This is why so many people believe in ghosts, spirits and the paranormal
-
http//www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml
There. Disproven. I didn't even know homeopathy including diluting to ridiculous levels.
-
http//www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml
There. Disproven.
PROVEN! *warning this is a LONG passage!!
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005
Meta-analysis
Jonas, W. B., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Linde, K. 2003b, "A critical overview of homeopathy",
Ann.Intern.Med., vol. 138, no. 5, pp. 393-399.
Cucherat, M., Haugh, M. C., Gooch, M., & Boissel, J. P. 2000, "Evidence of clinical efficacy of
homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory
Group", Eur.J.Clin.Pharmacol., vol.. 56, no. 1, pp. 27-33.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 4 of 12META-ANALYSES SHOWING THAT HOMEOPATHY WORKS
A systematic review of results from 93 substantive RCTs was carried out by robert Mathie (2003). It
concludes that of the 35 different medical conditions covered by these trials the weight of evidence
favours a positive treatment effect in 8 childhood diarrhoea, fibrositosis, hayfever, influenza, pain
(miscellaneous), side-effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, sprains and upper-respiratory tract
infections.
Mathie, R. The research evidence base for homeopathy a fresh assessment of the literature.
Homeopathy 92 84-91. 2003.Meta analysis of 89 trials on homeopathic medicine versus placebo.
Result significanly in favour of homeopathy (OR 2,45 (95% CI 2,05-2,93)).This meta-analysis included 186 placebo-controlled
studies of homeopathy published until mid-1996, of which data for analysis could be extracted from
89. The overall odds ratio was 2.45 (95% confidence intervals 2.05-2.93) in favour of homeopathy,
which means that the chances that homeopathy would benefit the patient were 2.45 times greater than
placebo. When considering just those trials of high quality published in MEDLINE listed journals, and
with predefined primary outcome measures, the pooled odds ratio was 1.97 and significant. Even after
correction for publication bias the results remained significant. The main conclusion was that the
results "were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homeopathy are completely due to
placebo". If the result of new trials were to show no difference between homeopathy and placebo, we
would have to add 923 trials with no effect with 118 patients in each in order to balance the two.
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A
meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350834-43.HMRG report with overview of clinical research in homeopathy, identified 184 controlled clinical
trials. They selected the highest quality randomized control trials, which included a total of 2617
patients for a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis resulted in a p-value of 0.000036 indicating that
homeopathy is more effective than placebo. The researchers concluded that the "hypothesis that
homeopathy has no effect can be rejected with certainty". Homeopathic Medicine Research Group.
Report to the European Commission directorate general XII science, research and development. Vol
1 (short version). Brussels European Commission, 199616-7.Of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results. Most studies showed
results in favour of homeopathy even among those randomized controlled trials that received highquality
ratings for randomization, blinding, sample size, and other methodological criteria. They came
to the following conclusion "The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a
surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible. The evidence presented in this review would
probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications".
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. British Medical Journal.
1991b;302316-23.Meta-analysis of 105 articles on laboratory research.
Result positive effect 50% more frequently than
negative effect among trials of highest methodological quality. (1994)
Linde K. Jonas WB, Melchart D, Worku F, Wagner H, Eital F. Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of
Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology. Human and Experimental Toxicology.
1994;13481-492.A meta-analysis of three trials on homeopathic immunotherapy. Result significant effect in favour of
homeopathic treatment.Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Carter R, Stevenson
RD. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet. 1994;3441601-1606.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 5 of 12KEY CLINICAL TRIALS IN HOMEOPATHY
Diarrhoea in children
Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea in Nicaragua
This trial involved 81 children aged from 6 months to 5 years in a randomised, double-blind trial of
intravenous fluids plus placebo versus intravenous fluids plus homeopathic remedy individualised to
the patient. The treatment group had a statistically significant decrease in duration of diarrhoea.
Jacobs J. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine a randomized clinical
trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 1994; 93 719-725.
Treatment of acute childhood diarrhouea, repeated in Nepal
In a replication of a trial carried out in Nicaragua in 1994, 116 Nepalese children aged 6 months to 5
years suffering from diarrhoea were given an individualised homoeopathic medicine or placebo.
Treatment by homoeopathy showed a significant improvement in the condition in comparison to
placebo.
