From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Feb 23, 8:38 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> Clinical Studies:
> Homeopaths point to the nearly two hundred years of clinical
> experience of convinced doctors and satisfied patients. Homeopathic
> remedies are believed to be effective in treating a wide variety of
> illnesses: infectious diseases such as flu and colds; chronic
> conditions such as allergies, asthma, migraines, and PMS. Conventional
> medicine has not had much of success in treating many of these
> conditions.
> Several clinical studies exist that show the effectiveness of
> homeopathic remedies. Many of these studies employed double blind
> studies, accepted by scientists. Recent clinical trials suggest that
> homeopathic medicines have a positive effect on allergic rhinitis,
> asthma, treatment of dermatological complaints, fibrositis, influenza,
> and for the treatment of migraine.
> In 1994, the first study that involved homeopathy was published in a
> peer-reviewed American scientific journal. Jennifer Jacobs, M.D., led
> the study, which was conducted in Nicaragua and included eighty-one
> children with acute diarrhea. All the children received standard
> antidehydration treatment for diarrhea, consisting of water containing
> salt and sugar. In addition, half the children received homeopathic
> treatment and half received a placebo. The study confirmed
> homeopathy's effectiveness: the recovery time for children receiving
> homeopathic treatment was 20 percent faster than those receiving the
> placebo, reducing the bout of diarrhea by one day. These results are
> heartening because diarrhea is the leading cause of death in
> developing countries such as Nicaragua.
> In 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis of 107
> clinical studies published between 1966 and 1990. The authors found
> that in 81 of the experiments, the homeopathic treatments were
> successful. Even when they included only the 23 studies that they
> considered to be of the highest quality, the vast majority of these
> (15) showed positive results. Here's how the results broke down: 13
> out of the 19 trials of respiratory infection treatment were
> effective, 6 out of 7 were positive for other infections, 5 out of 7
> were positive for digestive system treatment, 5 out of 5 were
> successful for hay fever, 5 out of 7 showed accelerated recovery after
> surgery, 4 out of 6 helped in rheumatological disease, 18 of 20 were
> beneficial for pain or traumatic injury; and 8 out of 10 worked for
> mental or psychological problems.
> In one study published in Lancet by Dr. David Taylor Reilly and his
> colleagues compared the effects of a homeopathic hay-fever remedy with
> a placebo. In this double-blind controlled study, Dr. Reilly found
> that those who received the homeopathic remedy had six times fewer
> symptoms and were able to cut their use of antihistamines in half.
> Another study published in 1989 in the British Medical Journal dealt
> with fibromyalgia. The double- blind, controlled trial was also
> "crossed over," meaning the treatment lots were switched after one
> month so the subjects could be compared, not only with each other, but
> also with themselves. The results were evaluated by a rheumatology
> professional who was not a homeopath. The study found that the
> homeopathic remedy provided highly statistically significant
> improvement in both subjective and objective symptoms.
> In a double-blind controlled study conducted in Britain in 1980, 82
> percent of those receiving the homeopathic remedy enjoyed improvements
> in rheumatoid arthritis versus 21 percent of the control group on
> placebo. The subjects in this study received remedies that were
> individually prescribed.
> Other significant positive studies show homeopathy helps in pain
> following tooth extraction (76 percent versus 40 percent for a
> placebo}; reduces vertigo and nausea; reduces labor time in pregnant
> women (5.1 hours versus 8.5 hours}; and reduces risk of abnormal labor
> (11.3 percent versus 40 percent).
> Two double-blind studies compared Quietude, a combination of
> homeopathically prepared plant extracts that has been very popular in
> France, with diazepam (Valium). The subjects were adults and children
> who were nervous and suffered from sleeplessness. The results showed
> that the homeopathic product increased sleep time, reduced
> interruptions during sleep, and reduced nervousness. Both products
> relieved insomnia and minor nervous tension 63 percent of the time.
> However, the homeopathic remedy produced no side effects: there was no
> daytime dizziness, as opposed to 13 percent of the diazepam group.
> Homeopathic remedy group suffered no daytime drowsiness, but 53
> percent of the diazepam group felt drowsy. In addition, Quietude was
> better at reducing children's nightmares, and 74 percent of the
> Quietude patients said the product was better than other treatments,
> as opposed to 48 percent of the diazepam group who felt this way.
> A study, conducted in 1985, found that patients who took the
> homeopathic product Oscillococcinum, derived from duck heart and
> liver, experienced reduction in their fever much rapidly (in two
> days ) than those who took placebo. Shivering disappeared by day four.
> In another controlled study, published in 1989 in the British Journal
> of Clinical Pharmacology, 66 percent more of the Oscillococcinum group
> recovered within forty-eight hours as compared to the placebo group.
> Clinical studies show the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in
> treating infectious diseases. In a French study published in 1987,
> silica, prepared homeopathically to the 10c potency, stimulated
> macrophage activity by nearly 70 percent. Macrophages are white cells
> belonging to the immune defense system that destroy harmful cells and
> microorganisms. Homeopathic remedies were also shown to be effective
> in correcting immunological disorders in mice. In other studies, eight
> out of ten homeopathic remedies tested were able to inhibit the growth
> of viruses (in chicken embryos) by 50 to 100 percent.
> Other studies show the usefulness of homeopathic remedies in treating
> diabetes. A 1992 study examined sixty people with retinal problems due
> to diabetes. In approximately half of the patients taking the
> homeopathic remedy (Arnica), the eye condition improved; only 1
> percent of the subjects receiving placebo improved a like amount. The
> subjects were evaluated using objective measuring instruments,
> indicating that homeopathy may prove valuable in helping this group of
> diabetics preserve their sight.
> Conventional physicians often belittle homeopathic remedies and their
> effectiveness to placebo effect. However, several studies on animals
> and infants show that homeopathic remedies do work. Obviously, animals
> and infants are less likely to be influenced by placebo. In Germany,
> poultry farmers are treating their hens with homeopathic remedies
> instead of antibiotics for coughs, colds, and digestive problems.
> Farmers also treat their cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and birds
> homeopathically.
> Other animal studies add to the evidence. A 3x potency of Chelidonium
> lowered cholesterol in rabbits by 25 percent. Microdoses of Arsenicum
> (10x up to 30x; and 5c up to 15c) helped rats eliminate toxic doses of
> arsenic from their systems, a study that has important implications
> for humans who are increasingly exposed to many heavy metals in the
> environment. And pigs given Caulophyllum had half as many stillbirths
> as those who received a placebo.
> Homeopaths have been reporting good results when treating infants for
> common health problems such as teething, colic, eczema, and fever.

