Homeopathy Beyond Myopia

Homeopathy, the legal view.

The case against it picks up steam

Here we go again . .

After 200 years of phenomenal growth, clinical use for over 70,000 symptoms and superior results in epidemics and popularity among loyal users, there is still great opposition, it would seem, to homeopathy.

Here’s the latest. Apparently some jurist pedant in Australia has just discovered homeopathy, and a well known critic of homeopathy is trying to take it to the bank . . again.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/comment-blogs/-/blogs/13779346/homeopathy-the-legal-view

They just don’t get it . . it would seem.

There’s obviously some money in naysaying and pretending to be stupid. The fact of the matter is homeopathy is an obvious threat to the pharmaceutical industry. Not as a competitor . . as a destroyer. The homeopathic pharmacopoeia, which now includes over 3,000 remedies, can’t be patented, is easily manufactured, sold and used for an Avogadran fraction of what patent medicine can get capitalizing on the fear that nothing else but their patented crap can possibly stop your cancer or dire disease. So it’s quite understandable that what maddens the opponents of it is that homeopathy actually cures people of their ailments, something that their “medicine” can’t claim.

Now before we get down and dirty in hand to hand combat in this war of lancets, allow me to wax a while profane . .

Certainly not homeopathy . . they say. But I say there wouldn’t be a mass health crisis of such magnitude if people, practitioner and patient, turned to homeopathy for the cure of ills. No, if homeopathy wa the common medicine of choice the disaster would be a financial one for the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, a debacle the magnitude of which has not been seen since the Great Asteroid strike they say killed all the dinosaurs .  .

(Actually I think it was something else, but the putative myth provides an understandable allegory most everyone can enjoy)

You get my meaning . . don’t you?

The major complaint fed and fostered and carefully cultivated about homeopathy is that it is implausible. This of course is a myth, for what may be implausible in theory becomes a reality in practice. Most of this impotent ejaculating seems to come from people who can’t ignore the implausibility factor and are too scared (for fear of being proved wrong) to put it to the test. So what they say is that because it shouldn’t work, it doesn’t work, and this is what drives them into using the Luddite’s tongue of shouldn’t be.

Read here what some unidentified Australian barrister and professor of law recently wrote:

“Until such time as homoeopathy can scientifically justify its fundamental
tenets, which seems inconceivable by measures such as objective peer review,
double blind testing and proper replication of processes and outcomes, it
cannot be said that its claims for therapeutic efficacy can be justifiable.
This leaves the profession not just exposed to criticisms, such as were
enunciated in the cases referred to above, but potentially open to consumer
protection actions directed toward whether its representations are false,
misleading and deceptive, to civil litigation when its promises have not
been fulfilled, and especially when persons have died, and to criminal
actions in respect of the financial advantage that is obtained by its
practitioners from their representations.”

Okay, that’s enough. I’d regurgitate the rest of it for you here, but there’s no way for me to wake you up when you’re done reading it. Insomniacs can click on the link above.

Suffice it to say this kangaroo jurist goes on saying much the same thing, you can read it for yourself if you have an alarm clock, that’s what I used. But for the rest of you I must say, for a continent populated by descendants of a criminal class . . British bread stealers, pickpockets and debt slaves . . you’d think they’d be able to come up with better anti-homeopathy lawyers than this . . but then again he’s only a professor, those who can’t do teach  and doesn’t have to make his living actually putting his theory to the test.

Ring a bell?

NEXT: The case against the case against homeopathy.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

PS: I put the names  of Ben Goldacre,  PZ Myers, Neil degrasse Tyson here because I think they should read this too. And I include the names of James Randi and  Edzard Ernst because I think they shouldn’t.

It would inflame them.

WIKILIARS: Wikipedia and the case against homeopathy

We’re looking at a real, proven cure for cancer and we’re going to let these kind of games interfere with our use of it?

John Benneth responds to Wikipedia lies about homeopathy.

EXPOSES WIKIPEDIA contradicting what its sources conclude.

“The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”  –Wikipedia

Investigation of Wikipedia’s sources reveals the statement to be not true and follows a disturbing trend of omitting, attacking or transmogrifying positive studies, tests, trials of homeopathy while pro forma accepting negative opinion as fact.

Since I made my bold predictions and video on Wikipedia, their article has changed slightly. Instead of the footnote numero uno [1] going to an obscure dictionary definition of homeopathy, it now goes directly to the number one hatemonger for homeopathy, Professor Edzard Ernst, a bizarre old self-described homeopath, a Dr. Frankenstein making malice and lies, author of the pretended  über review of homeopathy “A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy.”

Of course it’s nothing of the sort.

OUTRAGEOUS

It’s just a collection of his own garbage obscuring the evidence: One third of his references are to his own articles, opinion and commentary about homeopathy. And yet it is this squattaling albatross the groveling open online encyclopedia Wikipedia cravens to.

“A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy,” the chief wellspring of hatecrime against homeopathy, is the headwater of lies about homeopathy.

Out of 224 footnotes on homeopathy in Wikipedia, Ernst is in 16 of them. Non-scientist, high school drop out James Randi, an entertainer, illusionist and debunker with an alleged million dollars to lose if homeopathy is proven to work, is in three of them, referring to articles entitled such as “Horizon’s homeopathic coup, Cuzco’s altitude, more funny sites, the clangers, overdue, Orbito nabbed in Padua, Randi a zombie?, Stellar guests at amazing meeting, and great new Shermer books!”

What’s amazing to me is that anyone with any kind of real knowledge about homeopathy, or even anyone with a lick of sense as to what makes a decent article, is going to let this kind of crap pass without raising hell about it. The Wikipedia article is an obvious piece of black propaganda, its sources peopled with pharmaceutical company shills.

No? You don’t believe it? Then let me ask you this: Does such an article as Wikipedia’s on homeopathy NOT serve to benefit competing interests in the health scare industry?

Whether or not you believe homeopathic remedies have any biochemical action, would you NOT agree that they pose a threat to conventional medicine?

What is it do you think these people who are antagonistic to homeopathy are doing? Who do you think serves NOT to gain by homeopathy’s demise?  Could it not be that the antagonism to this tenacious remedial study sprung first from its  implausibility, led into facing a difficult to understand doctrine, and finally morphed into embarrassment from a too-hasty judgment leading to the fools gallery?

Yes, of course. If they’re so irrational, than why are they omitting rational evidence?

Because it proves them WRONG!

It proves them to be the very thing they feared and subsequently condemned.

Is it because it is something that they condemned so hastily and so severely, leaping at the chance to bully something they thought they would make them look smart and tough minded, that when finally faced with the evidence they said didn’t exist, they can’t recant without doing real harm to their precious reputations and their belly scraping self-esteem?

Isn’t it amazing how men wear their fears so brazenly written on their sleeves when they’re pointing an accusatory finger? A man most often it seems will condemn in others what he fears hides within himself.

We’re looking at a real, proven cure for cancer and we’re going to let these kind of games interfere with our use of it?

Well, I guess I shouldn’t be so naive, should I? I guess it’s to be cynically understood, sub silentio, isn’t it?

In a brutal world led by self proclaimed heroes who would drag us into the use of radioactive weapons against civilians, such as was recently done against the insurgency in Iraq, a few lies, such as those being issued by Wikipedia regarding a traditionally proven system of disease prevention and cure, redoubts against a complex and powerful health scare system, might seem like nothing.

But I must confess, I don’t buy into the cynicism so easily. Cynicism is for men wh0 sleep in barrels in the park, for losers, cowards and comedians.

