenting a scam here, I’m the one dealing in delusions. If you’re so brilliant and you’re the one who’s supposed to be so committed ot the truth, let’s see you change it.
      CHECKMATE! Either leave it as stark testimony everyone can laugh at or admit you’re wrong by commission or ignorant by omission and change the entry . . again . . like the last time you were cauight in a lie!

      Like

      • Hentrich says:

        The Wikipedia article on homeopathy currently has over 250 references. One of them is an NCCAM document which states “There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.”
        With which Wikipedia policies do you take issue? The one requiring reliable sources? The one discouraging ad hominem attacks? The one stating that talk pages are not a forum?
        The reason you don’t like Wikipedia is because you can’t advance your views in an objective forum without sounding like a crazy person.

        BTW, thank you for writing about “energy psychology”. I had no idea it was a thing. It’s hilarious.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          In an apparent defense of Wikipedia’s inability to validate its placebo accusation, pathological skeptic Hentrich writes, “The Wikipedia article on homeopathy currently has over 250 references.”
          Yes! AND NOT ONE OF THEM VALIDATES WIKIPEDIA’S ASSERTION: “Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more than a placebo,[2]” The [2] footnote goes to a NIH/NCCAM document which does NOT state or support in any way the placebo accusation by Wikipeida.
          If Wikipedida has more than 250 footnotes on the subject of homeopathy, then why is it that within all those references, none can be found to substantiate the assertion in a supposedly neutral appraisal of the subject? NONE can be found to support its first and primary assertion, that the remaining 249 footnotes are then presumed to be in accordance with?
          I have repeatedly said that there is no support for the “homeopathic remedies are placebos” assertion, and the failure of Wikpedia to provide even one footnote out of 250 to support its contention is proof of it. There is not one study, test or trial that supports the placebo hypothesis. IF there was one, why wouldn’t his highly researched article be using it to prove what they’re claiming?
          Listen, Hentrich, if you want be Randi’s whipping boy, fine, let it be a lesson for everyone, I’ll happily take you to the woodshed, the beating you’re about to get would kill the likes of Wales, Ernst or Randi with shame.
          You’re dodging the question and covering your tracks of retreat with questions now about “which Wikipedia policies” I “take issue with.” LOL! Wikipedia doesn’t have any real policies, no! It’s just “do as you will,” write anything you like . . as long as it supports the folie a plussiere of pathological skepticism . . it’s the troll’s playground, coupled with ad hominems, for here you have displyed the classic pathological skeptic’s impasse of the elipsis, trying to sneak by the fact the well you touted full doesn’t even exist. There is no valid attribution for the placebo assertion in the Wikipedia article on homeopathy, as you have just discovered. But rather than stand on principle and turn your pea shooter on the deceivers, you are now trying to change the subject with other accusations, to give yourself time, to continue to try, to find something new, to support the accusation of “placebo”.
          Well, good luck. You think everyone’s as lazy as you are in checking references. You probably apply for jobs the same way. This is exactly what got Edzard Ernst fired from Exeter. He was making allegations he couldn’t support, even telling everyone he was a “trained homeopath.” Trained by who where? As it turned out, nobody, nowhere. He can’t be trusted with telling the truth and neither can you. You can’t even prove who you are, no phone number, no address, no picture ID, no grade school diploma, nothing to back up your big talk except the deed to the bridge you bought to live under and troll for “energy psychologists” and “homeopaths.”
          Look what you’ve admitted in place of the placebo charge, an allegation by the NIH that there actually is REAL EVIDENCE that supports homeopathy . . supports it as an “effective treatment for any specific condition.” And here the NIH article was supposed to be just the opposite. The MIH article was supposed to confirm the palcebo accusation.

          WHAT’S THIS YOU SAY?

