Scientific Research in homeopathy

1. Triple-Blind Studies
2. Double-blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial (DBRPCT)
3. Double-Blind Studies
4. Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis
5. Online Database
6. Evidence for specific disease conditions
7. Homeopathy as a Genetic Medicine
8. Homeopathy Research Resource
9. Homeopathy superior to allopathy
10. Homeopathy cost-effective than allopathy
11. Homeopathy equals allopathy
12. Homeopathy superior to placebo
13. Homeopathy improving quality of life
14. More Research studies
15. Physics behind homeopathy
16. Memory of Water
17. Serial-agitated ultra-molecular dilutions (Dilutions beyond Avogadro limit)
18. Evidence-based Medicine
19. To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another
20. To distinguish homeopathy medicine from solvent
21. Placebo Effect
22. Anecdotal Evidence
23. Potency Selection
24. Animal Studies
25. Plant Studies

Nancy - homeopaths have no idea about science so all their studies are half-ar*ed attempts to prove a preconceived idea. When the tests ultimately fail to prove this idea they then change criteria and alter results - they lie.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/...

Nature magazine famously lead an investigation of the positive research coming out of the lab of Jaque Benveniste. This team, which included James Randi, learned that all the positive research created by the lab were performed by Benveniste’s assistant, Elizabeth Davenas. Benveniste had claimed that all the research was double blind, but Randi soon discovered that this was not the case. Davenas was studying the results of a homeopathic drug on the growth of cells in culture. While Randi observed, she counted the number of cells under a microscope on what she believed to be a test slide, getting a result of 40, which she dutifully recorded in her lab notebook. While removing the slide, however, she noticed that it was labeled as a control. She therefore recounted the slide, arriving this time at a result of 18, which she then corrected in the notebook. It is difficult to conceive of a more blatant breach of basic research protocol.

In short, when the Nature team next subjected Davenas to truly double blind conditions, her positive results disappeared. Benveniste insisted, however, that his lab’s results had been duplicated by four independent labs throughout the world. On investigation, however, it was learned that Elizabeth Davenas had visited each of these four labs and had performed the research herself.

Wim Betz, a physician and former homeopathic doctor who now is an outspoken critic of homeopathy, has similar criticisms of homeopathic research. He reports on one study in which a hormone prepared in homeopathic dilutions was added to a tank of tadpoles and was observed to increase the rate at which the tadpoles developed into frogs. When the hormone, however, was placed inside the tank while inside of a sealed test tube, the same results were observed. The homeopathic researchers, instead of concluding that this control revealed shortcoming of their research, concluded that the homeopathic hormone was transmitting its effect to the tadpoles via some type of rays. They later conducted research to see if such remedies can emit their healing rays over telephone lines.

Another researcher, reports Betz, was confused when the placebo control he used in his clinical trial had the same effect as the homeopathic remedy being tested. Instead of concluding that his study was negative, he instead concluded that since the placebo was stored in the same refrigerator as the remedy, that the homeopathic drug was radiating it effective quality to the placebo. Despite sealing the placebos in aluminum foil and separating them from the homeopathic remedy in different refrigerators, this homeopathic researcher could still not keep the effect of the drug from leaking over into the placebo.

The 130+ studies are published in the following 52 Journals (in alphabetic order)

1. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

2. American Journal of Homoeopathic Journal
3. American Journal of Pain Management
4. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy
5. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery
6. Archives of Otolaryngology- head & Neck Surgery
7. Arzneimittel-Forschung
8. Asian Journal of Homeopathy
9. Aspects of Research in Homeopathy
10. Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy
11. British Homoeopathic Journal
12. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
13. British Medical Journal
14. Cancer
15. Cahrs de Biotherapie
16. Chest
17. Complimentary & Alternative Medicine
18. Complementary Therapy in Medicine
19. Der Kassenarzt
20. Ear, Nose and Throat disorders
21. European Journal of Paedretics
22. Evidence-based Complimentary & Alternative Medicine
23. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
24. Forschende Komplementarmedizin
25. Homeopathy
26. Homoeopathic Links
27. Human and Experimental Toxicology
28. Inflammation Research
29. Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences
30. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
31. International Journal of High Dilution Research
32. International Journal of Oncology
33. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
34. Journal of Clinical Gastro-enterology
35. Journal of Dermatological Treatment
36. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
37. Journal of Hellenic Headache Association
38. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
39. Lancet
40. Non-linear Biomedical Physics
41. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
42. Pediatrics
43. Phlebology
44. Physica A
45. Public Health
46. Rheumatic Diseases Clinics of North America
47. Rheumatology
48. Sleep Medicine
49. The European Journal of Heart Failure
50. The Science of the total Environment
51. Toxicological Sciences
52. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift

Journal standards vary widely. The best journals practice rigorous peer-review and have
exacting standards. The worst are vanity publications, existing only to minister to the
self-importance of their editors and those who contribute to them.

