Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason
Posted by gimpy on January 26, 2009
After reporting on the actions of the homeopath Jeremy Sherr who is carrying out unethical experiments on terminally ill AIDS patients in Tanzania my blog has become inundated with homeopaths supporting his actions. These range from those I have never heard of to Dana Ullman, an extremely prominent and notorious writer on homeopathy, and incidentally one who has some experience of the heavy hand of the law as a result of practicing homeoapthy. Not one supporter of homeoapthy appears to have a problem with Sherr’s actions.
Perhaps I have been remiss in not making clear the international norms for medical research, and research on AIDS specificially. First off there is the Declaration of Helsinki, the World Medical Association’s document guiding the use of human patients in medical research. These are its basic principles for medical research:
- It is the duty of the physician in medical research to protect the life, health, privacy, and dignity of the human subject.
- Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and on adequate laboratory and, where appropriate, animal experimentation.
- Appropriate caution must be exercised in the conduct of research which may affect the environment, and the welfare of animals used for research must be respected.
- The design and performance of each experimental procedure involving human subjects should be clearly formulated in an experimental protocol. This protocol should be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance, and where appropriate, approval to a specially appointed ethical review committee, which must be independent of the investigator, the sponsor or any other kind of undue influence. This independent committee should be in conformity with the laws and regulations of the country in which the research experiment is performed. The committee has the right to monitor ongoing trials. The researcher has the obligation to provide monitoring information to the committee, especially any serious adverse events. The researcher should also submit to the committee, for review, information regarding funding, sponsors, institutional affiliations, other potential conflicts of interest and incentives for subjects.
- The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved and should indicate that there is compliance with the principles enunciated in this Declaration.
- Medical research involving human subjects should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and under the supervision of a clinically competent medical person. The responsibility for the human subject must always rest with a medically qualified person and never rest on the subject of the research, even though the subject has given consent.
- Every medical research project involving human subjects should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks and burdens in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. This does not preclude the participation of healthy volunteers in medical research. The design of all studies should be publicly available.
- Physicians should abstain from engaging in research projects involving human subjects unless they are confident that the risks involved have been adequately assessed and can be satisfactorily managed. Physicians should cease any investigation if the risks are found to outweigh the potential benefits or if there is conclusive proof of positive and beneficial results.
- Medical research involving human subjects should only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the inherent risks and burdens to the subject. This is especially important when the human subjects are healthy volunteers.
- Medical research is only justified if there is a reasonable likelihood that the populations in which the research is carried out stand to benefit from the results of the research.
- The subjects must be volunteers and informed participants in the research project.
- The right of research subjects to safeguard their integrity must always be respected. Every precaution should be taken to respect the privacy of the subject, the confidentiality of the patient’s information and to minimize the impact of the study on the subject’s physical and mental integrity and on the personality of the subject.
- In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail. The subject should be informed of the right to abstain from participation in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. After ensuring that the subject has understood the information, the physician should then obtain the subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be obtained in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
- When obtaining informed consent for the research project the physician should be particularly cautious if the subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In that case the informed consent should be obtained by a well-informed physician who is not engaged in the investigation and who is completely independent of this relationship.
- For a research subject who is legally incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving consent or is a legally incompetent minor, the investigator must obtain informed consent from the legally authorized representative in accordance with applicable law. These groups should not be included in research unless the research is necessary to promote the health of the population represented and this research cannot instead be performed on legally competent persons.
- When a subject deemed legally incompetent, such as a minor child, is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the investigator must obtain that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorized representative.
- Research on individuals from whom it is not possible to obtain consent, including proxy or advance consent, should be done only if the physical/mental condition that prevents obtaining informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research population. The specific reasons for involving research subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent should be stated in the experimental protocol for consideration and approval of the review committee. The protocol should state that consent to remain in the research should be obtained as soon as possible from the individual or a legally authorized surrogate.