          LOL! I see you and every other pathological skeptic reading this saying “Wait a minute, that’s not what it said!”
          Yeah, that IS what it said. Go back and read it again. There is evidence that supports homeopathy as an effective treatment for ANY specific condition, which can mean SYMPTOM.
          Oh, I left out the word “little?”
          So what?
          I’ll put this in terms you can understand. Treatment for one specific condition is a “little evidence” for the correct treament of a greater general condition that, like comparatively little tentacles coming over the rails of a ship, that appear as separate creatures which the allopath attacks separately, creatures that grow back and return to attack again and again. But the homeopath, the real physician, dives down deep to spear the head of the giant octopus and kill it for good with a single thrust.
          A little becomes a lot.
          Classical homoeopathy goes beyond treating any ONE sdpecific condition. Specific conditions, or symptoms, are not idiopathic, alone in their source and cause, as allopathic, or antipathic “medicine” poses them to be. A homoeopathic physician will see specific conditions as connected to a totality of symptoms of a greater affliction and seek its head.
          Now you’re going to go off the rails on this because I left out the word “little.” But it doesn’t matter, because what starts out as a little crack in the dike turns into a deluge as it widens into something else. A little evidence for each of a dozen specific conditions adds up to a lot of evidence for an unnamed affliction, something that began as a neuorolgical derangement.
          So much for conflating specified conditions into totality of symptoms. In the materia medica, the reference work of homoeopathy, there is a myriad of specific conditions for which there are sometimes numerous remedies indicated for just one symptom, sometimes highly specific symptoms, the symptoms which are noted for their known periodicity, sequence, trigger, circumstance and so on. There is nothing like it that I have seen in allopathy, antipathic medicine, the medicine of obstruction and opposition. In fact, the detail and connectivity between symptoms, and their treament within the context of a principled doctrine makes “conventional” medicine look chaotic and “unconventional”, once again following the pathological skeptics Saturnian philosophy of “do as you will.”
          The problem for the homoeopathic physician then is which remedy amongst many does he use? So for many afflictions, there should not be five remedies for five symptoms in one person, but o0ne. Homoeopathy does not try to treat any one specified condition with one medicine, it attempts to match one remedy to a pattern of conditions as there has been found to be one remedy that best fits the treatment of a constellation of symptoms.
          Now you can laugh at this, and you can scoff at this. But while you do, the medicine you’re peddling as default has become the third leading cause of death in the US today, while homoeopathy has become the only true pharmaceutical doctrine of cure. It does not preclude energy medical modalities such as accupuncture, Reiki, Mesmerism, energy psychology or nutritional approaches as methods of cure. But homoeopathy is unique in that it is the only curative doctrine known to this author that makes use of government recognized and regulated pharmaceuticals.
          So you see Heintrich? I can turn you on a dime. But will I? No! Keep opposing this. Keep making things up. Run to Randi, ask what to do now. The more you fight it, the better homoeopathy looks to all who read about it here.

          Like

        • Roslyn Ross says:

          Given that no university in the world will accept Wikipedia as a source I am surprised anyone would bother posting or reading on it. Wikipedia is the ‘junk/fastfood’ equivalent of encyclopedias and has no credibility. It can be a useful place to begin research if one remains aware of the lack of integrity and the level of propaganda, and even academia accepts it as a place to begin, but nothing from Wikipedia can ever be quoted in any reputable academic circumstance and that says it all really.

          Wikipedia is best ignored.

          Like

    • Roslyn Ross says:

      Wikipedia has no credibility because it is self-edited and not held to rigorous academic account. One can only be struck by the irony that the Homeopathy naysayers use a magician and Wikipedia as part of their ‘case’ against the medical methodology. Says it all really.

      And in truth, those opposing Homeopathy are doing the profession a favour because every medical methodology should be held to the highest account and questioning one’s self and system is the best way to do that.

      And the opposition against Homeopathy is so lacking in substance, credibility and intelligence that it poses no threat anyway. But thankyou for the opposition because it serves good purpose. On that count, keep up the good work.

      Like

    • Roslyn Ross says:

      Perhaps Hentrich might provide an explanation as to why, if Homeopathy is nothing more than placebo, it has registered effect in use and research on the following – none of which, one presumes, could be experiencing placebo in any form:

      1. on cells
      2. on body tissue
      3. on plants
      4. on animals
      5. on babies
      6. on unconscious adults

      I look forward to a thorough explanation of how placebo manifests in such circumstances.

      Like

      • Hentrich says:

        Citation, please.