The reason for publishing is for others to repeat the testing for either independant confirmation or refutation of your findings.

If there was any valid evidence for homeopathy then it would be used by every doctor, every hospital and part of every medical degree. There isn't any valid evidence so it isn't accepted.

It seems to me its popuarlity in Indian is due to your cultures history of mysticism. You uncritically accept BS notions of vital force and another poster Iqbal seems to think celluar life requires some mystical life force. These are beliefs - not evidence.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/10/the-f...

In two hundred years, homeopaths have been unable to produce any experiment that consistently produces anything like such a curve. If homeopathy is a science, then it is the only science subject where students cannot product a laboratory experiment that replicates one of the essential foundation results of their subject of study. That ought to be a damning enough fact in itself. It is exactly what we would expect from a pseudoscience.

Now homeopaths do claim that there are laboratory experiments that support their claims. Various types of experiment covering a range of physical measurement techniques have claimed to show differences between potentised solutions and controls. All appear to be characterised by a lack of adequate controls, lack of independent replication and lack of coherence with other experiments. The most often cited include Rey’s thermoluminescence experiments, which had a lack of proper controls, and Roy’s Raman spectroscopy experiments on ethanol that failed to source control solutions from the same stock bottle.

Sorry, Mark.....

All that you've quoted is "skeptic" spam posted on "skeptic" sites for re-posting by weak-minded individuals. "Skeptic" sites are sponsored by drug companies who paid weak-minded individuals $30 million to shill for them. Seems the competition is quite a threat to drug companies, and why wouldn't it be?

www.whale.to/p/quacks/html

Homeopathy - Proven Safe, Efficacious and Inexpensive to Boot

C Redd wrote:

Sorry, Mark.....
All that you've quoted is "skeptic" spam posted on "skeptic" sites for re-posting by weak-minded individuals. "Skeptic" sites are sponsored by drug companies who paid weak-minded individuals $30 million to shill for them. Seems the competition is quite a threat to drug companies, and why wouldn't it be?
www.whale.to/p/quacks/html
Homeopathy - Proven Safe, Efficacious and Inexpensive to Boot

Once again C Redd proves herself to be paranoid-delusional. Here is the sites disclaimer: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/about

"Who Funds This Site?
If I had a pound for every quack who has accused me of being in the pay of ‘Big Pharma’ I would be richer than if I was really in their pay.

It looks like accusing someone of just being a shill for evil medical interests is a standard way that quacks avoid answering the criticisms made against them. Its very shallow. An experiment can be good and a scientific conclusion sound even if someone is receiving money from someone you don’t like. I always try to criticise the science first – and then look for potential sources of conflict of interest if the science is found to be wanting. Quacks often do it the other way around. They use potential sources of conflict of interest as excuses for ignoring the evidence. Ignoring the science and just calling ’shill’ is tantamount to calling someone a fraud – but in a cowards way.

So, for the record. This site costs less than a hundred quid per year to run. I do stuff in my own time and do not rely on contributions. I do not solicit contributions. I will be opening a quackometer shop to sell the odd mug or t-shirt. Hopefully, this will cover my hosting costs. Any excess will be used to buy dodgy quack products or services in order to show how real they are."

BTW CRedd-ulous can you swear you have no connection to big placebo - I mean the homeopathic industry?

Dr_Nancy_Malik wrote:

The 130+ studies are published in the following 52 Journals (in alphabetic order)

That list would be relevant if you included the CONCLUSIONS of the studies.

Simply pointing out that people have done studies does not validate your claims.

For example, if I have alternative treatment X and people have run 500 studies, 490 of which are negative and 10 of which are no result, does that mean my new treatment is MORE valid than homeopathy?

Numbers of studies ARE important, but the OUTCOME of those studies is MORE important.

C Red and "Dr" M -

Are you guys able to do the math for a 30C solution?

Seriously?

I have a simple question, I want to see if you even CAN answer it.

