... revise the above, I found the quote I think...

However, researchers do not know how safe many CAM treatments are or how well they work. Studies are underway to determine the safety and usefulness of many CAM practices

It also appears that your quote was made BEFORE mine, because they clearly NOW feel that "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be MORE than placebo."

Think again! I'll post it later as time permits. However, regarding your quote:



If they didn't work at all they would have said that. THEY DIDN'T! At least they are open-minded.

It also appears that your quote was made BEFORE mine, because they clearly NOW feel that "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be MORE than placebo."

sigh. No, scientists always couch words in uncertainty becuase over 80% of preliminary trials that show favorable results near the threshold for placebo turn out to be DEAD WRONG. Only large double blinded well structured with proper controls in place trials can ultimately be counted on, and homeopathy has had such trials and those results show NEGATIVE.

200 years homeopathy has been around and no one has a strong study showing efficacy I am sorry but its a dumb premises to begin with and even dumber pretending there is real evidence to show its efficacy, but you know what there is a way to make me eat my words, post a source . . . if you dare . . .I am sure we can glean some entertainment from tearing it apart and exposing its weaknesses.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
Looks like the UK government has finally figured it out . . . this is a real shocker, a political report with accurate and well founded science!! My cynical view of the future just took a shot . . .

The evidence check
Scientific plausibility for a mode of action
48. Both critics and supporters of homeopathy have questioned the scientific plausibility of
any direct physiological mode of action. For example, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain (RPSGB), which is firmly in the “critic” camp,48 argues that “no plausible
scientific reason has yet been proposed as to why it should work”.49 The Prince’s
Foundation for Integrated Health, which is more supportive of homeopathy,50 also notes:
“any specific mechanism of action based on extreme dilution is implausible and regarded
as unsupportable by the majority of scientists working in this field”.51
49. There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and
the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient.
We deal with each in turn. 50. The principle of like-cures-like was described by Dr Peter Fisher as analogous to the
principle of toxicology hormesis.52 Professor Edward Calabrese, a toxicology expert from
the University of Massachusetts, has described hormesis as “a dose-response relationship
phenomenon characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition”.53 In other
words, the impact of toxins on physiology depends on dose: substances that are toxic in
high doses may be beneficial in low doses. For example, “as the dose of a carcinogen
decreases, it reaches a point where the agent actually may reduce the risk of cancer below
that of the control group”.54 And this has been likened to the like-cures-like principle
central to homeopathy,55 whereby a substance that causes a particular symptom will cure
that symptom if administered at a low dose.

51. There are two aspects of the argument that the like-cures-like principle is based on
hormesis that concern us.
a) Over-extrapolation: it is not good scientific practice to conclude that because some
substances are harmful at high doses and beneficial at low doses, that all substances
behave in the same way; and
b) Provings using ultra-dilutions: the similarity with hormesis breaks down further if
provings are carried out using ultra-dilutions. Hormesis is a dose-response: it provides
no rationale for expecting an ultra-dilution to cause symptoms in “healthy” people and
the same ultra-dilution to cure those symptoms in “unwell” people.
52. We have a further concern about the like-cures-like principle. It is not reasonable to
lump “symptoms” into categories independent of physiological causation. For example,
there are many different kinds of stimulants—caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines—but the
metabolic pathways they use to cause stimulation differ. The principle of like-cures-like
overlooks this complication, by holding that any kind of stimulant could, at low enough
doses, counteract insomnia. But insomnia is caused by different things, such as pain,
hormonal changes, psychological disorders or jet lag as well as the use of stimulants.
Treating the symptoms and ignoring the causes is simply not good medical practice. 53. Finally, there are examples of practice. We are concerned by some homeopathic
products. For example, it is possible to buy homeopathic products made from body parts
such as hip joints and colons, animals such as iguana and dragonfly, and different kinds of
sunlight. We are doubly concerned that it is also possible to buy products derived from
precious archaeological features such as the Great Wall of China and Stonehenge.56 We do
not understand what symptoms could be induced (and therefore be treated) by these
products under the like-cures-like principle. and neither do homeopaths . .

54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to
provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note
that this is the settled view of medical science.57

Ultra-dilutions
55. Under the homeopathic principles, “the greater the dilution, the more potent the
medicine”.58 Dr Peter Fisher, Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital,
described how homeopathic dilutions are made:
[They] are prepared by a process of sequential dilution with vigorous shaking at each
stage of dilution, known as succussion. Dilution is usually in steps of 1:10 or 1:100,
referred to as x or d (decimal) or c (centesimal) respectively.59
56. For example, a 30C dilution indicates that the solution has been diluted in the ratio of
1:100, thirty times successively; one drop of the original solution would be diluted with 100
drops of water and the resulting solution would be diluted again, and so on until 30
dilutions had taken place. According to the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, in
some homeopathic products “not even a single molecule of the original substance remains
in the diluted medicine prescribed to the patient”.60
57. Dr Fisher stated that the process of “shaking is important”61 but was unable to say how
much shaking was required. He said “that has not been fully investigated”62 but did tell us
that “You have to shake it vigorously [...] if you just stir it gently, it does not work”.63
58. A number of theories have been proposed to explain how water that does not contain a
single molecule of the active ingredient can retain the properties of that ingredient and
have a physiological action on the patient. The most frequently mentioned in the written
evidence is the theory of “molecular memory”, which proposes that water can retain some
imprint of substances previously dissolved in it. Some of the explanations for how water
might remember substances dissolved in it cite electromagnetic properties,64 frequency
imprinting,65 quantum physics66 and supra-molecular behaviour of water (that is, largescale
interactions).67
59. There are enormous difficulties presented by the notion that water can “remember”
substances that have previously been dissolved in it. When substances are dissolved in water, the water molecules will form structures around the solute molecules; but the
hydrogen bonds between water molecules are far too weak and short-lived to hold that
structure once the solute has been removed. It is not surprising that experiments that claim
to have demonstrated the memory of water have failed to be reproducible.68 The notion
that water could hold imprints of solutions previously dissolved in it is so far removed
from current scientific understanding that, as Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of
Pharmacology at UCL, put it: “If homeopathy worked the whole of chemistry and physics
would have to be overturned”.69 Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser to the
RPSGB, put it a little less dramatically: I think it probably would be revolutionary if homeopathy was proved to be right,
because it does go against a lot of fundamental understanding of science as it stands
at the moment.70

60. Even if water could retain a memory of previously dissolved substances we know of no
explanation for why the sugar-based homeopathic pills routinely dispensed would retain
such a memory.
61. We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances
previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible.
62. When we asked Professor David Harper, Chief Scientist at the DH, about the scientific
plausibility of homeopathy, he agreed with our assessment that there was “a lack of
scientific plausibility in how homeopathic remedies might work”.71 However, he added
“that is not to say there should not be research into like cures like or molecular memory. I
think that is a different thing.”72
63. We would challenge Professor Harper’s comment that research funding should be
directed towards exploring theories that are not scientifically plausible. Research funding
is limited and highly competitive. The Government should continue its policy of
funding the highest quality applications for important scientific research determined
on the basis of peer review.
64. The Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, has told us in
unequivocal terms that he is of the view that there is no evidence base for homeopathy.73
We recommend that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Professor Harper,
Chief Scientist at the DH, get together to see if they can reach an agreed position on the
question of whether there is any merit in research funding being directed towards the
claimed modes of action of homeopathy.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
Looks like the UK government has finally figured it out . . . this is a real shocker, a political report with accurate and well founded science!! My cynical view of the future just took a shot . . .

33. By Providing Homeopathy on the NHS and allowing the MHRA to licence products that subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products.

Evidence of efficacy
65. Lack of scientific plausibility is disappointing, but does not necessarily mean that a
treatment does not work. What is important is how a treatment performs when tested
fairly against a placebo treatment or other treatments. We consider that the best evidence is
provided by randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs.
66. We received conflicting opinions on whether homeopathic products are efficacious
(that is, whether they work better than a placebo treatment). The British Homeopathic
Association (BHA) told us that:
Four out of five comprehensive systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have
reached the qualified conclusion that homeopathy differs from placebo.74
67. Professor Edzard Ernst, Director of the Complementary Medicine Group at the
Peninsula Medical School, disputed this summary of the evidence in detail. The systematic
reviews to which the BHA refers are: Kleijnen et al, 1991;75 Boissel et al, 1996;76 Cucherat et
al, 2000;77 Linde et al, 1997;78 and Shang et al, 2005.79 Professor Ernst pointed out that:
1. The Kleijnen review is now 18 years old and thus outdated.
2. Boissel et al merely combined p-values80 of the included studies. This article is now
also outdated. Furthermore it is not unambiguously positive.
3. Cucherat et al is the publication of the Boissel document which was a EUsponsored
report. [The authors themselves noted that “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.”81]
4. Linde et al has been re-analysed by various authors, including Linde himself, and
all of the 6 re-analyses (none of which were cited in the BHA’s submission) have
come out negative.
5. Shang et al very clearly arrived at a devastatingly negative overall conclusion.82 68. Professor Ernst also commented on the BHA’s claims about reviews that offered
positive reviews for allergies,83 upper respiratory tract infections84 and rheumatic diseases85
were equally flawed: the “review” on allergies was a lecture series, not a systematic review;
the “reviews” on upper respiratory tract infections were health technology assessments, not
systematic reviews, and mostly contained uncontrolled data; and the “review” on
rheumatic diseases was not conclusive.86 Finally, he pointed out that the BHA had omitted
several systematic reviews and meta-analyses, each of which “must have been known to the
BHA” and “all of them arrived at negative conclusions”.87
Second rule of proper science, THOU SHALL NOT CHERRY PICK RESEARCH!