        Like

        • Roslyn Ross says:

          Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells.
          Frenkel M, Mishra BM, Sen S, Yang P, Pawlus A, Vence L, Leblanc A, Cohen L, Banerji P, Banerji P.
          Author information
          Abstract

          The use of ultra-diluted natural products in the management of disease and treatment of cancer has generated a lot of interest and controversy. We conducted an in vitro study to determine if products prescribed by a clinic in India have any effect on breast cancer cell lines. We studied four ultra-diluted remedies (Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja) against two human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) and a cell line derived from immortalized normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMLE). The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis. These effects were accompanied by altered expression of the cell cycle regulatory proteins, including downregulation of phosphorylated Rb and upregulation of the CDK inhibitor p27, which were likely responsible for the cell cycle delay/arrest as well as induction of the apoptotic cascade that manifested in the activation of caspase 7 and cleavage of PARP in the treated cells. The findings demonstrate biological activity of these natural products when presented at ultra-diluted doses. Further in-depth studies with additional cell lines and animal models are warranted to explore the clinical applicability of these agents.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20043074

          In 2009, Majewsky, et. al., (researchers from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, in Frick, Switzerland, the Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM, at the University of Bern, Switzerland, and the Clinic for Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universitat, Berlin, Germany) looked at research in homeopathy on healthy plants with particular reference to studies investigating specific effects of homeopathic remedies. The literature review included English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish publications from 1920 to April 2009, using predefined selection criteria. Included were experiments with healthy whole plants, seeds, plant parts and cells. A total of 86 studies were reviewed.

          Almost all the studies observed effects of homeopathic remedies on plants, even in high dilutions far beyond the Avogadro number. Could these finding have potential for agriculture? Perhaps. More importantly for now – they provide further evidence of the biological effects of homeopathic remedies.

          Like

          • Hentrich says:

            Two very thorough discussions of this bad study from experts.

            One from a cell biologist. http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/

            One from a surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/04/a-homeopathic-bit-of-breast-cancer-scien/

            TL;DR: Experiments not conducted enough, missing data, what data is presented is inscrutable.

            Like

            • Roslyn Ross says:

              Are you seriously suggesting Hentrich that along with a magician and Wikipedia you hold credible a website titled The Sceptics Book of Pooh Pooh? Sounds about right.

              And Respectful Insolence, when one reads about the site and the source is so prejudiced that the subjectivity in regard to Homeopathy is breath-taking.

              Whatever happened to that word which science claims to be about? Rigorous. Yes, that word. No magicians, no sceptics or skeptics, or insolence or pooh pooh.

              You really need to do better than that.

              You might be wise to stick to credible sources. Although I know that is difficult when you don’t want facts to get in the way of propaganda.

              Like

              • Hentrich says:

                Do you have a fact-based argument to make, or are you going to ramble on about website names?
                Both authors hold doctorates and are experts in their fields. Their articles explain, in more than ample detail why these the study you cite is flawed.
                I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about bias. If David Gorski isn’t a reliable source because he’s an active skeptic, then Moshe Frenkel is just as unreliable, since he’s made a career out of advancing what I would consider magical thinking and woo. That’s why you need to consider the facts of an argument instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well (“You can’t listen to him, he’s a skeptic!”)

                Like

                • Roslyn Ross says:

                  I have considered and posted the facts of the argument. You are the one relying on magicians, pooh pooh, woo, woo, skeptics, sceptics and other such nonsense.

                  Anyone who tags their website skeptic or sceptic is not objective. I thought that was a criteria for scientific research – rigorous objectivity not irrational subjectivity.

                  And I am waiting for you to explain to me why, if you are right, there are legions of MD’s who are also practising Homeopathic physicians. Or is that in the too hard basket?

                  Like

            • Roslyn Ross says:

              Perhaps you might reply to my question above as to how it can be that there are so many Allopathic Physicians who are also trained Homeopathic Physicians and who practise both methodologies without the prejudice and doubts others might express. One presumes they have also read the skeptics, sceptics, pooh poohers, magicians and Wiki!

              Do you think the simple reason, applying Occam’s Razor to the issue, is that these MD’s trained in conventional, orthodox, materialistic/mechanistic science/medicine have turned to Homeopathy because of failures in Allopathy and they use Homeopathy because it works?

              Yep, that simple. Homeopathy works and that is why all the naysaying in the world is futile. It is however useful in pushing Homeopathy to maintain the highest standards and like any system it could do with improvement as a system….

              Keep up the good work!

              Like

              • Hentrich says:

                I honestly don’t know how many such practitioners there are. Enlighten me, please.