Excellent post!

Rather than consider the possibility of a scientific basis of
Homeopathy in the light not only of initial evidence that you have
adduced, but also the powerful and continuous reports of its use by
Doctors and other trained medical professionals, mainstream science
has, for the time being, apparently chosen to ignore the evidence and/
or immediately discount it by running to their safe haven, the
"placebo" explanation.

The cleverness and scientific usefulness of the "placebo" effect is
that it acknowledges, however begrudgingly, the Homeopathic curative
effect but then automatically disavows any connection with the
principles of Homeopathy as being part of the cause of the improvement
or cure. This nonsensical placebo "explanation" implies that
somehow, 200 years worth of MD's and other medical professionals have
fooled themselves silly - even right in the middle of cholera
epidemics, influenza and other major illness.

The drawback of this explanation is that the placebo effect, though
indeed quite real, ALSO has its mechanism completely unknown to
science and remains under research. To explain away one unknown
thing by pointing at and/or associating it with another unknown thing
is of course, mere distraction.

This attitude of dismissal is not new to science. The exact same
attitude was maintained for an astoundingly long time by the opponents
of Barry Marshall's discovery of H Pylorii as the cause of pyloric
ulcers. In fact, in response to the continued and QUITE UNJUSTIFIABLE
scepticism directed at him even after he had published major papers
and data demonstrating the correctness of his idea, Marshall decided
one day to eat some of the bacteria and, lo and behold, not long after
he demonstrated some of the initial symptoms of pyloric ulcer.

So FIXATED was the conventional view, that diet and stress were the
cause of these ulcers, that it took several YEARS after Marshall's
discovery for mainstream medicine to gradually (grumble grumble, well,
I guess he was right) discard their cherished WRONG theory.

Luckily there were NO 1023 demonstrators in those days to kill off
funds for research - otherwise people would still be having parts of
their stomach removed by surgery (YES, THAT'S HOW THEY FIXED ULCERS
YES, IT'S TRUE) as a "treatment" for pyloric ulcers. Note the
similarity with cancer surgery - excision is not a cure.

NOR is this attitude confined to research scientists or theorists.
The people who approved the Avandia drug at the FDA are the same ones
who must re-evaluate it and decide if it should be withdrawn. You can
imagine their embarrassment at having to admit that their earlier
approval was,apparently, in error. But this only after not months,
but YEARS, apparently, of warnings, studies and reports of increased
heart attack risks.

Citizen Jimserac

Citizen Jimserac
From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Feb 23, 10:16 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)> wrote:
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 9:15 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)> wrote:
> >> Jan Drew wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Clinical Studies:
> >>> Homeopaths point to the nearly two hundred years of clinical
> >>> experience of convinced doctors and satisfied patients. Homeopathic
> >>> remedies are believed to be effective in treating a wide variety of
> >>> illnesses:
> >> The problem: the remedies are believed to be effective by some, not
> >> proven to be effective by scientific methods. And, science casts big
> >> doubts on the homeopathy beginning with the fact that there is no known
> >> mechanism by which they can work or evidence that they do work.
> >> Jeff
> > no KNOWN mechanism - correct
> > or evidence that they do work - incorrect.
> > Cit J.
> I meant good scientific evidence. There is none. If I am incorrect,
> prove it.