69. The review which we consider the most comprehensive to date is that by Shang et al.88
The review compared 110 placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy matched according to
disorder and type of outcome to trials of conventional medicine. The study only included
trials that were controlled, included randomised assignment to treatment or placebo
groups and were accompanied by sufficient data for odds ratio calculations.89 The authors
concluded that “when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no
convincing evidence that homeopathy was superior to placebo”.90

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

There have now been around 200 trials of homeopathy against placebo sugar pills
and, taken collectively, they show that there is no evidence that homeopathy pills are
any better than a placebo. […] it is not worth doing any more placebo controlled
trials because you would be throwing good money after bad and you would have to
have a huge number of very strongly positive trials to outweigh all of the negative
ones.100

I forgot to say Thanks for digging up the report :D

I think we're arguing the same thing here - I was steering clear of the 'obvious' biochemical route because I simply don't know enough to back up my claims in that area. But, from what I do understand, state of mind (relaxed, anxious etc) is a surprisingly chemical process. In which hormones play an important, even core role.

Waving a PhD shouldn't gain you any great credence in any field other than the one you studied.

However, it does demonstrate the holder clearly having the drive, intelligence and ability to study for and attain said qualification.

I've never met a career academic who wasn't immensely intelligent and informed on a range of subjects and a pleasure to talk to - mostly because of that hunger for information and a desire to learn.

I love the challenge some have reconciling the obvious.

This societal need to over ride everything and anything, to baffle with bs, and to 'control'....that which effectively and efficiently functions with minimal, almost non invasive treatments....the human, being.

scientists always couch words in uncertainty becuase over 80% of preliminary trials that show favorable results near the threshold for placebo turn out to be DEAD WRONG.

In my experience in the united states, this does not require much drive and intelligence, though it may require a lot of either drive or intelligence...

I absolute believe that this is true for you - have you considered the 'selection' mechanisms that have lead to these conversations? Perhaps you are perceptive of and seeking towards individuals who have those qualities, and therefore fail to notice those who lack those qualities.

OH OK, if you say so.... LOL

Maybe in the USA, from what I've seen in the UK ... Degrees are common as much...

Doctorates [in the UK] are still quite rare and precious - requiring both a depth of knowledge and a drive to learn and discover more.

PhD's are not easy

A few of my friends are going through doctorates at the moment and I'm happy, very happy, to say that their doctorates will AUTOMATICALLY grant them authority to comment on their fields of study.

That's basically what a Doctorate -is-. It's proof that you can contribute to your field and deserve to be taken seriously within it.

Now, I quite agree I'm subject to a sampling bias that's hard to shake. Every career academic I've had the pleasure of talking with has either been a fellow of, professor at, or graduate from Cambridge (and a couple from Oxford).

That's a fairly high skim to take off the academic pool.

that said, these people respect, quote and refer constantly to other doctorates in their respective fields - from 'redbrick' institutions or not.

I don't think we should default to cynicism because of the minority of disingenuous examples.

I think we should default to fair/balanced skepticism, and objectivity. I am not generalizing PhD as incompetents, and insisting that we ought not to generalize PhDs as automatically being worthy of being treated as an authority.

We both agree that ... people holding PhD's are certainly qualified above the layman to comment on fields either adjacent to or related to their field of study.

However, gaining this level of qualification in no means guarantees that their opinion is better than or worth more than any other, less academically-celebrated, person's opinion - there are too many variables involved for such sweeping generalisations.

can we say that the mere fact that there are Doctorate-holding professionals practising alternative medicine in France...actually adds no weight to the cause of alternative medicine?

In the course of defending your position you have brought to the discussion many relevant, correct, and informative statements; you've caused me to think, and to wonder what the world might be like if all universities had standards comparable to Cambridge.

Please accept my apologies for my continuing argumentativeness, but I am passionate about this issue (and the related issues of "arguments from authority" and PhDs who sell their authority).

QUOTE:
We both agree that ... people holding PhD's are certainly qualified above the layman to comment on fields either adjacent to or related to their field of study.


In a general sense, sure, but if a laymen and a PhD dispute a point of fact in a discussion, I am definitely not going to assume the PhD is correct.

Also, from where I'm coming from, I feel that the exceptions to the above quoted statement are far far more important than the majority for whom the statement is true.... especially when anyone is tempted to view someone as an authority because they have a PhD.

And apologies for the double post... but I've just stumbled accross a most informative site on the subject.

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

Childish, but fun :D

M

It would be foolish indeed to stand up and say that all viewpoints are equal.

To assert that everyone carries the same weight in any given topical discussion would be absurd, fallacious and I would even wager it would be damaging.

By this very nature we -have- to have situations where a person's opinion on a given topic is more valid than another's.

Wouldn't someone stood there, telling someone else that a small quantity of Onion juice, when diluted and diluted until it's statistically highly improbable that even a single molecule even remains in the final 'solution', even if 'Shaking' is involved in this process. Someone stood there, with an air of scholarly understanding stating that this, this water, has healing properties similar or comparable to mainstream medicine - nay better - for it is not under the control of the government or major pharmaceuticals.

I'm going to have to agree with them, for they have demonstrated a more considered, evidence-based and, truth be told, accurate understanding of medicine.

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/