                Like

                • Roslyn Ross says:

                  There should not be one by the criteria of the naysayers. The existence of one puts paid to your position. I merely seek an explanation of how it can be possible if you are right.

                  As to not knowing how many – all French Homeopaths must by law be MD’s. France averages around 42% or more of homeopathic practitioners, which, are all MD’s because they must be.

                  Around 40% of UK doctors either prescribe homeopathics or refer their patients to Homeopathic physicians which means they may not be trained themselves but they support the methodology.

                  This is just a guide to MD’s who practice Homeopathy – it must be in the hundreds of thousands and possibly much higher given the popularity of Homeopathy in India with its billion plus population.

                  There are two very good books written by MD’s who are also Homeopaths:

                  Homeopathy, Science or Myth? By Bill Gray, MD and Homeopath.

                  Paradox of Healing, by Stephen Goldsmith, MD and psychiatrist and Homeopath.

                  That should get you started.

                  You can also have a look at Larry Malerba’s website – trained in conventional medicine and a practising Homeopath.

                  And while you are explaining to me how even one MD can be a Homeopath, can you also throw some light on the new movement toward Integrative Medicine, sourced in and pushed by Allopathic Doctors, where Homeopathy is included as a medical methodology?

                  Like

                  • Hentrich says:

                    It’s getting late. I’ll leave you with this.
                    Doctors take an oath when they begin practicing, saying they will, among other things, do no harm. We might assume, therefore, that a doctor could never commit murder or any other violent crime, since that would violate the Hippocratic oath in the most egregious way possible. And yet some do.
                    Despite their training, doctors are people, and prone to the same biases and potential for self-rationalization as everyone else. Some doctors abuse harmful substances, despite acute knowledge of what they do to the body. Some doctors abuse the doctor/patient relationship. Doctors used to believe in the “science” of the four humours. Some doctors believe in homeopathy. They’re just wrong. That is why the scientific community puts such a premium on double-blind, peer-reviewed studies. They are the best tool to control the biases, flaws, and simple blunders that all people are prone to.

                    Like

                    • Roslyn Ross says:

                      But you did not answer my question. How can someone practise both Allopathy and Homeopathy? How can they be so wrong as you put it? How can anyone immersed in science/medicine as an Allopath also embrace Homeopathy?

                      There is a disconnect. At least if you have any credibility. And if they are so ‘wrong’ then why is Allopathy including Homeopathy in the new field of Integrative Medicine?

                      You see it is not enough to just say it is wrong. That is merely your opinion. Clearly it is not the opinion of many in the medical profession.

                      Could it be that you are wrong and they are right? After all, medicine is their field and if they see no problem practising both methodologies, who are you to say they are wrong?

                      And why are double-blind peer-reviwed studies an arbiter? There is a wealth of information on the failings of the scientific system and it is only a matter of time before even science has to admit that the materialistic/mechanistic paradigm is severely limited and the source of research failure and/or distortion.

                      Just because some think it is the ‘best tool’ does not make it so.

                      As this recent article in The Economist states:

                      Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

                      http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

                      Like

            • zetetic1500 says:

              The two “references” not a peer review, is a opinions and speculation of “flawed points” of studies. Pseudoskeptiks applied double standars in the evaluation of evidence (i.e. “several flaw”, “bad methodology”, ad-nauseaum).
              The Scilog is a well knowed pseudoskeptik site, includes defamation, ad-hominem fallacies, personal attacks, censorship comments, and Orac is linked with James Randi Educational Foundation and other multinationals of “skepticism”). The bad quality of arguments is a poor form of presentation, in example typical straw man fallacy in Orac post:

              “Of course, scientists know that the whole “shake and dilute” process is bunk…This brings us to the second magical principle upon which homeopathy rests… somehow the water “remembers” the contact with the remedy and magically forgets the contact it’s had with all the other things that water has been contact with, like poo, pee, chemicals,… they believe so highly in their magic that they all too often abuse science to try to “prove” that it works. “

              Like

        • Thanks Hentrich for the great opportunity to post the following. Here is another pesky anecdotal case history: Congestive Cardiac Failure with pre-renal acute renal failure”

          “CNS – Unconscious, not responding to commands, movement of LL to pain stimuli; Planters – NAD.”