I mean real cured people - patients who survive, improve and live.

Get it? LIFE. Hows THAT for evidence?

Citizen Jimserac
From: Happy Oyster on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:20:16 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac <jimserac(a)>

>> Homeopaths have been reporting good results when treating infants for
>> common health problems such as teething, colic, eczema, and fever.
>Excellent post!

No, it is not "excellent". it is bloody nonsense.

This I just found in the TG-1 forum:

Tuesday 23 February 2010


You are here: Parliament Home Page > Parliamentary Committees > Commons Science
and Technology Committee > S&T Homeopathy inquiry

Committee Home Page

Science and Technology Committee
Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy

Report published

The Committee published 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', HC 45, its Fourth Report
of Session 2009-10, on Monday 22 February 2010. The report included the oral and
written evidence.


In a report published today, the Science and Technology Committee concludes that
the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines
and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic
product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are
not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.

The Committee carried out an evidence check to test if the Government�s policies
on homeopathy were based on sound evidence. The Committee found a mismatch
between the evidence and policy. While the Government acknowledges there is no
evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect (where a patient gets
better because of their belief in the treatment), it does not intend to change
or review its policies on NHS funding of homeopathy.

The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that
homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo
effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically

The Committee concluded-given that the existing scientific literature showed no
good evidence of efficacy-that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not
be justified.

In the Committee�s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government
should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to
address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients,
which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of
placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government
claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information
needed to make choice meaningful.

Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,
prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and
unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.

The report also examines the MHRA licensing regime for homeopathic products. The
Committee is particularly concerned over the introduction of the National Rules
Scheme (NRS) in 2006, as it allows medical indications on the basis of study
reports, literature and homeopathic provings and not on the basis of randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) - the normal requirement for medicines that make
medical claims.

The MHRA�s user-testing of the label for Arnica Montana 30C-the only product
currently licensed under the NRS-was poorly designed, with some parts of the
test little more than a superficial comprehension test of the label and other
parts actively misleading participants to believe that the product contains an
active ingredient.

The product labelling for homeopathic products under all current licensing
schemes fails to inform the public that homeopathic products are sugar pills
containing no active ingredients. The licensing regimes and deficient labelling
lend a spurious medical legitimacy to homeopathic products.

The Chairman of the Committee, Phil Willis MP, said:

"This was a challenging inquiry which provoked strong reactions. We were seeking
to determine whether the Government�s policies on homeopathy are evidence based
on current evidence. They are not.

"It sets an unfortunate precedent for the Department of Health to consider that
the existence of a community which believes that homeopathy works is 'evidence'
enough to continue spending public money on it. This also sends out a confused
message, and has potentially harmful consequences. We await the Government's
response to our report with interest.�

Terms of Reference

In preparation for the establishment of the Science and Technology Committee on
1 October, the former IUSS Committee commissioned work to assess the
Government's use of evidence in policy-making. The Committee wrote to the
Government on a number of topics and asked two questions: (1) What is the
policy? (2) On what evidence is the policy based? The Government has now replied
and having considered the responses the Committee has selected Homeopathy for
its second Evidence Check.

The Committee invited short submissions on the following issues:

- Government policy on licensing of homeopathic products
- Government policy on the funding of homeopathy through the NHS
- the evidence base on homeopathic products and services.

Oral evidence

Previous sessions:
Monday 30 November 2009
Mr Mike O'Brien QC MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health;
Professor David Harper CBE, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection,
and Chief Scientist, Department of Health;
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency

Wednesday 25 November 2009
Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
of Great Britain;
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers;
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director, Boots;
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science;
Dr Ben Goldacre, Journalist.
Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital;
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula
Medical School;
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent;
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association.

Written evidence

Homeopathy written evidence

Press notices

20/10/09 Inquiry announced
11/02/10 Report to be published
22/02/10 Report published

Page updated: 22/02/2010 10:39

And here is the PDF of the expertise:

Die volle H�rte:
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung
From: Happy Oyster on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:59:52 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac <jimserac(a)>

>On Feb 23, 9:15�pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)> wrote:
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>> >
>> > Clinical Studies:
>> > Homeopaths point to the nearly two hundred years of clinical
>> > experience of convinced doctors and satisfied patients. Homeopathic
>> > remedies are believed to be effective in treating a wide variety of
>> > illnesses:
>> The problem: the remedies are believed to be effective by some, not
>> proven to be effective by scientific methods. And, science casts big
>> doubts on the homeopathy beginning with the fact that there is no known
>> mechanism by which they can work or evidence that they do work.
>> Jeff
>no KNOWN mechanism - correct
>or evidence that they do work - incorrect.

That is bloody nonsense.

Do not forget that we roasted the University of Leipzig for their messed-up

Die volle H�rte:
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung
From: Happy Oyster on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:38:45 -0800 (PST), Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)> wrote:

Homeopathy is fraud.

Fight for the rights of patients!

Die volle H�rte:
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung