Under fire: Doctors slam `bogus' therapy

The AMA article can be found here: http://www.ama.com.au/node/5498

The Medical Journal of Australia article can be found here: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/192_08_19...

Here's what real people have to say about homeopathy:

"Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of this age better than any other system or school of medicine."

Dr. Charles Menninger, M.D.
Founder, Menninger Clinic

"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."

Mahatama Gandhi

"...effective natural remedies that have no side effects..."

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
Professor, U. of Illinois Medical School and best-selling author

"Homeopathy is the safest and more reliable approach to ailments and has withstood the assaults of established medical practice for over 100 years."

Yehudi Menuhin
world famous violinst

"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."

Mark Twain

"There have been two great revelations in my life: The first was bepop, the second was homeopathy."

Dizzy Gillespie, great jazz musician

"Our best results" from homeopathic treatment with the Banerji Protocol have been with brain tumors. We have a 32% 5-year survival rate whereas conventional medicine has a 0.03% 5-year survival rate.

www.thehindu.com/mp/2010/04/08/stories/201004...

More real people -- pediatric oncologists from Columbia U.-- have this to say about homeopathy:

"We are impressed by the quality of life of pediatric cancer patients following the sole use of homeopathic medicines compared to the quality of life offered by chemotherapy, surgery and radiation."

www.pbhrfindia.org/Case-Studies

My apologies the link doesn't work. See:

www.pbhrfindia.org/index.php/Newsflash/Newsfl...

You can read "The well-known Columbia University in the USA has initiated an Integrative Therapies Program for Children with Cancer in its Division of Pediatric Oncology." at:

www.pbhrfindia.org/index.php/Newsroom/Press-R...

Well, I'm batting zero so far on the link to the quote of the Columbia U. pediatric oncologists who visited Banerji.

Please see:

www.pbhrfindia.org/

at top right (blue bar) click on "Newsflash"
then click on "Collaboration with Columbia University Continues"

C Redd wrote:

Here's what real people have to say about homeopathy:
"Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of this age better than any other system or school of medicine."
Dr. Charles Menninger, M.D.
Founder, Menninger Clinic
"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."
Mahatama Gandhi
"...effective natural remedies that have no side effects..."
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
Professor, U. of Illinois Medical School and best-selling author
"Homeopathy is the safest and more reliable approach to ailments and has withstood the assaults of established medical practice for over 100 years."
Yehudi Menuhin
world famous violinst
"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."
Mark Twain
"There have been two great revelations in my life: The first was bepop, the second was homeopathy."
Dizzy Gillespie, great jazz musician
"Our best results" from homeopathic treatment with the Banerji Protocol have been with brain tumors. We have a 32% 5-year survival rate whereas conventional medicine has a 0.03% 5-year survival rate.
www.thehindu.com/mp/2010/04/08/stories/201004...

Great quotes C Redd - 2 musicians, a politician (who drank his own wee each morning - full strength, not homeopathic)- exactly what medical qualifications does these people have?(Note you criticize James Randi debunking homeopathy because he isn't qualified).

Charles Menninger founded his clinic over 90 years ago - medical science & knowledge has progressed a great deal since then.

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.- there is always a nutter in every profession.

Mark Twain is an interesting one: http://www.coccyx.org/treatmen/homeo.htm

"Mark Twain and homeopathy
Many homeopathic websites dishonestly claim that Mark Twain was a supporter of homepathy. In fact he was not - Twain wrote that to take homeopathic medicine was to "bribe death with a sugar pill to stay away", and described the homeopathic physician as "a pleasant friend of death's". He did, however, believe that homeopathy had had one good effect - its popularity had forced ordinary 19th century medicine to become more scientific. He 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 [ordinary 19th century doctors] to destroy it."

Homeopathic websites often quote the last sentence out of context, as if Twain was a supporter. They never quote his description of the homeopathic doctor as "a pleasant friend of death's"."

And your favourite, the Banerji whose "doctors" have no idea what a scienctific trial is although they do have plenty of anecdotes.

C Redd wrote:

Well, I'm batting zero so far on the link to the quote of the Columbia U. pediatric oncologists who visited Banerji.
Please see:
www.pbhrfindia.org/
at top right (blue bar) click on "Newsflash"
then click on "Collaboration with Columbia University Continues"

One wonders why Columbia University are not promoting this association? Maybe they realised the Banerji Clinic is no better than an unlicensed cancer clinic in Mexico.

Here is what Columbia University Medical Center says about CAM: http://integrativetherapies.columbia.edu/Eval...

Evaluating CAM

Many patients with cancer perceive a benefit to the use of CAM therapies, yet most have not been adequately tested for safety, efficacy, and interactions with chemotherapy and radiation. Often, CAM therapies are available over the counter without the regulatory oversight or quality controls that govern conventional medications. In January 2005, the Institute of Medicine Report noted that the healthcare system should strive to be both comprehensive and evidence-based and should therefore hold conventional and complementary treatments to the same standards and use the same general research principles in evaluating both types of treatments.

Below are 3 steps in how to get started with clinical research of CAM therapies and children with cancer.

Step 1: Develop plausible data-based hypotheses
1: Assess the Risk-Benefit Ratio
Ask: What is known about the effectiveness of the CAM therapy? Is there any reported toxicity of the CAM therapy? How effective is the conventional anti-cancer therapy? Are there any known interactions?

2: Consider developing a Best Case Series to generate data that may be used for hypothesis generation.

3: Develop a systematic review to summarize existing data, refine hypotheses, estimate sample sizes, and help define future research agendas

Step 2: Decide what study design to use to evaluate the CAM therapy. Determine if there is enough known from observational and preclinical studies prior to implementing an intervention trial.

Step 3: Practical Issues to consider
1: Regulatory issues include submitting an IND application to the FDA if needed and obtaining human subject protection approval through an institutional review board and data safety monitoring board.

2: Because clinical trials can be expensive, sources of funding should be sought out. Sources of funding include institutional pilot funds, philanthropic support, private foundations, the National Institute of Health, and industry support.

Further research of CAM therapies with the use of the same general research principles that are used in evaluating conventional treatments is needed. Strong research designs are necessary to evaluate CAM therapies and ultimately influence clinical practice and public awareness. To review a listing of clinical trials on CAM, visit http://clinicaltrials.gov .

(Modified from the lecture:“Research Methods: Clinical Trials and Lessons Learned,” Kara Kelly, MD)

Homeopathy Exposed - Again!:

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/richard/r...

Wow, psychiatrists, pacifists and a jazz musician are your medical advocates here? Hahahaha, that's funny. I wonder what these people would say about homeopathy but can't since they are dead:

- Woman (55 yo): Hollymount, County Mayo, Ireland; A homeopath told her to give up her asthma medication. She later died of an asthma attack.

- Girl (17 months old): Ontario, Canada; Her parents, concerned about modern food additives, were advised to give her an organic vegetarian diet. She was also treated with herbal & homeopathic remedies and an energy machine. Her parents were convicted of neglect after she died from malnutrition and pneumonia.

- Boy (6 months old): Fulham, west London, England; The boy was born with a rare but treatable disorder, but his parents distrusted conventional medicine. A nurse/homeopath begged them to take him to a doctor, but they refused. He died.

- Woman (54 yo): Pelham, New Hampshire; She concealed the diagnosis of breast cancer from her family. She secretly consulted a naturopath and took homeopathic remedies. She also used quack treatments like blood irradiation. Her cancer raged out of control and she died.

- Mahendra Gundawar & 6 others: Chandrapur, India; Gundawar was a homeopath who sold a new tonic, recently introduced on the market, that was supposed to reduce fatigue. He himself died, along with several of his patients. Several others were blinded, and other cases occured elsewhere in India.

- Male (52 yo): Southsea, Hampshire, England; After stepping on an electric plug, he self-treated the wound on his foot using honey on the advice of his homeopath. A diabetic, his foot became gangrenous. He died, but doctors said if he'd sought help just 2 hours earlier he could have been saved.

- Male died in 2001: Patagonia, Arizona; He was injected with "bovine adrenal fluid" as a treatment for fatigue. He developed a gas gangrene infection and died. The family sued and settled out of court.

- Woman (37 yo): Los Angeles, California; She rejected traditional treatments for her breast cancer, instead choosing homeopathy. The eulogy at her funeral was later made into a one-man play called "Time Flies When You're Alive" which was shown on HBO.

- Male (68 yo), hospitalized with kidney failure: Columbus, Ohio; He saw a chiropractor for help with his back pain. He was treated with heat, herbs, tonics and homeopathy. Three days after his last treatment, he was rushed to a hospital and barely recovered. A judgment for $147,500 was awarded by a court.

- Male (42 yo): Trboje, Slovenia; A physician/homeopath advised him to use homoepathic preventatives for malaria prior to a trip to Africa. After he returned with the disease she continued to treat him with homeopathy. He died. Her license was revoked and she got two years probation.

- Girl (1 yo): Ashdod, Israel; Her parents disregarded a doctor's prescription of antibiotics and took her to a homeopath instead. She died.

- Girl (9 months old): Sydney, NSW, Australia; She was diagnosed with eczema at four months. Her father, who taught and practiced homeopathy, treated her using that instead. She died of sepsis caused by broken skin due to her eczema.

- Male (54 yo): Wick End, Stagsden, Bedford, England; This is a pointless death due to dental surgery while near death. He was dying of motor neuron disease, but a homeopath convinced him it was actually caused by mercury from his fillings. Knowing he was near death and could be killed by anaesthetic, his toxin-obsessed dentist replaced them. He died 16 days later.

And the list goes on....

To understand the fallacy of homeopathy get familiar with these ideas:

- Regression to the mean
- Illnesses are self-limiting
- Dead men tell no tales (the problem of reporting bias)
- Confirmation bias
- Vague outcome measures
- The Placebo Effect
- The Fallibility of Human Memory

Ask any homeopath this question, "Given the extreme scientific implausibility of homeopathy, and the overall negative clinical evidence, why do you continue to prescribe homeopathic remedies?"

They will answer, "Because I have seen it work in my practice"

The entire homeopath industry is based on anecdotal science at best. A vast majority is pure junk science.

silver surfer wrote:

To understand the fallacy of homeopathy get familiar with these ideas:
- Regression to the mean
- Illnesses are self-limiting
- Dead men tell no tales (the problem of reporting bias)
- Confirmation bias
- Vague outcome measures
- The Placebo Effect
- The Fallibility of Human Memory
Ask any homeopath this question, "Given the extreme scientific implausibility of homeopathy, and the overall negative clinical evidence, why do you continue to prescribe homeopathic remedies?"
They will answer, "Because I have seen it work in my practice"
The entire homeopath industry is based on anecdotal science at best. A vast majority is pure junk science.

try understanding what a conventional doctor writes:

"Science deals with our five senses only. What the senses can not measure and observe does not make science in the present paradigm. However, the observers’ consciousness impinges on the findings. An electron is what it is depending on who looks at it! When no one is looking at the electron, no one knows what the electron does!

There are a lot of things in this universe that our five senses can not realize and they exist all the same. Science does accept that what is known today could be proven wrong or replaced by a new theory tomorrow, but to say that what we don’t know today (or what does not fit into the present paradigm) is unscientific is illogical.

But that is exactly what scientism is trying to do.

To give a few day-today examples: we are not able to measure our thoughts, our emotions, and many of our actions based on those emotions and thoughts. Do they, then, fall out side the realm of science? Do thoughts exist? Do emotions have any role in human physiology?

If the answer is yes, then we need a change of paradigm in science, at least in medical science, where the RCTs (randomized controlled studies) have been sold as the last word in medical research. The truth is that there is everything wrong with this approach. No two human beings could be compared based on a few of their phenotypical features. The results are there for all to see.

Most, if not all, RCTs have given unreliable results in the long run. "

Homeopathy is quackery. There's nothing in it, literally. It's just a bunch of sympathetic magic, ritual shaking, and pseudomedical rhetoric.

We can't blame Hahnemann completely; after all, in his time the modern concept of a molecule would have been alien, and there were plenty of other quacks thinking up treatments off the top of their head. However, nowadays we know better.

Science has shown, thoroughly and repeatedly, that homeopathy doesn't work in patients. Separately, science has also learn much about simple physical and chemical concepts - such as "molecules" - that is incompatible with what Hahnemann wrote.

Homeopathy doesn't work. If you are unwell, I advise you to see a real doctor. If you think homeopathy is plausible, I advise you to read an introductory-level school textbook on chemistry.

bobrayner wrote:

Homeopathy is quackery. There's nothing in it, literally. It's just a bunch of sympathetic magic, ritual shaking, and pseudomedical rhetoric.
We can't blame Hahnemann completely; after all, in his time the modern concept of a molecule would have been alien, and there were plenty of other quacks thinking up treatments off the top of their head. However, nowadays we know better.
Science has shown, thoroughly and repeatedly, that homeopathy doesn't work in patients. Separately, science has also learn much about simple physical and chemical concepts - such as "molecules" - that is incompatible with what Hahnemann wrote.
Homeopathy doesn't work. If you are unwell, I advise you to see a real doctor. If you think homeopathy is plausible, I advise you to read an introductory-level school textbook on chemistry.

This is what a real doctor can offer you:

PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE:
cold and cough. Reason for ban/side effect : stroke.
Brand name : Vicks Action-500
__________
ANALGIN:
This is pain-killer. Reason for ban/side effect: Bone marrow depression.
Brand name:! Novalgin
__________
CISAPRIDE:
Acidity, constipation. Reason for ban/side effect : irregular heartbeat
Brand name : Ciza, Syspride
__________
DROPERIDOL:
Anti-depressant. Reason for ban/side effect : Irregular heartbeat.
Brand name : Droperol
__________
FURAZOLIDONE:
Antidiarrhoeal. Reason for ban/side effect: Cancer.
Brand name : Furoxone, Lomofen
__________
NIMESULIDE:
Painkiller, fever. Reason for ban/side effect : Liver failure..
Brand name : Nise, Nimulid
__________

NITROFURAZONE:
Antibacterial cream. Reason for ban/side effect : Cancer.
Brand name : Furacin
__________

PHENOLPHTHALEIN:
Laxative... Reason for ban/side effect : Cancer.
Brand name : Agarol
________!_

OXYPHENBUTAZONE:
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Reason for ban/side effect Bone marrow depression.
Brand name : Sioril
__________
PIPERAZI! NE:
Anti-worms.... Reason for ban/side effect : Nerve damage.
Brand name : Piperazine
__________
QUINIODOCHLOR:
Anti-diarrheal. Reason for ban/side effect : Damage to sight.
Brand name: Enteroquinol

ikz it doesn't matter if all pharma drugs killed people - their failure does not mean homeopathy works.

As for your constant quoting of anecdotes as evidence - if all your friends told you that the Hindustan Ambassador was the best car ever made while car magazines said it was rubbish after comparative tests against a Toyota - who would you believe? The one magazine test by experts or several dozen friends?

Mark wrote:

ikz it doesn't matter if all pharma drugs killed people - their failure does not mean homeopathy works.
As for your constant quoting of anecdotes as evidence - if all your friends told you that the Hindustan Ambassador was the best car ever made while car magazines said it was rubbish after comparative tests against a Toyota - who would you believe? The one magazine test by experts or several dozen friends?

Do not quote irrelevant topics!

The conventional medical system cannot evaluate a drug! Using the same yardstick it evaluates a homeopathic medicine and declares a negative result. What is the sanctity of this outcome? In the process it ticks off cures as anecdotes, placebo result etc.- terms specially coined for such eventuality.

Incidentally, if weight was the parameter to evaluate cars Hindustan Ambassador would beat Toyota hands down!

If many of my friends had tried two cars and their results would favor one, that would be my choice even if the magazine expert wrote otherwise. Magazines experts take money to print stories. Their brief is to make money for their company, not sell cars.

You should know this better than most, no?

It is not an irrelevant topic because it illustrates how anecdotal evidence cannot be relied upon.

You now claim all experts are on the take. Maybe that is the Indian way but not all cultures are that corrupt.

Go find your local Rationalists society although I believe you are beyond help.

Mark wrote:

It is not an irrelevant topic because it illustrates how anecdotal evidence cannot be relied upon.
You now claim all experts are on the take. Maybe that is the Indian way but not all cultures are that corrupt.
Go find your local Rationalists society although I believe you are beyond help.

Corruption is not only the Indian way. I can see it in Australia also. You forgot(?) to read the professional qualifications of Dr. Hegde while pronouncing him a quack! This is when he is the expert.

This is corruption and it is not linked to culture.

ikz wrote:

The conventional medical system cannot evaluate a drug! Using the same yardstick it evaluates a homeopathic medicine and declares a negative result. What is the sanctity of this outcome?

Ikkie, you've been asked repeatedly on multiple threads to provide us with real evidence in favor of homeopathy.

In all cases, you provide anecdotes.

So, since you can't provide positive information, let's see if you can provide negative information.

You claim that homeopathy is a working system. That the medicine has an effect.

Can you site a single example of someone mixing up their medicine? Of someone getting the wrong medicine? A husband with a skin problem taking his wife's sleep medicine for example?

Can you demonstrate that taking the WRONG medicine has a positive effect (for whatever that medicine is supposed to do) on a person who is expecting it to have a different effect?

If this stuff "works", then it should be completely independent of intent. If you give a person a "remedy", it should have an effect on them even if they were expecting a different effect.

So, case study? Hell, even anecdote that's not "my cousin's friend"?

Additionally, how about any overdoses? Surely, with so many people out there taking this medicine, someone somewhere must have screwed up at least once and produced a homeopathic remedy which is a billion times too strong.(though I am unclear if it would be because they didn't dilute it enough or if they diluted it too much. Perhaps you could explain. Is nothing X 1,000,000,000 more than normal nothing?)

What happens when someone takes it?

Nuggin, ikz is probably busy atm dispensing homeopathy at Mangalore airport. I can picture him charging into a disaster like that yelling "Don't panic a homeopath is here!"