          “Homeopathic intervention here allowed her to stabilize in the vital organs to the point where she even regained consciousness though without intact higher function and could not communicate in conversation. Her son was able to take her home with a mounting hospital bill that reduced within 10 days of homeopathic medication being started. Due to her symptomatic improvement, the allopathic drugs were also drastically reduced and she went home on a very small prescription as maintenance dose.”

          http://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/congestive-cardiac-failure-with-pre-renal-acute-renal-failure/ .

          Like

          • Roslyn Ross says:

            And some more research:

            Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.
            Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R, Ordaz B, Marzoa N, Menéndez J, García L, Gilling E, Leyva R, Rufín R, de la Torre R, Solis RL, Batista N, Borrero R, Campa C.
            Author information
            Abstract
            BACKGROUND:

            Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease of major importance in the tropics where the incidence peaks in rainy seasons. Natural disasters represent a big challenge to Leptospirosis prevention strategies especially in endemic regions. Vaccination is an effective option but of reduced effectiveness in emergency situations. Homeoprophylactic interventions might help to control epidemics by using highly-diluted pathogens to induce protection in a short time scale. We report the results of a very large-scale homeoprophylaxis (HP) intervention against Leptospirosis in a dangerous epidemic situation in three provinces of Cuba in 2007.
            METHODS:

            Forecast models were used to estimate possible trends of disease incidence. A homeoprophylactic formulation was prepared from dilutions of four circulating strains of Leptospirosis. This formulation was administered orally to 2.3 million persons at high risk in an epidemic in a region affected by natural disasters. The data from surveillance were used to measure the impact of the intervention by comparing with historical trends and non-intervention regions.
            RESULTS:

            After the homeoprophylactic intervention a significant decrease of the disease incidence was observed in the intervention regions. No such modifications were observed in non-intervention regions. In the intervention region the incidence of Leptospirosis fell below the historic median. This observation was independent of rainfall.
            CONCLUSIONS:

            The homeoprophylactic approach was associated with a large reduction of disease incidence and control of the epidemic. The results suggest the use of HP as a feasible tool for epidemic control, further research is warranted.

            2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%E2%80%A2Large-scale%20application%20of%20highly-diluted%20bacteria%20for%20Leptospirosis%20epidemic%20control%5Ball%5D&cmd=correctspelling

            Prophylaxis against Leptospirosis using a nosode: can this large cohort study serve as a model for future replications? [Homeopathy. 2010]

            Clinical Trials

            Accelerating the healing of bone fracture using homeopathy: a prospective, randomized double-blind controlled study
            Long term evaluation of homeopathy on post treatment impairment of pulmonary tuberculosis
            Homeopathy in chronic sinusitis: A prospective multi-centric observational study
            Acute otitis media in children: A comparison of conventional and homeopathic treatment
            Effects of homeopathic treatment in women with premenstrual syndrome: a pilot study
            Homeopathic treatment of mild traumatic brain injury: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
            http://www.homeopathyoz.org/whatisResearch.asp

            Like

          • Hentrich says:

            Dr. D’Souza is providing anecdotal evidence of a case from over twenty years ago with no documentation. She should have gathered hospital records when they were still extant and submitted this “case study” to a reputable peer-reviewed medical journal, instead of sitting on it for a couple decades and publishing it as an unsourced blog post. I find this less than compelling.

            Like

            • Roslyn Ross says:

              Let’s be honest, there is nothing in regard to Homeopathy of a positive nature you would find compelling. But it really does not matter. Homeopathy has survived naysayers in recent times and will continue to do so because it works.

              I am still waiting for your compelling explanation of how there can be even one MD trained in Allopathic medicine and sourced in modern science who can also be a practising Homeopathic physician – let alone many hundreds of thousands of them.

              Are they all quacks? Should they all be struck off medical registers worldwide? And what about Homeopathy being included in Allopathy’s Integrative Medicine? How do you see that working, if you are right?

              Like

              • Hentrich says:

                “Let’s be honest, there is nothing in regard to Homeopathy of a positive nature you would find compelling.”
                Sure there is. A well-designed, blinded study published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal whose results can be reliably replicated.