- Both authors and publishers have ethical obligations. In publication of the results of research, the investigators are obliged to preserve the accuracy of the results. Negative as well as positive results should be published or otherwise publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared in the publication. Reports of experimentation not in accordance with the principles laid down in this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.
Jeremy Sherr’s actions do not fit these principles. In addition to the Declaration of Helsinki, the UN have issued ethical guidelines covering research aimed at preventing AIDS, something Sherr claims homeopathy can do. These following Guidance Points are taken from the document and represent a summary of the relevant chapters:
Guidance Point 2: Community Participation
To ensure the ethical and scientific quality and outcome of proposed research, its relevance to the affected community, and its acceptance by the affected community, researchers and trial sponsors should consult communities through a transparent and meaningful participatory process which involves them in an early and sustained manner in the design, development, implementation, monitoring, and distribution of results of biomedical HIV prevention trials.Guidance Point 3: Capacity Building
Development partners and relevant international organisations should collaborate with and support countries in strategies to enhance capacity so that countries and communities in which trials are being considered can practice meaningful self-determination in decisions about the scientific and ethical conduct of biomedical HIV prevention trials and can function as equal partners with trial sponsors, local and external researchers, and others in a collaborative process.Guidance Point 4: Scientific and Ethical Review
Researchers and trial sponsors should carry out biomedical HIV prevention trials only in countries and communities that have appropriate capacity to conduct independent and competent scientific and ethical review.Guidance Point 6: Research Protocols and Study Populations
In order to conduct biomedical HIV prevention trials in an ethically acceptable manner, researchers and relevant oversight entities should ensure that the research protocol is scientifically appropriate and that the interventions used in the experimental and control arms are ethically justifiable.Guidance Point 7: Recruitment of Participants
In order to conduct biomedical HIV prevention trials in an ethically acceptable manner, participation of individuals should be voluntary and the selection of participating communities and individuals must be fair and justified in terms of the scientific goals of the research.Guidance Point 8: Vulnerable Populations
The research protocol should describe the social contexts of a proposed research population (country or community) that create conditions for possible exploitation or increased vulnerability among potential trial participants, as well as the steps that will be taken to overcome these and protect the rights, the dignity, the safety, and the welfare of the participants.Guidance Point 11: Potential Harms
Research protocols should specify, as fully as reasonably possible, the nature, magnitude, and probability of all potential harms resulting from participation in a biomedical HIV prevention trial, as well as the modalities by which to minimise the harms and mitigate or remedy them.Guidance Point 13: Standard of Prevention
Researchers, research staff, and trial sponsors should ensure, as an integral component of the research protocol, that appropriate counselling and access to all state of the art HIV risk reduction methods are provided to participants throughout the duration of the biomedical HIV prevention trial. New HIV risk-reduction methods should be added, based on consultation among all research stakeholders including the community, as they are scientifically validated or as they are approved by relevant authorities.Guidance Point 15: Control Groups
Participants in both the control arm and the intervention arm should receive all established effective HIV risk reduction measures. The use of a placebo control arm is ethically acceptable in a biomedical HIV prevention trial only when there is no HIV prevention modality of the type being studied that has been shown to be effective in comparable populations.Guidance Point 16: Informed Consent
Each volunteer being screened for eligibility for participation in a biomedical HIV prevention trial should provide voluntary informed consent based on complete, accurate, and appropriately conveyed and understood information before s/he is actually enrolled in the trial. Researchers and research staff should take efforts to ensure throughout the trial that participants continue to understand and to participate freely as the trial progresses. Informed consent, with pre- and post-test counselling, should also be obtained for any testing for HIV status conducted before, during, and after the trial.
Again it is clear that Sherr does not fit these principles. I apologise for this lengthy post but these are all points which will need to be referred to in the subsequent storm which will hit my comments box. This storm will be the result of the following email sent out by Jeremy Sherr to his supporters:
My homoeopathic friends,
In the past few days the Tanzanian AIDS project and I have become the target of the “anti homoeopathy” attackers in the UK. They have posted on both my blog, the “gimpyblog” http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/ and others with inflammatory speculation and erroneous conclusions about the Homoeopathy AIDS project.
We would like to bring this to the attention of the larger homoeopathic community. As many of you know, there has been an ongoing campaign to discredit and annihilate homoeopathy in the UK by posting false information and unfounded and inflammatory opinions. Their battlefield has now expanded to Tanzania.
In the attacks on the Tanzanian AIDS project they took parts of my blog and previous interviews from my website archives and contrived a story in order to further their desire to malign homoeopathy. They allege that I am persuading patients to use homoeopathy in place of ARVs, which is totally untrue. They claim that any research of homoeopathy is unethical as there is no proof that homoeopathy works. They even went so far as to claim that my treating AIDS patients in Tanzania with homoeopathy will lead to mass murder. These accusations are not only malicious, they are libelous.
Their tactics were not confined to regurgitation their thoughts online. One follower even phoned a UK organization that supports the AIDS project and also contacted UK and Tanzanian government officials, claiming that there was an ‘unethical’ project taking place.I am urging the global homoeopathic community to rise up in solidarity.
This is a tiny but dedicated faction who uses the internet blogs and the media to amplify their spurious attacks.
They have stated that they are determined to kill homoeopathy.
They have had negative impact on the availability of homoeopathy in the UK and are responsible for the closing of homoeopathy hospitals and clinics as a direct consequence of their campaign.
Here are some ways to show your support for the work of all homoeopaths worldwide and for the Tanzanian AIDS clinic.
1. MEET THEM ON THEIR OWN GROUND: Flood their blogs http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/ with posts on the benefits of homeopathy, using examples of your own experiences. They can argue endlessly about the theory, but what do they say to the hundreds of thousands of people who have had improved health?
2. USE THE INTERNET TO AMPLIFY HOMOEOPATHY’S VOICE.
Go to my blog and post your supportive comments on http://www.jeremysjournalfromafrica.blogspot.com
Let anyone visiting the blog see the overwhelming support for this project and homoeopathy in general. To learn more about the project, see my website http://www.dynamis.edu
3. PUT A STOP TO THESE ATTACKS. Homoeopathy is our beloved profession, our mission in life. Respond vigorously to any attempts to intimidate practitioners or to denigrate your passion to bring our gentle healing to others, wherever they may live.Meanwhile, I am returning to Tanzania to continue treating AIDS patients. In my first six weeks I have treated 100 AIDS patients with very promising results. We have a clinic administrator in the north where a high percent of the people have AIDS and where there are very few medical institutions. The situation is worse than I could ever have imagined, worse than anything shown on television or written in books. The patients are eager to use homoeopathy and I am eager to help them.
I and my colleagues are fully committed to establishing a treatment, teaching and research center in Tanzania. This is homoeopathy’s chance to shine. Please join us!
I will not address this email point by point, it will further add to the tedium of writing this blog post, but I will make these points.
Jeremy Sherr is a liar. He claimed support from Muhumbili University and the University of Maryland, neither of these instituitions claim any knowledge of or support for Sherr’s activities. Sherr also claims on his blog that he was not planning trials, this may be true now but only after he edited to remove mention of proposed trials. You can find his original blog posts at semiskimmed.net.
Jeremy Sherr shows no remorse, no consideration for the views of his critics and continued contempt for established ethical standards. His email contains no engagement with arguments against his actions, just exhortations for his supporters to share their admiration for him on my blog. Despite all that raised against him, the condemnation from Muhumbili University, the concerns expressed to his charitable backers, the Homeopathy Action Trust, and to the UN he persists in his folly. I have made attempts to contact Sherr and will send him the blog but I have had no reply so far, nor am I expecting one. I am considering what approach to take next now that I am certain Sherr will not listen to reason and nor will his supporters.
[BPSDB]
stavros said
Damn, when did all these things Sherr claims happen?!?
“They allege that I am persuading patients to use homoeopathy in place of ARVs, which is totally untrue.”