I say to you that here a few lies are everything. It’s a quarter of century on the average lifespan. The world’s richest man of all time, richest in the values of a dollar both then and now, was a homeopath. John D. Rockefeller lived to be 97 years old and died with his homeopath by his side.  He was so committed to homeopathy that he ordered $350,000 for its support and development, but due to his philanthropic advisor defiance, it was diverted to the development of allopathic pharmaceuticals instead.

In 1906 the nation’s most powerful woman was a homeopath, as was her son and her first husband. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, had also become one of the nation’s wealthiest women, and discusses cases she had treated in the church manual. Her greatest critic the dean of American letters, was also an advocate of homeopathy. Mark Twain wrote, “The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business. You may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths (the orthodox physicians to destroy it.”

Mahatma Gandhi was an advocate of homeopathy. He says, “Homeopathy …. cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most complete medical science.”

So certainly even my harshest critics must honestly observe how it is that I can have a passion for this work when some of the greatest people of the twentieth century were its advocates.

Not one major meta analysis has been able to effectively conclude that the action of homeopathic remedies is due solely to the placebo effect. Not even Shang, the most popular homeopathy meta analysis among skeptics, was able to clearly conclude that the effect was from placebo. A review of the data by independent analysis of Shang determined that even in this most damning meta of homeopathy,  “Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo.” Ludtke Rutten

Why aren’t we seeing that in the Edzard Ernst dominated article on homeopathy in Wikipedia? This guy’s sticky fingers get all over everything that has anything to do with homeopathy.

Now, I can’t run out into the street and effectively stop marches to war by grabbing guns or lying down in front of tanks, but I can say something about a carefully orchestrated corruption peddling deliberate lies, as is being done on Wikipedia.

‘Homeopathy i/ˌhmiɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners claim to treat patients using highly diluted[2][3] preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]

Let’s take a closer look at the footnote, go to the article and see what the author actually said.

[2] ERNST: “The existence of contradicting evidence is not unusual in therapeutics. One solution to resolve such contradictions is to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of rigorous studies. In 1997, Linde et al did just that. The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines more than mere placebos.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/

Oh, what was the conclusion of a technically superb meta-analysis is now just a notion? And really, isn’t Ernst leading us to thinking in misnomers? He says he’s a “trained homeopath.” Well, at what point in his training did he take such a skeptical view of it? Where did he get this training? From a textbook he wrote on it?

When he says that homeopathy is more than a mere placebo’s, what’s he referring to, exactly?

Finally theyf ound a man who’s really willing to completely betray himself, set aside all standards of science and attend to the highes ideals of equivocation.

But let me take a moment to be kind. Maybe he didn’t check the exact meaning of the word homeopathy? Does it not refer to similitude, not dilution? Is that what he’s talking about? Or is he whining about this long standing complaint that anything diluted 1 to 100 a few times can’t have any biological effects?

I don’t know. First of all, he must know about hormesis, the Arndt Schultz Law, that substances that will usually depress an organic system, will in very small amounts stimulate it.

He must be aware of the FACT that the action of similitude is credited with being the operative mechanism in providing the world with its greatest achievement, the small pox vaccine? Of course! What else would it be? Such is the mechanism for most vaccines. Hair of the dog that’s about to bite you. Prior to control of the deadly pox by homeopathic vaccination, variolation was the preferred method of immunization (technically isopathy) . . not like cures like, but same cures same. Homeo means similar. Homo means equal. There’s a huge difference missed by nuance. They used to use a knife blade to inject the serum from the infected into the uninfected by cutting it into the crease of your ass where the butt meets the thigh, so as to hide the ensuing ugly infection and ultimate scar, and in this way partially immunize against the disease. But then they found that the serum from a similar  disease in cattle provided better protection, and it was made famous by Jenner.

Hahnemann called it testimony and proof of homeopathy.

“Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the “old school” doctors lost twenty percent of their (smallpox) cases…..I gave about three hundred internal vaccinations, five to adults acting as practical nurses; to the man who installed the telephone and lights in the pest-house; to mothers who slept with their children while they had smallpox in its severest form. All of these people, exposed daily, were immune.”–W. L. Bonnell, MD [ http://www.whale.to/v/bonnell.html ]

Follow the link 0n that one and read about Bonnell’s trial amd the difference between vaccinoid and variolinoid. But are the anonymous editors at Wikipedia going to supply readers with links like these? Hell no, this is too much proof for homeopathy.

Now, allow me to repeat the question. Who made this man Ernst a homeopath?

Does he know about anti venom? Isn’t that an example of homeopathy in the crude form?

Like cures like.

Adderall and Ritalin are ADHD “medications” that operate on the principle of homeopathy, being nothing more than methamphetamine salts.

Homoeopathy.

In fact, I might be compelled to say that I suspect just about every action has a homeopathic-like component in the response. There are other examples of homeopathy. In chemistry, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In electromagnetics, like repels like in the action of magnets. And of course every bit of matter, living and not, has an electromagnetic component to it. What is it that holds the Moon in orbit so that it neither crashes into the Earth nor flies away from it?

Magnetism

Elucidating magnetism  is no different than the explanations  of Hahnemann, reciting what is at the heart of the homeopathic effect.

You know, I really don’t know how it is that a guy like Ernst can’t feel some shame or anxiety when reading an article like this.

And he says he’s a homeopath? How does a man like that sleep at night?

I wrote to Ernst once and asked him if he was still offering $10,000 for proof of homeopathy. He wrote back and said that he had pulled the offer. Just like any grease pole contest. When somebody with spikes on his boots shows up, the on man pulls the offer and heads for a new ounty before the sheriff arrives.

Could it be that Ernst thinks he received his education from me?

LINDE:  “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo.” Linde, Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601

Linde also says, “However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.”

The reason for Linde’s statement that there is insufficient evidence for any single clinical condition” is self evident. The Linde review is a meta analysis of the literature asking the question whether or not homeopathy is a placebo. Efficacy for any single clinical condition can’t be answered in such a review, and that’s why they had to put in that caveat. But Ernst takes this caveat and turns it into the meaning he wants. In his really not so systematic review he reworks Linde to say, “The authors also stated that no indication was identified in which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo.”

As anyone can see, they did NOT state that.

Ernst says, “In conclusion, the hypothesis that any given homeopathic remedy leads to clinical effects that are relevantly different from placebo or superior to other control interventions for any medical condition, is not supported by evidence from systematic reviews. Until more compelling results are available, homeopathy cannot be viewed as an evidence-based form of therapy.”

From this the anonymous authors of Wikipedia allege, “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”

Even Ernst can’t say that.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Homeopath challenges skeptics with homeopathic date rape drug

Homeopaths and their desperate opponents . . who interminably deny homeopathy’s effects . . have been at each other’s throats now for several weeks on a blog by a notorious homeopathy hater.

Homeopathy is, of course (much to the horror of the medical establishment)  curative medicine, an alternative treatment that has been working quite successfully for people who either can’t afford, and/or have been screwed by, the common brands of what pretend to be medicine.

The blog in question is on a site especially reserved for health professionals. The title of the offending article is entitled “Stop the teaching of pseudoscience,” and I certainly applaud the idea if it means the author will shut up; it does the school where he holds a chair no credit to have a man in their employ noted for endlessly publishing self-referencing studies.

The name of this hater of real medicine is Edzard Ernst, a fake professor of “Complementary Medicine” at the University of Exeter’s Peninsular Medical School, apparently another shill for the phony medical racket that now dominates health  care in the Western world.

So far it has broken all attendance records on the PULSE site as small team of intrepid homeopaths and their supporters, armed with evidence and logic, are confronting myths about homeopathy and the mythomaniacs that tell them.