If I start with 1 cubic centimeter (1 "cc") of a given "medicine" and take it out to 30C dilution as homeopathy recommends, I end up with a "potentized remedy".

However, if I wanted to skip the 30 sequential dilutions and instead just at the 1 cubic centimeter of material to a body of water sufficient to reach the dilution in one step, how big would that body of water be?

In other words:
How much water would I need to reach 30C serial dilution if I did it in one step?

You can round off.
Also, I recommend you start by converting centimeters to meters to kilometers, etc.

Let's see if you even CAN come up with the answer.

Here's one of the most recent studies proving homeopathy works:

"Homeopathic Symphytum officinale Increases Removal Torque and Radiographic Bone Density Around Titanium Implants in Rats"

"Conclusions: We conclude that S. officinale 6cH enhances, principally at the early stages of osseointegration, bone formation around titanium implants in rats' tibiae, based on radiographic and mechanical analysis."

Spin-Neto, R., Belluci, M.M., Sokakura, C.E., Scott, G., Pepato, M.I., Marcantonio, E., Jr.
University Estadual Paulista, Dept. of Periodontology, Sao Paulo, Brazil

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970094

The plant Symphytum off.(commonly known as Comfrey or knitbone)has been used to heal broken bones for generations. It was first used as an herbal medicine, i.e., the plant itself was prepared and used medicinally.

Prepared and used homeopathically, symphytum is known to heal broken bones so quickly that it should not be used until it is clear that the pieces of bone are properly aligned.

Readers here with an interest in reading the studies proving homeopathy works can find some of them at:

www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-...
www. avilian.co.uk/
or PubMed

C Redd wrote:

Here's one of the most recent studies proving homeopathy works:
"Homeopathic Symphytum officinale Increases Removal Torque and Radiographic Bone Density Around Titanium Implants in Rats"
"Conclusions: We conclude that S. officinale 6cH enhances, principally at the early stages of osseointegration, bone formation around titanium implants in rats' tibiae, based on radiographic and mechanical analysis."
Spin-Neto, R., Belluci, M.M., Sokakura, C.E., Scott, G., Pepato, M.I., Marcantonio, E., Jr.
University Estadual Paulista, Dept. of Periodontology, Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970094

The noticeable thing about this trial is the lack of mention of sample size. Maybe they compared several hundred rats or maybe two? We cannot tell.

Also a single trial like this is not evidence for homeopathy - it is published so other independant researchers can confirm or refute the findings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Flei...

Key aspects of a good medical trial are:

Prior plausibility.
Randomized control.
Blinding.
Large sample size.
Repeatability.

C Redd - I have never been paid to post nor am I associated in any way with pharma companies. Please keep your paranoid delusions to yourself.

Also please disclose to everyone any links you may or may not have to homeopathy manufacturers and homeopaths.

BTW C Redd - why are you not criticising Nancy Malik & Iqbal who are/were working in the homeopathy industry???

You are a hypocrite.

Mark wrote:

BTW C Redd - why are you not criticising Nancy Malik & Iqbal who are/were working in the homeopathy industry???
You are a hypocrite.

Our exposure to homeopathic treatment allows us to have sufficient information to write on homeopathy. What do you know other than lifting information from the web written by people who have no knowledge or experience of homeopathy? The choice of writers is quite exhaustive- computer programmer, pee-drinker and you?

Nuggin wrote:

C Red and "Dr" M -
Are you guys able to do the math for a 30C solution?
Seriously?
I have a simple question, I want to see if you even CAN answer it.
If I start with 1 cubic centimeter (1 "cc") of a given "medicine" and take it out to 30C dilution as homeopathy recommends, I end up with a "potentized remedy".
However, if I wanted to skip the 30 sequential dilutions and instead just at the 1 cubic centimeter of material to a body of water sufficient to reach the dilution in one step, how big would that body of water be?
In other words:
How much water would I need to reach 30C serial dilution if I did it in one step?
You can round off.
Also, I recommend you start by converting centimeters to meters to kilometers, etc.
Let's see if you even CAN come up with the answer.

Why do you need to write this every time? Because this is the limit of your knowledge about homeopathy?

I suggest you simply quote this number every time- saves a lot of writing effort for you and reading effort by all.

Why are you assuming that ONLY chemical drugs will have an effect on the human body? Emotions have far reaching effects!