Jacobs J., Jimenez M., Malthouse S., Chapman E., Crothers D., Masuk M., Jonas W.B., Acute
Childhood Diarrhoea- A Replication., Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6, 2000,
131-139.
A meta-analysis of childhood diarrhoea trials
This meta analysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood
diarrhea (P=0.00. It should be noted that the World Health Organisation consider childhood diarrhea
to be the number one public health problem today because of the millions of children who die every
year from dehydration from diarrhea.
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea Combined
Results and Meta-analysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials
http//homeopathic.com/articles/research/diarrhea_t.phpRespiratory tract complaints
Homeopathy versus conventional treatment in respiratory tract complaints
In an outcome study, 30 practitioners in four countries enrolled 500 consecutive patients with at least
one of three complaints upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies; lower respiratory tract
complaints including allergies; or ear complaints. Of 456 patients, 281 received homeopathy and 175
conventional treatment. The primary outcomes criterion was response to treatment, defined as cured or
major improvement after 14 days of treatment. Results showed a response rate of 82.6% in the
homeopathy group compared to 67.3% in the group receiving conventional medicine. The authors
concluded that homeopathy appeared to be at least as effective as conventional treatment of patients
with the three conditions studied.
Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B, Haidvogl M, Heger M. Homeopathy and conventional medicine an
outcomes study comparingeffectiveness in a primary care setting. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7
149?159.Homeopathy versus conventional treatment in otitis media
Prospective observational study, comparision of homeopathy versus conventional treatment in acute
otitis media. Conclusion homeopathy should be first line treatment in acute otitis media. Results
showed median duration of pain of 2 days in the homeopathy-group and 3 days in the conventional
medicine group. 70.7 % of the children receiving homeopathic treatment did not have another ear
infection the next year and 29.3 % had a maximum of three ear infections within one year. 56.5 % in
the conventional medicin group did not have another ear infection the next year and 43.5 % had a
maximum of six ear infections the next year. Results showed that in the group receiving homeopathic
treatment only 5 out of 103 children needed antibiotics.
Friese K-H, Kruse S, Ludtke R, Moeller H "Homeopathic treatment of otitis media in children
comparisons with conventional therapy". Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997; 35 296-301.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 6 of 12
Acute otitis media in children
A study involving children suffering from acute otitis media suggests that a positive treatment effect
from homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded. There were
fewer treatment failures in the group receiving homeopathy after 5 days, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks, with
differences of 11.4, 18.4, and 19.9%, respectively, but these differences were not statistically
significant. Diary scores showed a significant decrease in symptoms at 24 and 64 h after treatment in
favour of homeopathy (P<0.05). The authors concluded that these results suggest that a positive
treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded
and that a larger study is justified.
Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children a
preliminary randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20 177?183.
Acute otitis media in children
In a trial of 230 children who were given homeopathic treatment to treat acute otitis media, pain
control was achieved in 39% of the patients after 6 h and another 33% after 12 h. The resolution rates
were 2.4 times faster than in placebo controls. No complications were observed and compared to
conventional treatment the homeopathic approach was 14% cheaper.
Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children treatment effect or spontaneous
resolution? Br Homeopath J 2001; 90 180?182.Glue ear in children
In a pilot study in children suffering from glue ear treated with homeopathy 75% had normal
tympanogram, compared to 31% in the group treated with conventional medicine. A higher proportion
of children receiving home opathic treatment had a hearingloss less than 20 dB at follow-up, though
the difference was not statistically significant. The authors concluded that further research comparing
home opathy to standard care is warranted; 270 patients would be needed for a definitive trial.
Harrison H, Fixsen A, Vickers A. A randomized comparison of homoeopathic, standard care for the
treatment of glue ear in children. Compl Therap Med 1999; 7 132?135.Acute sinusitis
In a trial of 119 patients suffering from clinical signs of acute sinusitis were treated using homeopathic
medicines. Typical sinusitis symptoms, such as headache, pressure pain at nerve exit points, and
irritating cough, were reduced after a mean of 4.1 days of treatment. Ninety-nine received only a test
medication, 20 patients were able to discontinue concomitant medication at the first visit, and only one
patient needed antibiotics. Average duration of treatment was 2 weeks. At the end of treatment 81.5%
described themselves as symptom free or significantly improved. No adverse drugeffects were
reported.Adler M. Efficacy, safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis. Adv Ther 1999;
16 103?111.Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 7 of 12
KEY CLINICAL TRIALS IN HOMEOPATHY
Musculo-sceletal problems
Rheumatoid arthritis
Forty-six patients with rheumatoid arthritis received an individualised remedy or placebo in a 3-month
randomised trial. Both groups were allowed to continue standard anti-inflammatory drugs. After 3
months, the double-blind code was broken and remedies were given to members of the placebo group
in a single crossover study. Articular index, limbering up time, grip strength and pain all showed
statistically significant differences.
Gibson RG, Gibson SLM, MacNeill AD, Buchanan WW Homeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis
evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1980;
9 453-459.Osteoarthritis
In this trial, 65 sufferers of Osteoarthritis (OA) were split into 2 groups, and through a double blinding
process were given either a homoeopathic medicine or Acetaminophen, a commonly prescribed drug
for pain relief in OA. Researchers found that homoeopathy provided a level of pain relief that was
superior to Acetaminophen, and produced no adverse reactions.
Shealy C.N., Thomlinson P.R., Cox R.H., and Bormeyer V. Osteoarthritis Pain A Comparison of
Homoeopathy and Acetaminophen. American Journal of Pain Management, 8, 3, July 1998, 89-91.Fibromyalgia
A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of individualised homeopathic treatment (LM
potency) versus placebo concluided that idividualised homeopathy is significantly better than placebo
in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with
fibromyalgia.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin CM. Improved clinical
status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo
http//rheumatology.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/keh111.Fibrositis
In a randomised placebo-controlled trial of patients with fibrositis, only those patients in whom Rhus
toxicodendron was ?unequivocally indicated? were admitted to the study. After 1 month?s treatment,
the were highly significant improvements in objective and subjective parameters.
Fisher P. An experimental double-blind clinical trial in homoeopathy. British Homoeopathic Journal
1986; 75 142-147.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 8 of 12KEY CLINICAL TRIALS IN HOMEOPATHY
Hayfever, asthma and perennial rhinitis
Reilly and colleagues have conducted a series of trials in patients with hayfever, asthma and perennial
rhinitis. Patients were given skin tests and remedies were chosen on the basis of reactivity. This design
allows individualisation whilst avoiding the issues of case-taking and the effect that this has on the
process. The results demonstrate a significant difference between the placebo and homeopathic groups
which is reproducible. ?The results suggest that either homeopathy works, or, that the clinical trial
does not.? (Anon, 1994). (NB! Strictly speaking these are trials of isopathy.)
Anon. Reilly?s challenge (editorial). Lancet 1994; 344 1585.
Reilly DT, Taylor MA. Potent placebo of potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using
homoeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever as a model. British Homoeopathic Journal 1985 ; 74
65-75.
Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Campbell J, Beattie N, McSharry C, Aitchison T, Carter R, Stevenson R. Is
evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 334 1601-1606.
Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial
of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hay fever as a model. Lancet 1986; ii 881-886.
Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison T, Lancaster T, Vickers A.
Randomised controlled trial of homeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview
of four trial series British Medical Journal 2000; 321 471-476.Female complaints
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
36 women suffering from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), and fitting the mental picture of the
homoeopathic remedy Pulsatilla, were given Pulsatilla 6C, 4 hourly throughout the day for 2 weeks
after the end of menstruation, and this was repeated for 4 consecutive cycles. At the end of the trial 30
of the 36 women had complete disappearance of the symptoms of PCOS and the production of normal
ovulating follicles and a further 4 of the 36 became asymptomatic.
Sanchez-Resendiz J., Guzman-Gomez F., Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Boletin Mexicano de
Homeopatica, 30, 1997, 11-15.Pre menstrual syndrome (PMS)
In a randomized controlled double-blind clinical trial (1992-94) 19 women suffering from PMS were
treated with individually with homeopathy. 90 % of the patients who had receieved homeopathic
treatment experienced more than 30 % improvement. Only 37.5 % of patients who received placebo
experienced a similar improvement. Sick-days before menses were reduced from 0.75 to 0 in the
homeopathy-group, and was unchanged in the control group. Use of conventional drugs was also
reduced in the homeopathy-group.
Yakir M, Kreitler S, Brzezinski A, Vithoulkas G, Oberbaum M, Bentwich Z.Effects of homeopathic treatment in women with premenstrual syndrome a pilot study. Br Homeopath J.
2001 Jul ;90(3) 148-53.Homeopathy and oestrogen withdrawal
40 out of 45 women with breast cancer withdrawing from oestrogen and then treated homeopathically,
experienced significant improvement in their primary symptoms, anxiety and depression, as well as
improvement in quality of life. Primary symptoms changed from 7.8 to 5.4, and from 7.2 to 4.1
(p<0.001). The homeopathic approach appears to be clinically useful in the management of oestrogen
withdrawal symptoms in women with breast cancer.
Thompson EA, Reilly D. The homeopathic approach to the treatment of symptoms of oestrogen
withdrawal in breast cancer patients. A prospective observational study.
Homeopathy. 2003 Jul;92(3)131-4.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 9 of 12Homeopathy in menopausal complaints
In a prospective study 82 % of 102 patients reported improvement of menopause symptoms after
homeopathic treatment. Main symptoms noted were hot flushes and sweats, tiredness, anxiety,
sleeping difficulties, mood swings and headaches. Women referred to homeopathy were those who
either could not take hormone related treatment (HRT), for whom HRT was unsuccessful, who did not
want or who had to come off HRT. Mean length of homeopathic treatment was 5 months.
Relton, C. NHS Homeopathy Menopause Service. Outcome Study. In press.Other noteable trials
ME
A randomised double-blind trial involving 62 patients with ME, reported in some detail, found that
33% of patients in the group receiving homeopathic remedies showed definite improvement compared
with none in the placebo group.
Awdry R. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1996; February, March, April.Dengue haemorrhagic fever
Dengueinum 30 was administered to at least 39,200 people in the Delhi area during an epidemic of
Dengue haemorrhagic fever. Follow-up of 23,520 people 10 days later showed only 5 people (0.125%)
had developed mild symptoms, with the rest showing no signs or symptoms of the disease.
Central Council of Research in Homoeopathy. CCRH News 1996-1997.
Cost benefit
In a survey of 223 patients in a NHS General Practice, the number of consultations with general
practitioners were reduced by 70% in a 1 year period. Expenses for medication were reduced by 50%
when homeopathic treatment was made available.81Christie EA, Ward AT. Report on NHS practice-based homoeopathy project. Analysis of effectiveness
and cost of homoeopathic treatment within ad GP practice at St. Margaret?s Surgery, Bradford on
Avon, Wilts. September 1996. The Society of Homeopaths. ISBH 1 901262 006.In a study of 351 adults suffering from allergies, 35.3% received homeopathic treatment, the
researchers concluded that alternative medicine is used widely for allergies by the general population
and is associated with considerable costs. This has implications for the healthcare system and health
policy. The study also showed that alternative medicine users were better educated than non-users, and
assessed the results of alternative medicine as very good (28.6%) or rather good (53.8%).
Schafer T, Riehle A, Wichmann HE, RingJ. Alternative medicine in allergies?prevalence, patterns of
use, and costs. Allergy 2002; 57 694?700.A study of the cost and effectiveness of homeopathy suggested that doctors practising homeopathy
issue fewer prescriptions and at a lower cost than their colleagues. The main costs for homeopathic
treatment are for consultations with each individual patient. Costs for the actual medications used are
relatively low, particularly when compared with conventional drugs.Swayne J. The cost, effectiveness of homoeopathy. A pilot study, proposals for future research. Br
Homoeopath J 1992; 81 148?150.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 10 of 12Basic research
The effect of high dilutions
In a multi-centre study including four research centres in Europe the effect of high dilutions of
histamine (10-30 ? 10-38 M) were confirmed. Researchers were able to document that high dilutions of
histamin inhibit human basophil degranulation. Results cannot be explained through molexular
theories.
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine
dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm. Res. 2004; 53 181-188.
The effect of high dilutions was documented in an experiement showing the effect of highly diluted
Belladonna on acetylcholine-induced contraction of the rat ileum. The model is reproducible and
highly recognised in ?the scientific world?.