Most interesting in all of this is a challenge issued by Roger Barr, an Australian homeopath, who has suggested that to end the argument, skeptics put homeopathy to the test . . on themselves.

Here’s commentary on Ernst’s PULSE blog by Oliver Dowding, a dairyman who has used homeopathy extensively on his herds, in which he reasserts homeopath Roger Barr’s challenge to skeptics . . on Ernst’s PULSE blog . . to more or less engage in a bit of a proofing using Stramonium, Eagle and Scorpion . . to which I’ve added a fourth remedy .

DOWDING: Roger Barr challenged those of you such as Simon Barker, and others are sceptical disposition, to undertake the following trial. All I’ve seen is trite dismissal of the challenge is being something of an irrelevance. I don’t remember the exact words used, but I believe it went along the lines of its pointless because there’s nothing in it. Should that be the case, you’ll be absolutely fine, so why don’t you use your mouth and try these remedies as directed, it would be interesting to see whether you get the same reaction as Roger’s lawyer whom he challenged. I’m sure you’ll be absolutely fine, because as you say, and I’m sure you must believe in your own argument, there’s nothing in the remedies being offered. Should you refuse to answer this, or should you refuse to take up the challenge, I think we’ll all have to take that as indicating you fear that you might be wrong, and there could be something to homoeopathy after all, and you don’t want to be the one who learns the hard way. I’ll look forward to your response to this specific point, and this point only, as raised by Roger, which I’ve copied in case you’ve lost it in the threads. You can answer all other points in a separate reply. Roger said, 2.9.11, “I would urge anyone skeptical of homeopathy to do a proving of a homeopathic remedy. Best to do it with a supervisor but it can be done on your own. Just take a remedy in an ultra-dilute potency, say 12C up to 30C just so you can be especially skeptical, once a day for 7 days. Do something “fun” like Stramonium, or Eagle, or Scorpion! Report back. I challenged a lawyer who was quite skeptical and actually legally attacking homeopathic pharmacies. After the proving he stopped such activity. Enjoy. After it drives you crazy we will let you know how to stop the process.”
———-

Now, MY suggestion for a remedy to challenge sketpics to try is one I just put to the test. It’s called fluoricum acidum (fl. ac.) i.e. homeopathic fluoride. It just so happens that I decided to put it to the test, on myself, when a week ago  I tried ONE (1) little pellet of it for a study of fluoride, for an article I’m writing on it.

Well, I sure got my money’s worth . .

Among several mental symptoms that affected my behavior, such as suddenly becoming happy go lucky, and caving in to a bottle of whiskey, I noticed a sensitivity in my teeth, and I didn’t like it one bit. It’s still hanging on in my front teeth after a week.

The feeling is that it didn’t do me any good. Thank God I took it only once!

HOMEOPATHIC DATE RAPE DRUG

Fl. ac. has some other unusual symptoms in the category of hypersexuality, narcissism, paranoia  and debauchery, like satyriasis for the gentlemen, or for the ladies, nymphomania, and alcoholism for all of us together, in an orgy I presume, as it reportedly imparts extraordinary pleasure in coition . . and after it’s all over, a self-satisfied feeling while entertaining the delusion of being surrounded by enemies; the sudden desire to break off the engagement, fire the servants, chase the children out of the house and end the marriage . . tireless strength is given as a bonus, the ability to exercise the limbs perpetually.

And why shouldn’t it have these symptoms, for it is what is most commonly used in as an anti-depressant. Fluorine is the main active ingredient in fluoxetine drugs such as Prozac. A Brailian study actually compared fluoxetine to homeopathi treatment and found them equivalent in effectiveness, which considering the contras, makes homeopathy hands down superior.

Oh, did I mention it causes atrophy of the brain? Yes, recent studies have shown it actually lowers I.Q.  in chidlren. the health authorities are now recommending that baby formula not be made with tap water, since most of it now has fluoride in it.

It’s especially hard on the kidneys. It destroys them. Then the body is unable to excrete the stuff and it builds up in the bones and soft tissues causing cancer, caries, brittle bones.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Ben Goldacre, MD, Prof. David Colquhoun, Amazing Randi, PZ Myers, all the great minds of our day,  aren’t hopping up and down screaming about THAT like they do when they hear the H word?

Well, here we have a substance made from it that counteracts it. And they say it doesn’t work. Too bad. I can feel it now in my teeth as I type.

Now, I am quite aware that this sounds like I’m making it up, but if you check Clarke’s materia medica you’ll find I’m simply quoting authorities with credentials and experience greater than my own.

So just think about it. It’s prima facie.  If we are to take the cinema and news as replete with our delusions, then I think I am justified in saying the materia medica references are accurate in what fluoride poisoning from our water and other sources has done, can do and WILL DO.

But wait, there’s more . .

Did you know they now put fluoride in candy bars for bicycle riders in the guise of concentrated green tea extract? Yes, in fact a normal cup of tea, green or black, contains the same amount of fluoride as you’ll find in 7.8 liters of fluoridated tap water!

And that’s just from the fluoride in the tap water.

It gets worse.

Chlorine’s a whole n’other subject. When it comes into contact with organic matter, such as bits of leaves and things that fall into the reservoir, or that cabbage you had last night for supper, it forms chloroform, which in homeopathic form is noted for inducing in the prover the desire to kill.

You read that right. Chlorine, when it turns to chloroform . . and tests show that chloroform is indeed in tap water, gives you the impulse to kill! (Clarke)

Anyone I presume.

Now . . I wonder what would happen if we were to divide the homeopathy deniers into two camps, one which would take fl.ac. everyday for two weeks and the other homeopathic Chloroformum.

Then bring the two groups together in a room, LOCK THE DOOR and RUN!

Perhaps we could add fl.ac. an chloroform to Barr’s list of homeopathics to try.

No wonder we’re all going to Hell. If you haven’t succumbed to them you’re probably a wreck from fighting off the impulses.

Perhaps Ernst et all will get there ahead of time.

Banned on Ernst’s Blog

Pound sand.

Professor Edzard Ernst is professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter. An odd place for a man who seems to absolutely despise his chair.

Ernst is a homeopathy hater.

Couple of weeks ago he posted a blog in a run of the mill collective UK blog for health professionals called PULSE.

I answered and got in troule. Appears I’ve been banned from it.

Pulse features a number of articles by British health “professionals,” (I think they’re future yardbirds)  rambling musings by goofy “doctors” bored out of their empty minds from doling out the same poisond everyday to their victims.

But Ernst’s blog caught on fire. It was entitled Stop the Teaching of Pseudoscience. It’s had an overwhelming number of responses in the commentary. Whereeas most PULSE blogs usually have any where from zero to seven of eight comments, Stop the Teaching of Pseudoscience has had 68 comments so far by last count, and the debate till rages on.

Why?

Maybe it as something I said . .

Although it doesn’t mention any particular doctrine by name, those familiar with Ernst’s rants know exactly what he’s talking about and what it is he’s trying to convince people of.

He’s trying to destroy homeopathy. And of course he wants you to join him in the witch hunt.

Now that may sound a little too hysterical for rational discussion, but it’s really nothing new. “Modern medicine” has been trying to destroy homeopathy for the past two hundred years, and so far hasn‘t done it. Occasionally somebody like Jacques Benveniste gets burned at the stake for having drank the high dilute, or run out of town, like Montagnier was, for having said it’s real, but for the most part homeopathy just seems to keep chugging along, almost as if it’s powered by the hatred.

What by the Britics assessment of it, it should have been dead-dead long ago, but here it is, still around and chipper after all these years . . and seems growing like a weed. . quickly, worldwide!

The Indian Chambers of commerce reported this last year that homeopathy is growing at 30%.
If this holds true worldwide, it means that by my prec ise calcuclations what is now a mere $5 billion a year industry will have overtaken the current medical system by 2042 and in current values will have become a thirteen trillion dollar industry ($13,000,000,000,000).

I you don’t like that, you better pound some sand in your ears, because I predict it going to get louder as it becomes clearer and clearer to a growing number of medical and science professionals that homeoapthic medicine is very real and very effective medicine.

Well, Ernst’ blog had a huge response, drawing in a cadre of engineering homeopaths to undermine its premise, with the usual homeocritics weighing in, pseudoskeptics, the narrowcasters of contempt posing as the broadcasters of reason, the dwindling posse of the law suit ridden allopathic pharmaceutcal industry and their phony doctors, trying to muster popular support to destroy homeopathy, the planet’s only, truly and comprehensively, curative medicine.

Curative medicine?

You may wonder how it can be said that it is curative. And well you should wonder. Never hesitate to ask a good question if it’s not leading to a preferred answer.

Consider for a moment who’s really leading this debate, who’s really prosecuting here.

I don’t think it’s who most people think it is. Nichts doch, Professor Ernst. By its mere survival it’s homeopathy.

And why was I kicked off PULSE?

For starters, I don’t like it. As usual they only run blogs by the poison pushers. They claim to be medicine, but when confronted by real medicine, they push it away. Homeopathy takes more than a bribe from the pharmacy to deliver the right medicine. It’s patient-client intensive. The practiioner has to listen closely to  his customer, he has to be a skilled oberver of the human condition and well versed inhi reference material, something you don’t in the modern hacks of medicine, who simply shove the latest potion at you.

And they want to stop it, because it doesn’t suit THEM, the deadly drug dealers and poisoned pill pushers. Just a for instance, 10% of pharmaeuticals now contain highly poisonous flurorine. Many antidepressants are fluorinated organics, such as citalopram, escitalopram, fluoextine, fluvoxamine and paroqetine. Fluoroquinolones are a commonly used family of broad sectrum antibiotics.

Thirty percent (30%) of of agrochemical compounds contain fluorine. Although this water is usually not treated along with sewage, it does contaminate rivers with runoff organofluorines.

I also mentioned that a certain pharmacetuical company had been convicted of racketeering; that and all the lawsuits now being thrown at the pharmas for dumping petrol in people’s mouths, if referenced, would shut down the Internet.

Pound sand.
Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter
 

MONOPOLY OF FEAR

Risks make unnecessary vaccination statutory crime

A professor known for his relentless bashing of homeopathic and complementary medicine has recently made another useless jab in apparent favor of allopathic (non homeopathic) immunization against diseases that other authorities say are not only unnecessary, but criminal. 

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medcine at the Unviesity of Exeter in Great Britain says, “A US team has just published the largest ever study of CAM providers’ attitudes towards vaccination [1]. They found that children receiving care from naturopathic physicians or chiropractors, during their first two years of life, were significantly less likely than their counterparts to receive the recommended immunizations against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox or Haemophilus influenzae type b. Later in life, such children were more likely to suffer from a vaccine-preventable disease.”

The soemhwat lukewarm statement appeared after Ernst was challenged here to provide one study that proves homeopathy is a placebo.

So far no study, test or trial has materialized.

Of course, when they support allopathy, the old criminal’s references are supposed to be free of any of the criticism he levels on the studies that support homeopathy, but as usual, the study Ernst refers to is unavailable at this time online.
However, Kaviraj dug something up on the Child Health Safety blog here on WordPress that throws a wet blanket on Ernst’s sneering report: Ernst’s vaccinations are unnecessary, ineffective, and criminal!

“The measles mortality graphs . . contradict the claims of Government health officials that vaccines have saved millions of lives. It is an unscientific claim which the data show is untrue. Here you will also learn why vaccinations like mumps and rubella for children are medically unethical and can expose medical professionals to liability for criminal proceedings and civil damages for administering them.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

Criminal proceedings? Against allopathic doctors? For mumps andmeasle needle jabs?
Yes!
The problem faced by modern medicine is a serious double-bind. Homeopathy does not have the financial incentives behind it that allopathy does, but allopathy, because of this very same thing, has become criminalized. I am not using that term vaguely, either. They’ve been convicted in the US under the RICO organized crime act. The pharmacetuical industry is a criminal enterprises that has been convicted of mass murder in a catch and release program by the U.S. government.
In the UK, providing treatment to a patient that is not clinically needed, and misleading patients as to the clinical need for a treatment so as to vitiate their consent, can mean the administration of the treatment is a criminal offence: Appleton v Garrett (1995) 34 BMLR 23.
According to The British Medical Association (‘BMA’) and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) mumps vaccination is clinically inappropriate:-

“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”: British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986 Freedom of Information documents show the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Ministry of Defence agreed as early as 1974 that:-
“there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps” because complications from the disease were rare” JCVI minutes 11 Dec 1974.Doctors and nurses who fail to tell parents mumps vaccine in MMR is clinically unnecessary, of the exact risks of adverse reactions and then give the vaccine, appear to be behaving unethically, potentially in contravention of the criminal law and liable to civil proceedings for damages. They are also unable to explain the exact risks because data on adverse reactions are not being collected properly or at all, and there is evidence showing adverse reaction data are suppressed.
“A consequence is that giving MMR vaccine to children cannot be justified on clinical or ethical grounds. And as there is insufficient clinical benefit to children to introduce mass mumps vaccination, it cannot be justified as a general public health measure.”

The same reason that makes allopathy a criminal enterprise is the same reasons it is allowed to survive, which is because it is such a huge money making business, and that is because it is a monopoly of fear.
Homeopathy threatens that monopoly of fear with a truly doctored centered regime that makes use of a relatively simple, effective and safe medicine that can treat anyone with any disease.

The moment they admit the pre-clinicals for homeopathy, the tests that show the action of homeopathic remedies on non human subjects like plants and animals, allopathy not only loses it grip on the public throat, it doesn’t just fall to the place where it belongs, as a third rate medical treatment, its practitioners are in danger of being criminalized for using it. In the light of superior homeoapthic medicine it becomes clear that oppositional medicine is a dangerous treatment. It continues as a legal treatment because without an apparent alternative, allopathy appears necessary and vital to human health.

Ask for homeopathic treatment to prevent cancer and diabetes.

Try homeopathy, it works.

HOMEOPATHY EVIDENCE CHECK 2010

Here we go again. Journal arguer MADGAV writes about “Evidence Check,” the Parliament hearing held last year in the UK, condemning homeopathy:

“As the Science and Technology Committee concluded:

‘In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.’

“In response to the various submissions from homeopathic organisations they added:

‘We regret that advocates of homeopathy, including in their submissions to our inquiry, choose to rely on, and promulgate, selective approaches to the treatment of the evidence base as this risks confusing or misleading the public, the media and policymakers.’

Okay, that’s definitely a gotcha for the opponents of homeopathy, if it has any creidb ility to it. So let’s take a closer look at it.
Here is the review of the House of Commons report by Earl Baldwin of Bewdsley, of the Upper House , entitled, “Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,” dated February 2010.

Lord Bewdley writes,

“2.3. The exaggeration by the Committee of Shang’s conclusions is worrying. It is difficult to see how a weakly supported positive effect, for which one explanation (possibly well-founded) is a placebo effect, can be translated into a conclusive demonstration of this effect, with a “devastatingly” negative finding. No such firm claims can be found in Shang, who writes of finding “no strong” evidence, or “little” evidence, and who ends his paper with cautions about methodology and about the difficulty of detecting bias in studies, as well as the role of possible “context effects” in homeopathy.

“2.4. The Committee’s overstatement is not helped by claiming Government support for its interpretation in paragraph 70, based on the Minister’s concession of no “credible” evidence that homeopathy works beyond placebo. If he meant persuasive evidence – and his guarded support for further research [75] supports this – that shows a confusion by the Committee between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. If however he was saying that all evidence was negative, this as Prof. Harper correctly stated [71] runs counter to the
message from most reviews up to and including Shang, which is one of primary studies of insufficient quantity, rigour, size, homogeneity and power to give clear-cut answers.”

In addition, a review of the literature in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education concurs with the Bewdley review. This review says Shang “has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo.
Google,
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
Teela Johnson, HonBSc and Heather Boon, BScPhm, PhD
University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy

Bewdley, supported by Johnson, raises a serious question about the bias in the House of Commons assessment that can be easily seen in unbiased reviews by truly critical reviewers of homeopathy, such as the pharmacists and Bewdley of the Upper House. Why did the Committee rely on a meta analysis known to be spurious? That’s a huge admission. Is that why Evan Harris, who led the the hatchet job, lost his seat in Parliament?
What I, John Benneth, am presenting here is leading to a criminal indictment of Harris, Goldacre, Ernst and a host of others, to be presented in my next blog.
Read on. It gets worse for the homeopathy haters. Bewdley goes on to say,

“5.2. It is not easy to see why a journalist doctor (Ben Goldacre) was invited to appear in preference to some other non-representative contributors to the inquiry. The written submission by Dr. Goldacre [Ev. 8] was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (“extreme quackery” was mentioned). By contrast, the submission by the Complementary Medicine Research Group from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York presented a wellargued summary with 68 references [Ev. 143]. In this appears the statement

“To date there are eight systematic reviews that provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy are beyond placebo when used as a treatment for [five childhood conditions]”. This claim from a mainstream academic centre, rated joint first nationally for health services research in the latest Research Assessment Exercise, stands in stark contradiction to Prof. Ernst’s referenced claims, noted above, and to Dr. Goldacre’s unreferenced statements. It would have been illuminating if the Committee had probed the Group about this, face to face as a witness, and attempted some resolution before agreeing in unequivocal terms with the two witnesses who were invited to appear and were quoted favourably.
“ The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their ‘selective approaches’ to evidence [73]. They could fairly be accused of the same.
Unfortunately they did not (presumably) have the scope to solicit the views of Dr. Linde from Germany, which would have differed from those of Prof. Ernst with regard to the evidence.”

Wow! This guy Bewdley paints the anti-homeopathy clowns out to be a pack of sleazy scheming liars.
Of the evidence the Committee reviewed, Bewdsley says in 7.1,

“The Committee however has been less than rigorous in its approach to this evidence. Its choice of witnesses favoured a medical media opponent of homeopathy over a research centre of excellence. It was unwise to rely heavily on the interpretations of one professor of CAM (Edzard Ernst), some of whose statements are unsound or in conflict with other statements of his, and who is not without his critics in the worlds of research and academia whose views were given less prominence. The 2005 review by Shang et al has been inaccurately represented as ruling out specific effects of homeopathy, in a summary statement by the Committee that goes beyond present evidence.

“The Committee’s own statements show confusion between unconvincing evidence of a specific effect and disproof of it. The true risk profile of homeopathy, compared with conventional treatment, was not considered.

“7.2. These limitations make the Committee’s report an unreliable source of evidence about homeopathy. The jury must still be regarded as out on its efficacy and risk/ benefit ratio. Whether more research should be done, and of what kind, is another question. But there can be no ethical objection to it since the principal questions.”
You guys are getting fined billions for the poison you’re peddling,, and you’re busy trying to make some other form of legal medicine look bad? What’s wrong with you? Are they paying you to post the crap you’re writing or are you just naturally stupid?
Madgav, why are you doing this? This is a serious matter. If you really believe in what you’re digging up and writing about, then why aren’t you using your real name in presenting it?
Is “Madgav” what he appears to be, a shill for allopathy?
The oppostion to homeopathy is not about belief. It’s about getting paid.
If “Madgav” is not as stupid as he’s making him or herself out to be, then how does he reconcile these two groups, one a recognized legal doctrine supported by tradition and law, and the other representing opposing interests that rely solely on known fabrications? Real medicine vs. the Evil Empire of racketeers, merchants of death.
Answer in the next blog . .
Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Really. Stupid. People.

Sometimes I wonder about how stupid people can be. I mean there are stupid people, there’s a lot of them, I don‘t suppose they‘d be stupid if they weren‘t people.
I wonder if that choice is made in Heaven. Guy says, “God, I want to live this next reincarnation as a really stupid person. I mean anot just dumb, but a real idiot. The kind of person that acts like he knows something, but doesn‘t really. Arrogant, full of assertions, the kind of jerk who makes up his mind not to see the evidence. The kind of guy who takes a job as a night watchman in a day camp. He’s so stupid he’ll ask what wine goes best with Alpo. If I do that I’ll bring joy into the world by making other people laugh at me.”

Here’s a statement I got from someone calling himself ISayISaw. Now I’m not saying that he’s dumb or drunk necessarily, but something tells me that if he had a brain concussion it would probably classify as a minor injury. He starts out by quoting me. (Boy, is that ever a dumb thing to do):

“Kaviraj and I have given them more than enough time to respond to our challenge. All we have asked of the critics of homeopathy, like Edzard Ernst, John Beddington, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis and their dopey proxies, is to please show us the evidence that homeopathic remedies are “placebos.”

Show us just one scientific study that proves it.

Please.

Just one.

That’s all.

It’s not too much to ask . .

Here we are, empty handed. After all this complaining from self-made, tall-talking, wide-walking homeopathy bashers about how homeopathic remedies are nothing more than “placebos” as if they know what a placebo really is, we ask for little evidence of that and they all go quiet on us.

These are the kind of people who fail to check to see if the guns are loaded before putting them to their heads and pulling the trigger.

And then he does. Show us a “study,” that is.

And then he surly says: “You’re not empty-handed but you don’t only seem to pay attention of the poorest quality evidence and the unsupported claims of homeopathy’s fanboys.”

Okay, the nasty remarks aside, this is good. I SayISaw actually coughed up what purports to be a real “scientific” trial here , even if it is just one, and out of hundreds of trials of homeopathy the only one, it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, written by the kind of people who are so dim they’d light a match to read a sundial. But look, it’s a hundred times better than the bluff and bluster we get from everybody else.

And published nowhere.
This particular study by Sarah Brien, Laurie Lachance, Phil Prescott, Clare McDermott and George Lewith implies in its title that the effect of homeopathy is a placebo that come from the homeopathic consultation. And I bet they used to save their burned out light bulbs for their darkroom, too. A dark room is the place where these people used to go to retrieve the contents of their photographic memories, but they gave it up because nothing ever developed.
Well, ISayISaw should be congratulated nonetheless for bringing this up. So let’s give a good hand for ISayISaw on the computer keyboard. Let’s give him another good. Actually he needs more than two good hands on the computer keyboard. Maybe he could take his foot out of his mouth and use that.

Title of the study that presumably “proves” homeopathy is a “placebo” is: “Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial”

Click to access rheumatology.keq234.full.pdf

You can read it yourself, but make sure you’re not operating any heavy equipment if you do because there’s a chance that you might fall over laughing, or start beating your head against the steering wheel.
The objective of this mess was, “To assess whether any benefits from adjunctive homeopathic intervention in patients with RA are due to the homeopathic consultation, homeopathic remedies or both.”
Okay, stop right there. Note the word adjunctive. Adjunct means “something added to another thing but not an essential part of it.”
So now we have to ask an essential part of what? What else is going on in this study they aren’t mentioning here?
The report says this was an exploratory double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted from January 2008 to July 2008, in patients with active stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional therapy.
So in other words, these people were being treated for rheumatoid arthritis using “conventional drugs.”
Just what drugs might those be?
Celebrex? (Pfizer) Yeah, Celebrex. That’s the one advertised on TV showing a smiling young woman flying a kite on the beach, supposedly having a good time.
Here’s the side effects from Celebrex when she gets back from the beach:
“Increased risk of cardiovascular incidents including blood clotting, heart attack and stroke, kidney problems, fluid retention, liver damage, potentially lethal stomach bleeding.”
There’s that young woman again, on her knees in front of the toilet, spitting up blood from lethal stomach bleeding.
Lawsuit!
Or maybe it was Vioxx.
VIOXX BREAKING NEWS:
“Merck & Co., Inc. has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to resolve Vioxx-related claims in which a claimant has suffered a heart attack, sudden cardiac death, or stroke.”
http://www.levinlaw.com/practice-areas/vioxx-information

They’d be better off with a bottle of whiskey and a couple of tickets to a good cage fight. Get ’em on their feet to go somewhere other than the doctor’s office. Maybe what this study was all about was to look for something else to blame it on.

The people who wrote this study are the kind of people who would hand a drowning man a glass of water. I think their last study was to see if people swallowed firecrackers their hair would grow out in bangs.

I mean, do I need to explain this to anybody except for the really, really stupid? I’m surprised this guy ISayISaw can read. He probably has a kid read it to him.
And who did the authors explain this to in order to get it all typed up so nicely? That person deserves the Nobel prize for patience.

This isn’t a test for placebo. I’m not sure what it’s a test for.  Maybe its a secret IQ test. They sure as hell don’t say. Here’s what they did:

Patients were randomized into five groups. Of the five groups, three received a homeopathic consultation (Groups 1 – 3) and two (Groups 4 and 5) did not. The consultation groups were further randomized to individualized treatment (Group 1), a homeopathic complex for RA (Group 2) or placebo (Group 3).
Non-consultation participants were allocated complex (Group 4) or placebo (Group 5); individualized homeopathy can only be prescribed through a consultation.
This study has not disclosed the homeopathic remedies given to Group 1 patients. it says nothing about (group 6) the pill pushers who organized this debacle.

Or (Group 7) the homeoapths. So here comes the homeopath who’s been asked to participate in a study on the effectiveness of homeopathy, and he finds that every one of these people are on racketeceuticals, and they’re having problems with blood clotting, they’re having heart attacks and strokes, kidney problems, they’re puffy from fluid retention, liver damage, and some are having potentially lethal stomach bleeding.

Did the individual consultations focus on totality of symptoms as presented by the patient or the clinical diagnosis as presented by Group 1, or the clinical daignosis as presented by Group 6? Just what was Group 1 given as a result of consulation? A bottle of whiskey and a couple of tickets to a good cage fight. Or how about a carefully folded note that says, “Run for your life.”

Statistically tt appears that Group 6 had a regression to the mean . . mean spirited that is.
So the challenge to Ernst and the Evil Empire still remains after all this time. Provide one trial that proves homeopathy is a “placebo.”
In the meantime, next time you get rheumatoid arthritis, go to a homeopath before the Vioxx pushers get their hands on you, or you might end up in a study like the one ISayISaw regurgitated here. Unless of course you want your heirs to collect on the settlement.

It might save yo a lot of money, time, pain and an early grave.

You know, I bet the people who wrote the Brien “human science experiment” take rulers to bed with them to see how long they sleep. I bet the real facts in this report could have been written on a piece of confetti. I bet they’re so stupid that if we gave them a goldmedal for it they’d have it bronzed.

They’re so stupid that if . . your thoughts go here:__.

Who wants to smear homeopathy?

I think its a smear campaign.

Kaviraj and I have given them more than enough time to respond to our challenge. All we have asked of the critics of homeopathy, like Edzard Ernst, John Beddington, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis and their dopey proxies, is to please show us the evidence that homeopathic remedies are “placebos.”

Show us just one scientific  study that proves it. Please. Just one. That’s all. It’s not too much to ask.

But here we are, empty handed.

Boo hoo.
All we got in here is nothing more than blandishments, rhetorical questions, empty assertions, vague references to something seen on TV, ridicule, rants and accusations, but not one published study. Not one! Nothing to prove the claim that homeopathy is a placebo, nothing to lead us to the truth, not from them!

Instead, we have public figures, people who should be taken as authorities on the subject, such as Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Excreter Univeristy in England, and Professor Sir John Beddington, Chief Science Advisor to the British government, presenting to the public a conclusion that has dual, contradictory meanings: One, because it is a placebo, homeopathy does not work; and two, the placebo effect can be a powerful one, and so if there is a cure from homeopathy that doesn’t seem like to be a coincidence, it is likely to be because of that.

So why would Beddington, Ernst or anyone with half a mind make a statement like that, that homeopathic medicine is a placebo, when the action of two and a half million (2,500,000) doses of homeopathic medicine was reportedly seen in Cuba to stop epidemic of chronic swamp fever?
Is Beddington going to call that the effects of placebo, or is he going to call the Cubans liars?
You don’t need to be partial to homeopathy to see that the criticisms of it aren’t adding up until, perhaps, I point out that Cuba is one of the few places in the world where drug companies like Pfizer can’t so easily get to.

“Homeopathy is very difficult to write about for a contemporary medical audience. In an ideal informational world, in which science is unbiased information and scientists and academics are unbiased consumers of such information, it would not be so difficult. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that science is biased, consumers of scientific information are biased, and science is routinely used to advance personal political and economic agendas that have nothing to do with increasing the store of generalizable knowledge.” (Dean review)

Intelligent people, people in positions of authority, are making stupid statements, that homeopathy is a placebo. Beddington said it in the Guardian just the other day, and that it is scientifically unsupported.

Conversely, one researcher, in making an exhaustive review of the clinical literature, found 205 prospective controlled clinical trials performed in the contemporary research environment from 1940 to 1998. He found evidence of homeopathy’s safety and efficacy in trials of high internal validity. He also found usefulness for homeopathy in areas that are problematic for orthodox medicine. On the basis of trials reviewed, he concluded that homeopathy is clinically relevant and that there are certain conditions in which pragmatic trials of homeopathy versus standard treatment would be useful, for example, in unexplained female infertility, postviral fatigue syndrome, influenza, and atopy. (Dean)
The review of his book then says something very interesting: “Sociologic data show the use of data for this purpose is ineffective. That is, scientists are not convinced by data. That a significant body of data shows homeopathy is more than placebo is now indisputable. Since homeopathy is a school of medicine, and not an ad hoc therapeutic modality or technique, one can conclude that data showing homeopathy is not explainable by placebo are data that go toward confirming the entire school of homeopathy and its claims, not simply that this or that remedy works for this or that disease entity.” (Dean review http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/mednat/research_on_homeopathy_state_of_the_art_(3).pdf)

Well, this is just wild, like Oscar, and it gets wilder, even more than Thornton.