"Conventional physics of inertia, acceleration, action-reaction relationships and the law of gravity has helped many innovations like the jet engine, rockets to outer space and many others. But the new quantum physics has turned this whole universe of scientists upside down. Similarly, conventional natural sciences did help medicine to grow to a certain degree but not beyond a particular point. If medicine were to learn its lessons from quantum physics, we would have had a quantum jump in our understanding of the human body and its functions. One or two examples might be in order. We presume that blood pressure is a product of cardiac output and peripheral resistance, based on the Ohm’s law of fluid flow. This law applies only to flow in straight tubes. There are no such tubes in the human body. Many drugs that we devised to control raised blood pressure based on this definition eventually failed to deliver the goods in the long run. Alpha-beta blockers should have been the best panacea for raised blood pressure; but, alas, they failed. On the contrary, beta-blockers, which raise the peripheral resistance, work well to lower raised pressures".

Human body has many surprises for the drug companies that are forced to withdraw drugs released after many years of RCT with investment of millions of dollars, when all these scientific drugs achieve is kill or maim people.

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you need to write this every time? Because this is the limit of your knowledge about homeopathy?
I suggest you simply quote this number every time- saves a lot of writing effort for you and reading effort by all.
Why are you assuming that ONLY chemical drugs will have an effect on the human body? Emotions have far reaching effects!

So, you are claiming what? That a homeopathic remedy contains "emotions" now?

I write this every time because the answer is SO ABSURD that I _MUST_ assume that you JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

Because if you KNEW THE ANSWER, you would go away.

I'll help, I'll give you a multiple choice.

In order to dilute 1cc of material to 30C in one step, I would need a volume of water the size of ...

a) a swimming pool
b) the Atlantic Ocean.
c) the entire Earth
d) the Sun
e) the Solar system
f) the milky way galaxy
g) None of the Above

The answer is G. In order to accomplish this dilution, you would add 1cc of material to a sphere of water 1000X bigger than the Milky Way Galaxy.

YOU GUYS ARE CLAIMING that doing that will CHANGE all that water into "magic water" which can cure disease.

That's the PREMISE of your argument.

But you are complaining that I don't have enough knowledge.

Give me a break. Total hypocrites

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
Our exposure to homeopathic treatment allows us to have sufficient information to write on homeopathy.

This statement is retarded.

I have exposure to riding in planes. Does that mean I have enough information to discuss their manufacture? No.

I have exposure to classical music. Does that mean I have enough information to discuss orchestral arrangement? No.

In this case, the fact that you take homeopathic remedies is in fact evidence that you DON'T have the necessary information, education or mental capacity to carry on such a discussion.

The PREMISE of homeopathy invalidate homeopathy in and of itself.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
This statement is retarded.
I have exposure to riding in planes. Does that mean I have enough information to discuss their manufacture? No.
I have exposure to classical music. Does that mean I have enough information to discuss orchestral arrangement? No.
In this case, the fact that you take homeopathic remedies is in fact evidence that you DON'T have the necessary information, education or mental capacity to carry on such a discussion.
The PREMISE of homeopathy invalidate homeopathy in and of itself.

If you have exposure of flying in planes, what will you stand for? Metal bodies weighing over 10 tons fly in the air at heights of 33,000 feet. Beyond this I doubt you have capacity to understand anything. I experienced your mental capacity and education level in another article.

I have firsthand experience of about 9 years of thousands of patients, including myself and my family being cured with homeopathic remedies. Many of these patients came after their malady was not resolved in the scientific medical system. Some of these patients were themselves doctors in the scientific system.

What more is required to prove the efficacy of the homeopathic system?

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
If you have exposure of flying in planes, what will you stand for? Metal bodies weighing over 10 tons fly in the air at heights of 33,000 feet. Beyond this I doubt you have capacity to understand anything. I experienced your mental capacity and education level in another article.
I have firsthand experience of about 9 years of thousands of patients, including myself and my family being cured with homeopathic remedies. Many of these patients came after their malady was not resolved in the scientific medical system. Some of these patients were themselves doctors in the scientific system.
What more is required to prove the efficacy of the homeopathic system?

But you are not medically trained so how do you know you were correctly diagnosed? Did you research these illnesses to determine their normal cycle as most illnesses will go without any treatment in a healthy individual?

For example if you get a head cold you can see a doctor or homeopath, get a remedy and recover in 7 days or you can just stay in bed for a week and recover. The only reason I see a doctor for a cold is to get a certificate for work.