                Like

                • Roslyn Ross says:

                  @Hentrich,

                  As others have pointed out, your unprofessional and completely subjective approach to the topic of Homeopathy means you ‘select’ only published studies which show negative or inconclusive results for such tests and completely ignore those which are positive.

                  as I said, let’s be honest, there is nothing in regard to Homeopathy of a positive nature you would find compelling because you consistently ignore, dismiss, reject or deny the existence of that which you demand should exist for you to take Homeopathy seriously.

                  That is prejudice of the highest kind and hardly fitting the so-called rigorous approach of science, whether you are a scientist or a groupie.

                  Like

                • johnbenneth says:

                  How many times have we seen from tall talking wide walking masked avengers what we hear now from you now, Hentrich, the demand for a “a well-designed, blinded study” by a drug company biostitute, get ” published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal whose results can be reliably replicated?” LOL! Just what are you talking about? Since when do we ever see the results of “a well-designed, blinded study published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal whose results can be reliably replicated?”
                  As if using a study of Risperdal will give us an example of what you’re talking about? LOL! Now there’s a popular drug for you, it’s supposed to be for depression but instead causes men to grow breasts. How is it that THAT got on the market, Mr. Spock? It won’t happen, Hentrich, you don’t have an example of what you’re demanding from homoeopathy, because the crap you peddle doesn’t have any standards! You don’t have a golden ruler because you don’t know what you’re talking about, you don’t have a measure for anything. You don’t have any REAL criteria for judging homoeopathy, none that you’re aware of or none that you would accept if you were.
                  Now, with that said, here are the studies that trolls like you, and stage magicians, and comedians and pseudoscientists say don’t exist. Put a dot between tinuyurl and com and paste into your browser.
                  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/davenas 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/bemiring

                  Specifically, the highest impact, peer reviewed, most prestigious scientific journal of all is Nature. This journal has published two (2) replications of biochemical tests of human basophil cell degranulation triggered by a very dilute antiserum as used in homoeopathy, Benveniste (Davenas tinyurl com/davenas) and Hirst ( tinyurl.com/hirstsj )

                  You will see that Hirst is a very good replication of Davenas, attributing the “anomalous” results being due to some unknown factor: “The results were contrary to conventional scientific theory and were not satisfactorily explained,” says Hirst. … “Our results contain a source of variation for which we cannot account …”

                  “. . a source of variation for which we cannot account.”

                  Italo Vecchi of Weirdtech says of Hirst, ‘It is possibly the most peculiar scientific paper that I have ever read. I have never read any other paper attributing all the results which are incompatible with its overall conclusions to unidentified systematic flaws in its own experiments. I have never read any other paper dismissing its own statistical data above the significance threshold as “chance results”. The authors appear to recognize that their data are incompatible with their null hypothesis, i.e. with the assumption that there is no difference betweeen potentized solutions and placebo (p. 527, right column): “According to conventional scientific theory, there should be no differences within a session between the control treatment and the eight high-dilution treatments. … This is not the case … .” , but they attribute the effect to unknown causes (“a source of variation for which we cannot account”). Indeed, despite its overall conclusions, if taken seriously the paper’s content provides independent confirmation to the main claims made in Benveniste’s original article …’

                  Allow me to reiterate. Hirst is the paper that skeptics say doesn’t exist, can’t exist, never will exist. As a replication it provides the most rigorous examination of homoeopathy’s biochemical potential, and ” . . the paper’s content provides independent confirmation to the main claims made in Benveniste’s original article.” tinyurl com/7aelcv9

                  Vecchi writes, ‘It may be noted that in the original report (Jim Burridge, “A Repeat of the ‘Benveniste’ Experiment: Statistical Analysis”, Research Report No. 100, Department of Statistical Science, University College London, England, March 1992, available here as zipped pdf) on which the published version of Hirst et al. is based, the author, after clearly stating that “the main aim of the experiment is to show that the results do in fact behave as expected!”, acknowledges that “one interpretation [of the results] is that there are, after all, differences between the treatments” (i.e. that Benveniste’s main claim is correct) and that “further work needs to be done”. Such remarks however did not make it to the published version of Hirst et al.’ You can read Vecchi’s full review of Benvensite (Davenas) and Hirst at tinyurl com/7aelcv9

                  But wait, befor eyou disappear down that rabbit hole, there’s more here in this one. Whereas the basophil degranulation is not the only biochemical replicated test for homoeoepathy, it does have the record for the most published replications, 25 if you include Hirst, which, given its stated doubts, approach and false negative, was more rigorous than Davenas and actually showed statistically significant action of highly diluted anti histamine. In addition to Hirst, let it be known that Davenas was a replication of Poitevin . .

                  Poitevin B, Aubin M, Benveniste J. Effet d’Apis mellifica sur
                  la d´egranulation des basophiles humains in vitro [Effect of
                  Apis mellifica on the degranulation of human basophiles in
                  vitro]. Hom Franc 1985;73:193—8.

                  Most notable of the replications of the BD test is Belon, as it was replicated by three independent laboratories:

                  Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Inhibition of human
                  basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions:
                  results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflamm Res
                  1999;48:17—8.

                  I can guarantee that the troll “Hentrich,” or whoever he is, will put his “high standards” to work on all of these studies to disqualify all of them with one hollow accusation after another, while not being able to to come up with ONE “well-designed, blinded study published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal whose results can be reliably replicated” to validate the use of Risperdal, Oxycontin, Asperin or ANY of the crap he peddles.

                  Typical skeptoid denials, the mentality which is currently ruling what is posing as “conventional medicine” in the civilized world today. Can you imagine what would happen if Vladimir Putin had taken Risperdal? Instead of looking at him in pictures of riding a horse without his shirt on, we’d be looking at pictures of New York City after a nuclear bomb blast.

                  Given its system of “proving,” testing each substance on volunteers and noting the effects, the pharmaceuticals used in the true medical doctrine of homoeopathy are the most studied, tried, tested on the planet.
                  Even in a petri dish, homoeopathy works.
                  KNOW IT!

                  Like

                  • Roslyn Ross says:

                    Well said John. Some older facts for opposers to ponder:

                    More amazing historical facts about homeopathy! Dr. Paddock, (allopathic) physician in charge of the City Hospital of St-Louis, Missouri, reports, for six months, ending September 30th, 1864, the aggregate number of cases of dysentery, diarrhea, typhoid fever, and pneumonia at one hundred and sixty-nine, with a mortality exceeding fifty-two percent. In the Cavalry Depot Hospital of the same city, during the year ending March 31st, 1865, Dr. Franklin reports the deaths, from the same diseases, under Homœopathy, at less than one and one-third percent; the number of cases being one hundred and seventy-seven—a saving of fifty lives out of fifty two.

                    Like

                    • johnbenneth says:

                      Good point, Roslyn. The overhwleming death rate at the allopathic City Hospital in St. Louis, compared with that of Cavalry homoeopathic’s, is not a statistical oddity, but a trend that can be seen in epidemic, physician and hospital throughout the latter 19th century when comparing allopathy against homoeopathy. Even in the great pandemic flu of 1918 revealed staistics similar to St. Louis’.
                      The fact of the matter is, the attenuated dose is not the first principle of homoeopathy. The first principal is medical similitude, which can be employed using phases of matter other than ionized, as the small pox vaccine attests. The employemnt of medical similitude, i.e. homoeopathy, or its cousin, homeopathy, are the only workable methods of epidemiology. The modern flu inoculation now, however, is to the conscious practice of homoeopathy what variolation was to the smallpox vaccine in 1796. Just as we fight fire with fire, with the vaccine we give a disease to cure a disease, similar to homoeopathy, except it’s not the same one, which ‘homeopathy’ implies, which modern medicine still employs unwittingly. We have to learn the use of homoeopathy, actual similitude, in medicine, especially epidemics, and replace the mordbid dose of idem with the ionized of similia.
                      The only way this can happen today is for the state to either support or mandate the conscious practice of medical similitude, i.e. homoeopathy.

                      Like

  10. rollandconte says:

    wiki has to prove it is placebo and demonstrate the nonvalidity of duality wave particule! a vous wiki d’etre innovatif !!

    Like

  11. perry says:

    Go John keep up the great work!

    Like

  12. There is no way proponents of health and medicine can win a war over wikipedia. Dana Ullman tried but handed a ban by the skeptics of homeopathy who are running wikipedia page on homeopathy. The better option is to switch over to Wiki Encyclopedia http://www.wiki4cam.org/wiki/Homeopathy

    Like

What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s