As you can see, first revealed in my previous blog, a review of the literature by the most respected reviewers provided no real evidence for the placebo effect. Researcher Michael Emmons Dean isn’t alone in that assessment. There is no published, scientific support for the placebo charge against homeopathy, yet that’s the claim that the Chief Scientist to the UK government is making, along with the holder of the only chair for complementary medicine, and there appear to be hordes cheering them on, when in fact, in view of the data, the opposite should be happening.
I have never seen anyone, who has taken a vituperative stand against homeopathy, ever recant in the face of the evidence for it. They just slink away or keep yarping the same old bark over and over again, as if they don’t even look at it.
I’ve seen it happen up close and personal. I was friends with Jerry Andrus, a world renowned magician who was on the advisory board of the National Council Against Heath fraud. (NCAHF). Jerry was convinced there was no evidence in support of homeopathy. When I finally put a stack of studies in front of him that showed there was, he literally pushed it away and replaced it with a small pad of paper he was carrying and a pencil, and asked me to list some other stupid things I believed in, like witches, fairy tales and of course, astrology. When he saw the look in my eyes, he quickly withdrew it, confessing that he guessed that wasn’t fair.
It never is. Although they claim science, and demand it from you, when you present it to them, they ignore it at first, or try to pick it apart based on poor statistics.
When challenged to respond with facts over assertions, they simply ignore it. It’s not the behavior of scientists pursuing a concordant truth, its the behavior of people who are legislating. They won’t and can’t face the evidence. If they did, they’d have to stand down. Read the commentary in response. They aren’;t responding to the science with the science they first demanded. They have none. It’s all on the side of homeopathy.

Who is Sir John Beddington? When we look at some of his statged beliefs, an even stranger picture emerges as to why he is denouncing homeopathy. 

DEAN, Review of Michael Emmons Dean, “The Trials of Homeopathy: Origins, Structure, and Development” http://www.homeopathy.org/research/research_reviews/acm-2005-11_15.pdf
Jonas W, Kaptchuk T, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy.
Ann Int Med 2003;138:393–399.
Fisher P. Homeopathy: A multifaceted scientific renaissance.
J Altern Complement Med 2001;7:123–125.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

DO HOMEOPATHY TRIALS SHOW LESS POSITIVE RESULTS AS PROTCOLS TIGHTEN?

Finally someone from the camp of the opposition has posted something that is worthy of discussion . . Here is a comment from “ISayISaw” . .

ISayISaw submitted the following response on 2010/12/01 at 1:08 pm | In reply to Nigel.

“It’s curious when homeopaths trot out their pet meta-analyses they almost always include Linde’s 1997 study, but not the re-analysis of 1999.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391656

“Why is that?

“Could it be the damning words: “We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.” which do rather undermine the homeopaths’ case.

“Also they said this;

“’The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials … have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments”

“Homeopathy: never letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

I, John Benneth respond:

Dear I Say,

Bravo for finally ponying up some seemingly reasonable opposition, it certainly is better than most of the other garbage being dumped on us from the opponents of homeopathy. But shame on you for leaving important concluding remarks that put what you have quoted in contrast in context, which reveals your negative bias. The quote actually runs: “We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome.”

But like them all, you’re missing the point entirely, switching criteria away from what is important to what can be made vituperative. The unproven underlying assumption in all opposition to homeopathy is that there is no physical basis for its action, that its action is psychogenic, therefore a medical sham, wrapped up into one vague term, placebo.
Would you be laying the charge of medical sham at the doorstep of psychology because it uses a “talking cure”, attempts to treat mental disorders without psychoactive drugs? The success of psychology, a derivative of hypnosis, is also considered to be a psychological construction. This part of the argument against homeopathy contradicts the second, that homeopathy doesn’t work, for if the terms did not reflect reported benefits, they wouldn’t exist, nor would there be a doctrine such as psychology that is in full support of them.
This may seem a wandering from Linde, but it goes right to the point. The Linde study explicitly asks “Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects?” and then says it is “A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials.” (Linde,1)The results of their meta-analysis, they say, “are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43.
The subsequent re-analysis of Linde by the authors does not recant this, it merely says they may have overestimated the effects, and this is prima facie, only within the context of the meta-analysis.
But who can expect Linde questioning placebo effects to be a reasonable investigation when the trials are for verum? Linde has fallen into the common trap of allowing allopathy to set the terms criteria and question. But even so it still favors homeopathy, even in re-analysis.
If we are to ask the placebo question, then we must explore it using a protocol for placebo, not verum, and all testing I have seen is testing for verum. For instance, if we are asking if this is placebo, we would first strip away the psychogenic influence, and using homeopathic high dilutes, perform objective biochemical tests on human products, such as red and white blood cells, in vitro.
It then should come as a great surprise to anyone who believes homeopathics are placebos, to learn that biochemical testing has been done, repeatedly, showing overwhelming results in favor of homeopathy. The majority of results are positive, and they rate higher in methodological assessment than the negative tests. Unless you are willing to believe that the majority of the investigators in biochemical tests for homeopathics, like Prof. Madeleine Ennis of Queens University in Belfast, have psychokinetic powers, or are all making the same unknown error, or are liars, then you have to conclude that it is most likely that the effect of these substances in the subjects they came from are not solely due to psychogenesis. How can the placebos have an effect on blood cells in a petri dish?
Now compare this to human testing in vivo, which is confused by visible results, patient satisfaction and credibility, time, administrator’s skill and influence . . and the placebo effect. How can you expect to get credible results from one thing when it can be influenced by another? An engine mechanic, investigating the cause of stoppage, doesn’t test for lack of fire and fuel at the same time, he reduces the problem by checking oen at a time, such first testing for a spark, then if the spark is getting fuel . That’s what makes him a mechanic, he can make that distinction. But that reductionism isn’t being applied here by Edzard Ernst or anyone else who has intentionally pitted himself against homeopathy, and that is why Ernst is intentionally leaving biochemical testing out of his damning reviews of it. The foregone conclusion of placebo, based on criteria selected for its support of the foregone conclusion, most likely will not be supported by a reductionist approach. If the placebo effect was real, then we would simply be investigating its marvels and how to improve on them, such as in hypnosis. Please belive me when I tell you, many a practitioner of homeopathy is comfortable with the placebo conclusion, it makes him a maven.
One other thing . . and this is the knockout punch. Notice the last name on the list of authors of “ Impact of study quality . .” (Linde, 2) Jonas WB.
This is Dr. Wayne B. Jonas, a medical doctor and practicing physician who still treats members of the US Armed Forces. He was also one of the authors of the Linde 1997 meta-analysis of homeopathy (Linde, 1). He spent 20 years as a military physician. He was the keynote speaker Bastyr University in Seattle .He has conducted serious in vivo epidemiological research, testing prophylaxis against rabbit fever in mice at Walter Reed Army Hospital.
Rabbit fever, or tularemia is a serious contagion because it hits humans quickly and hard enough to incapacitate. Tularemia is a potential bio-warfare agent. It is highly contagious but not infectious or especially fatal and can be used specifically against troops without great danger to nearby civilian populations. Given its bio-warfare potential, finding a tularemia prophylaxis should be and presumably is of interest to the government, and so handling this kind of a study requires some extremely strict protocols.
In that he is being cited here in criticism of homeopathy admits him as a good witness for homeopathy. Critical of av past assessments by himself and his colleagues adds to his credibility, and certainly you wouldn’t have quoted his efforts if you did not think them to have some authority. He is also very critical of homeopathic research in other assignments we can see, such as in Wallach’s Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art, which he co-authored (Wallach).
In this report he and his colleagues say. “There is, to our knowledge, no single clinical area where reported effects have been demonstrated unequivocally. Thus, the overall picture of clinical evidence that is emerging is quite disappointing for the homeopathic community.”
They then go on to say, ”Viewed together, the clinical research on homeopathy compared to placebo is not much different from conventional medicine research where approximately the same proportion of studies are positive and negative. Once unpublished studies are retrieved from drug-licensing agencies, well-supported substances, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression, show diminishing effects.”
Homeopathy critics should take comfort though in that Wallach qualifies this: “But overall, effect sizes are still statistically robust, even if diminished. This same result cannot be claimed for homeopathy, except in a few clearly delineated areas”

Then all of a sudden, tt gets worse, for the opponents of homeopathy, that is. “Several high-quality reviews of all published or a selection of published studies exist. There is even a comprehensive review of all clinical studies ever conducted, including early studies published in German. This review concluded that homeopathy is clinically effective. In addition, meta-analyses and reviews of several specific diagnoses have been carried out. Most of these reviews and meta-analyses, with some exceptions, reached the conclusion that the effects observed in all trials are not compatible with the hypothesis that homeopathy is identical with placebo but that too few trials exist in any single clinical areas to recommend homeopathy clinically.”

In other words, when you do all the math, homeopathy works. As Wallach says, one comprehensive review of all clinical studies ever conducted concluded homeopathy is clinically effective. Wallach and Jonas do not disagree with this, but qualify their ellipses by saying too few studies exist in single clinical areas to recommend it clinically. But then Wallach goes on further to say that it depends on who you are and who you’re quoting,
“Whether homeopathy is a placebo or not is also dependent on the inclusion and analysis criteria used by a meta-analysis or a review. If the analysis is based on studies retrievable only through MEDLINE® and published in the peer-reviewed literature, the outcome is normally not different from placebo. If all evidence is included, there is a difference from placebo. Hence, the conclusion varies with the decision as to what one is willing to accept as scientific information.”

So, if you cherry pick the clinical data, as Edzard Ernst and others do, you can conclude its nothing more than placebo. Wallach says, “As a result of the bias in the scientific community against homeopathy, it is easier to publish negative results in the peer-reviewed literature than positive ones. The latter are scrutinized more closely for methodological shortcomings than studies with the expected negative outcome, a prominent example being the recently published meta-analysis by Shang and colleagues the reporting of which is unacceptably bad and yet it passed peer-review.”
So much for Shang and peer review. The one study that Edzard Ernst and all critics eventually hold up above all others. Shang, by Wallach’s report, is just flat out “unacceptably bad.”
Now here’s the killshot: Jonas, who is quoted here as not recommending homeopathy clinically, conducted perhaps the most amazing trials of high dilutes as used in homeopathy. It was that bio-warfare tularemia study. What he found was able to reduce the effects of tularemia in mice was . . You guessed it, homeopathy. Tularemia, for which there is no vaccine, only prophylaxis . . Homeopathic prophylaxis.
How do you explain that? (Jonas)
Homeopathy, the story just keeps getting better.

References

JONAS. WB Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35–52, 2000 “Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue. Jonas WB, Dillner D

LINDE 1: The Lancet Vol 350 • September 20, 1997“Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials Klaus Linde, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez, Dieter Melchart, Florian Eitel, Larry V Hedges, Wayne B Jonas

LINDE 2: J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6. “Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy.” Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB.
Münchener Modell–Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Comment in:
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Nov;53(11):1188.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Jan;55(1):103-4.

Witt: “The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of
the literature” Claudia M. Witt (a), Michael Bluth (b), Henning Albrecht ©, Thorolf E.R. Weighing (a), Stephan Baumgartner (d), Stefan N. Willich (a)
a) Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charit´e University Medical Center,
D-10098 Berlin, Germany
b) Klinik f¨ur Tumorbiologie, D-Freiburg/Br, Germany
c) Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, D-Essen, Germany
d) Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, CH-Bern, Germany

Wallach: Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art HARALD WALACH, Ph.D.,1–3 WAYNE B. JONAS, M.D., Ph.D.,3 JOHN IVES, Ph.D.,3 ROEL VAN WIJK, Ph.D.,4 and OTTO WEINGÄRTNER, Dr.Phil.Nat.5 http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/mednat/research_on_homeopathy_state_of_the_art_(3).pdf

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

I CHALLENGE ERNST: Part Three

In part one of this series I issued a challenge to the world’s first Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Edzard Ernst, to prove his assertion that homeopathic are placebos by proving it by his own standards of what constitutes science: For every report of verum, show us one for placebo.
In part two I present the sole ad hominem assertion for the action of homeopathics.
In this part, I examine the claim for placebo more closely, present its solvent, and call for the question, challenging the opponents of homeopathy to create in a dialectic worthy of the academia he represents. if you can’t prove placebo, then stop making that assertion and start asking relevant questions.
We know the assertions of condemned evidence are never taken easily by invested reputations, and we know you know it. So why must we take each other as idiots?
If one someone  says he has seen something you consider to be implasuible, you are well within your rights not to believe him. But if million subscribe to it, even  scientists, who understand that it is implausible, then it bears further inspection. It deserves a personal test. But I don’t see that happening. Ernst won’t drink the dilute Kool Aid. He will not conduct a proving. Remember what he said? After more than a million dollars sunk into him and  his program, he doesn’t have enough money to conduct one.
In the skepticism of Edzard Ernst, are his assertions evoked from global standards, or are they local? What are his criteria for a scientific study? Can he contrast the failing of tests for homeopathy to similar tests for allopathic pharmaceuticals?
If he’s so sure of his position, then he should have no problem in asking basic questions about it.
What dimensions does he see for homeopathy? Why does he not include the biochemical tests in his review of homeopathy?
Aside from alleging placebo, Edzard Ernst’s quest is to dismiss selective evidence qualitatively without naming crtieria, and to ignore the rest.
Within his arguments there are a few hidden assumptions, as there must be in any a priori allegation. This trundles along benignly, but it is missing something. A skeptic who applies his Pyrrhic node globally doesn’t have much to say except “cast thy shadow not on me, the truth cannot be known by any man, it is all for naught.”
Well, if Ernst were to do that we could all admire him, give him some wine and leave him alone in his barrel. But it doesn’t end there. Ernst, like every local skeptic with a positive assertion must ineviatbly succumb to barrel fever and come boiling out of it with his own  hypocritcal version of the truth: Ernst says that the effects of homeopathics are due to “placebo.” That is his sole, ill-defined, vague thesis. That is the one incontrovertible statement of hard fisted, sure-to-the-bone belief of this “master scientist.” He knows from study, logic and law that homeopathics must have the avenue of the human mind to work their thaumaturgy, that they are not idiopathic substances like coals that lie alone in the pit and glow, no! They must have the engine and fire of the intellect to work their magic, for they have no power alone without the bellows of delusion.
However, there is a huge difference between the criteria in the case for homeopathy and the case against it.
In the case for it, the propositions are supported by trial, error and classical scientific terms. His are supported by little more than the criticisms he has levied on the evidence for verum.
His is a circular argument. It feeds on its own solipsism. We show him evidence, he denies it on grounds that there is no theory to support it. We show him theory and he denies it on the basis that there is no evidence to support it. And why is that again? Because there is no accepted theory in science to support he evidence . . yeah, but didn’t we just say . .

“NO!” he shouts.

Do you see the hypocrisy of his argument?
The deciding factor should be found in the specificity of the case. The truth has a rolling detail to it that in inspection gains in resolution, definition and concordance. Seven different types of biochemical tests logically dissolves the placbeo hyptohesis. Intermoelcular forces that constitute polymeric crystalliferous liquid aqueous structuring and the ensuing piezo electric effect define the theory of action.
The lies, however, that physical and dynamic indices don’t exist, that action is solely that of a placebo, lacks a corollary, is full of contradictions and is idiopathic.
But homeopathy is not idiopathic, not like its opponents want us to think. Homeopathy can not stand apart from science, and a diligent inspection of it shows that it does not. Homeopathy can be explained using current scientific terms, found mostly in supramolecular and crystal chemistry.

Next, a comparison of Edzard Ernst to Christian Science.