Bastide M (ed). Signals and Images. Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997 161-170
Information to be included
Lorenz, I., Schneider, E. M., Stolz, P., Brack, A., & Strube, J. 2003, "Sensitive flow cytometric method
to test basophil activation influenced by homeopathic histamine dilutions", Forsch Komplementarmed
Klass Naturheilkd, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 316-324.Treatment of animals
In a blinded study where rats were treated for urinary infections results showed that rats treated with
homeopathic remedies had clear reduction of bacterial colonies. Results were at least as clear as for
treatment with antibiotics. Untreated rats had no changes in bacteria colonies, compared to a reduction
to 33 % of original bacteria levels in rats treated with antibiotics, and 22 % and 39 % in rats treated
with homeopathic remedies (Phosphorus and self-nosode).
Gon?alves et al. O uso da homeopatia no tratamento da infec??o urin?ria em ratas. Anais do VIII
SINAPIH; 20-22 May, 2004 p.25-26.A study of homeopathically protentised remedies showed a reduction in the need for repetition of
insemination and semen loss in treatment of fertilisation of female pigs.
Riaucourt A. L?Exemple de la Fili?re Porcine. Annals of the ?Entretiens Internationaux de Monaco
2002?, 5-6 October, 2002.In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 %
in turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded.
Filliat C. Particularit? de l?utilisation de l?hom?opathie en production avicole. Annals of the
?Entretiens Internationaux de Monaco 2002?, 5-6 October 2002.
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 11 of 12RESEARCH WEBSITE ADDRESSES
Pubmed (National Library of Medicine) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
British Medical Journal http//bmj.bmjjournals.com (search for 'homeopathy'
New Scientist http//www.newscientist.com (search for 'homeopathy'
Healthworld Online (Medline, Medical Research & Document Delivery)
http//www4.infotrieve.com/newmedline/summary.asp
Biomail http//www.biomail.org This site offers free regular updates by e-mail. Hosted by Medical Informatics
Department at State University of New Yeork, Stony Brook University Hospital and Medical Center.
An evidence-based resource about Complementary and Alternative Medicine www.cam.org.nz
Funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.
Annals of Internal Medicine http//www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=homeopathy
University of York http//www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ehc73.pdf
Biomed Central (homeopathy review) http//www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/1/12
British Homeopathic Library http//www.hom-inform.org
The Research Council for Complementary Medicine www.rccm.org.uk
Groupe International de Recherche sur l'Infinit?simal www.giriweb.com
National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
http//www.campain.umm.edu/ris/risweb.isa (search for 'homeopathy'
National Centre for Homeopathy http//www.homeopathic.org/research.htm
Homeopathic Educational Services http//www.homeopathic.com/articles/research/index.php
Homeopathy (the journal) http//www.harcourt-international.com/journals/homp
Boiron http//www.boiron.com/en/htm/04-politique/clinique.htm
Official Indian research centre http//www.ccrhindia.org
Carstens stiftung (Germany)
http//www.carstens-stiftung.de
http//www.carstens-stiftung.de/eng/index.shtml (English pages)
ISI Web of Knowledge (resembles PubMed but includes more areas)
http//isi3.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (free articles)
http//www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882
French page with links to most published articles.
http//dumenat.smbh.univ-paris13.fr/univer-site-homeo/francais/archmed2002.htm
NAFKAM, Troms? (Norway) (research info will be included) http//uit.no/nafkam/omnafkam
Vifab (Denmark) http//www.vifab.dk
Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients publishes a print alternative medicine magazine.
http//www.townsendletter.com
Homeopathy research and surveys, ENHR, January 2005 Page 12 of 12Comments and corrections to the ENHR report on ?Homeopathy research and surveys?
January 2005
-
I'm not going to go through a novel's worth of referencs, but anyway (these are not hand-picked, I just searched and clicked the first one each time)
http//www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf - Most clinical trials are poor. Most report no effect over placebos. Some report positive effects - but "further rigorous research is needed".
http//www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/2/4 - 40% effectiveness
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=retrieve&dopt=abstract&list_uids=10853874 - "CONCLUSIONS There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results."
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&=&=&=&db=PubMed&list_uids=10796532&dopt=Abstract - "REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond."
Here's a good one http//pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/5/719 - Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea With Homeopathic Medicine A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua - Conclusions. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.
http//www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x/full/?cookieSet=1 - "Collectively these data do not provide sound evidence that homeopathic remedies are clinically different from placebos. However, the present analysis has several limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting its conclusions. Even though a thorough search strategy was adopted, there is no absolute guarantee that all relevant articles were located."
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884175&dopt=Abstract - CONCLUSION The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.
And another good one http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14960096&dopt=Citation - CONCLUSIONS Patients were very satisfied with their homeopathic treatment, both they and their physicians recorded significant improvement. Costs of homeopathic treatment were significantly lower than conventional treatment, and many previously prescribed drugs were discontinued.
-
I'm not going to go through a novel's worth of referencs, but anyway (these are not hand-picked, I just searched and clicked the first one each time)
http//www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf - Most clinical trials are poor. Most report no effect over placebos. Some report positive effects - but "further rigorous research is needed".
Aw come on, OPF, Here's from the same article...
DOES HOMEOPATHY WORK?
The evidence for homeopathy?s effectiveness includes
three areas of research 1) general comparisons of homeopathic
remedies and placebos; 2) studies of homeopathy?s
effectiveness for particular clinical conditions; and 3) studies
looking for biological effects from potencies, especially
the Homeopathic Remedy More Effective than
Placebo?
Four comprehensive, independent systematic reviews
or meta-analyses have examined the question of whether
homeopathic therapies behave like placebo in randomized,
placebo-controlled trials (Table 2). These have comprehensively
searched for all clinical trials and have used standard
methods for quality evaluation and analysis of clinical
trials. These reviews have found that, overall, the quality of
clinical research in homeopathy is low. When only high quality
studies have been selected for analysis (such as those
with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size, and
other methodologic criteria that limit bias), a surprising
number show positive results. For example, Kleijnen and
colleagues (2 did a detailed quality evaluation of 60 homeopathic
clinical trials and concluded that they ?would
be ready to accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible."homeopathy is more effective than placebo in general.CONCLUSIONS
Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based
on the ?Principle of Similars? and the use of ?minimum?
doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th century
health care and recently has undergone a revival in
the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism
about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized,
placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report
unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines.
However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy
for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality,
and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic
medicine (61). More and better research is needed,
Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians
be open-minded about homeopathy?s possible value
and maintain communication with patients who use it.I'm not going to go through all of the articles, this conversation is getting plain fruity. You see what you want to see, and I know from experience what I know. I will not abandon my homeopathic practice, regardless of what you say. I know what I know to be true, whether or not I can 'prove' it to you, jonny, and Randi.
So, to take this thread back to the Glorious Reading, to you, your way of life, and to me mine. peace
Good day!
-
I don't doubt homeopathy. I just don't actually see how it could possibly work. Maybe it is actually a wonder drug, the FDA does suppress an aweful lot of things deeming them unscientific (cannabis plant, for instance).
-
I don't doubt homeopathy. I just don't actually see how it could possibly work. Maybe it is actually a wonder drug, the FDA does suppress an aweful lot of things deeming them unscientific (cannabis plant, for instance).
Ahh............ salve to my wounds. handshake
sun
-
Peace "Ilisa",
Ok so you showed the results. This is the first step but how do i know these results were done under proper control and/or not faked delberately or not properly controlled as was the case with Uri Geller at the Stanford Resreach Institution back in 1982? How would i know this? Ok wht i can do is send these results to JREF and see what they claim. GOD Bless! -
Peace "Ilisa",
I sent your results to the JREF and this is what Randi repliedYou have selected meta-analyses. These depend entirely on how the data is selected. And they are indicative, not proof.
We accept only original evidence.
James Randi.
GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Ilisa",
I sent your results to the JREF and this is what Randi replied
You have selected meta-analyses. These depend entirely on how the data is selected. And they are indicative, not proof.We accept only original evidence.
James Randi.
GOD Bless!Greetings jonny-k
Thanks! This is a step forward, at least now they are saying 'indicative'!!!
What do they mean by 'original evidence' ---that we have to do the research ourselves?? Or that we do something in front of them?
Seriously, there is a homepathic remedy that I have repeatedly seen make bumps from an accident go down in front of my eyes. If we could only find two volunteers....one to hit and the other to be hit somewhere (like the shin), we'll watch the bump start to come up, then I'll administer the remedy and we'll all watch it go down. Would that be 'original evidence' enough for the randi foundation?
I'm serious. No joking. Want to do it??
-
Greetings jonny-k
Thanks! This is a step forward, at least now they are saying 'indicative'!!!
What do they mean by 'original evidence' ---that we have to do the research ourselves?? Or that we do something in front of them?
Seriously, there is a homepathic remedy that I have repeatedly seen make bumps from an accident go down in front of my eyes. If we could only find two volunteers....one to hit and the other to be hit somewhere (like the shin), we'll watch the bump start to come up, then I'll administer the remedy and we'll all watch it go down. Would that be 'original evidence' enough for the randi foundation?
I'm serious. No joking. Want to do it??
Do you realise you would need around 100+ people of all different shapes, sizes, ages, races, etc to carry that out with a hint of credibility?
-
Do you realise you would need around 100+ people of all different shapes, sizes, ages, races, etc to carry that out with a hint of credibility?
Why 100 if we do it in front of their cameras? However, they can choose who the people are and the number of participants. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
We can, indeed it with all the participants of their choosing even. (Actually it would take 200 then...one to kick and one to be kicked. Or you could have some device hit them --whatever it would take to give them a 'goose-egg' in a relatively harmless spot.)
-
Peace "ilisa"
Seriously, there is a homepathic remedy that I have repeatedly seen make bumps from an accident go down in front of my eyes. If we could only find two volunteers....one to hit and the other to be hit somewhere (like the shin), we'll watch the bump start to come up, then I'll administer the remedy and we'll all watch it go down. Would that be 'original evidence' enough for the randi foundation?
I'm serious. No joking. Want to do it??
JK- Yes i think it would be but under controlled conditions meaning that the selected volunteers you choose would have to be agreed upon by Randi as well as you and some of the JREF members will see to it that the volunteers chosen are not magicians. Then there would also be scientists present there to watch the phenomena again which both you and Randi would agree upon. As for the eg you mentioned, do you mean that the bump would go down in a couple of minutes just before anyones eyes through your homeopathic remedy? If thts the case and itd be proven then Randi would surely provide you not only with million USD but youll be world famous amongst all skeptics. Would you like to write to the jref yourself (www.randi.org) or should i regarding this? GOD Bless!
-
Greetings jonny_k
You can watch it go down before your eyes in a matter of minutes. If you want, and we give the remedy immediately, no bump will form, but for the sake of proving a point, we could let the bump begin to form so that no one could tell us that the bump wasn't going to form any way.
What the heck, I'll write Randi.....but if I get the million, I'll give you a slice!! handshake
-
Greetings again jonny_k,
Just when it was starting to look like we were getting somewhere with this, I've just been to Randi's site and I was reading the terms for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge and I came up against this road block
"12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions First, he/she must have a ?media presence,? which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person?s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified."
I am not a 'media presence'. So, now what to do?
-
Why 100 if we do it in front of their cameras? However, they can choose who the people are and the number of participants. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
We can, indeed it with all the participants of their choosing even. (Actually it would take 200 then...one to kick and one to be kicked. Or you could have some device hit them --whatever it would take to give them a 'goose-egg' in a relatively harmless spot.)
What I mean is that you need a broad number of people for testing. Most medicine trials take a significant amount of people from everywhere, 100 was just a random number. It may work for one person, but not all.
-
Peace "Ilisa",
Greetings again jonny_k,
Just when it was starting to look like we were getting somewhere with this, I've just been to Randi's site and I was reading the terms for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge and I came up against this road block
"12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions First, he/she must have a ?media presence,? which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person?s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified."
I am not a 'media presence'. So, now what to do?
JK- Yeah i forgot to tell you that. Theyve changed the rules i beleive at the beginning of this year since too much people were applying without any significant results so Randi wanted to focus on the more famous people in order to expose them since theyr misleading many. But dont let that sacre you. Do write to the JREF and if they wont accept ask themwhether they have any smaller communities, related to them and whose testimonies they accept, in the US and whether you could perform ceratin preliminary tests thre first. once you pass those Randi will surely invite you to take the major test in his own presence. Good luck and GOD Bless! sun