I have certainly seen people pointing out to him that having patient groups not treated with ARV is unethical -which it is. And even if he is not persuading them, it is still his responsibility to make sure no patient in his project would get any harm -i.e. not let them get off ARVs!
“They claim that any research of homoeopathy is unethical as there is no proof that homoeopathy works”
That is just a straw man: human AIDS trials with homeopathy without ARVs in the groups are unethical -not basic research, or properly designed trials!
“They even went so far as to claim that my treating AIDS patients in Tanzania with homoeopathy will lead to mass murder.”
That might be true
But when did anyone mention that?
PS. Good luck handling the dark armies of delusion… We’ll try to balance things out!
PS2. About 10 days ago, I tried to post 2 comments on his amazingly fallacious “Inquisition” post, but guess what? They got censored… No surprise there really. His response to criticism is straw men arguments without even a hint of evidence.
Bob O'H said
Ooh, no comments yet. The
floodtrickle must be coming…To the homeopaths that post here, let me be the first to say: “the plural of anecdote is not data”. Don’t bother saying “it worked for person X, so it must be true”. The only disorder I’ve found homeopathy to be useful for is a hangover.
Good luck with following this up, Gimpy.
Liz Brynin said
I fail to see what your problem is with Jeremy Sherr and his AIDs project.
A vociferous minority of the so-called ‘scientific establishment’ has already demonstrated (to their entire satisfaction if not to others’ satisfaction!) that a homeopathic remedy contains no active principles. Therefore, it can have no effect – is that not what you believe?
So where is the harm in trying homeopathic remedies, particularly as Jeremy Sherr states categorically that he does NOT encourage people to stop their anti-viral drugs.
You can’t have it both ways – either a homeopathic remedy has an active ingredient or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it can do no harm. Neither are there any risks.
brainduck said
Nice one Gimpy, this is seriously impressive stuff.
I’m actually taking part in an HIV vaccine trial in the UK, & to be allowed to do that I had to go through an insane degree of informed consent, including lots of being told ‘look, this DOESN’T WORK YET, we need to do squillions of trials before it might, maybe, possibly be shown to be useful’.
Wonder what Sherr is telling his trial participants by way of informed consent? *If* he’s been through a formal ethical review, the information & consent forms should have been approved then. Course, if he hasn’t, they won’t be.
jdc325 said
@Liz “I fail to see what your problem is with Jeremy Sherr and his AIDs project.”
I’ve read Gimpy’s posts on Sherr and I think the main problem he has is that Sherr’s proposed trial is unethical. Do you think that Sherr’s trial fits the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the UN’s guidelines on research looking at Aids prophylaxis? You seem to be under the misapprehension that Gimpy’s main concern is that homeopathic remedies are dangerous in and of themselves rather than that the proposed trial is unethical.
ross said
It is the total lack of self-awareness of Homeopaths that astounds me. They really don’t seem to realise that by defending the likes of Rath and Sherr they are killing their profession.
JQH said
Liz Brynin:
If you read Sherr’s pre-censored blog you will see he is claiming a patient has become HIV negative. He adds “AIDS can be cured – and will be”. Elsewhere he claims that homeopathy can cure AIDS and repeats all the canards about ARVs.
Dr* T said
Purely grammatical, but I would have said Gimpy is a “”homeopathy” attacker” and that someone like Liz Brynin is an “anti homeopathy” attacker.
Might just be me though.
Oh, fantastic post by the way – excellent bloggery.
Robin said
This explains the water-headed comments that have been appearing at my blog…
grammarking said
Wow, looks like a lucky few of us got in before the tide. You’d think they’d comment in smaller numbers for greater effect…
Liz Brynin: A remedy can do plenty of harm if it discourages people from getting real medicine. Sherr claim’s he’s not discouraging people from anti-viral drugs now, but he previously indicated that he would. His complete disregard for medical ethics is astounding.
What Jeremy Did on His Holidays « One Hundred Pounds said
[...] consultations, Jeremy has found time to plead his supporters to start a holy war. This explains the recent uptick in eloquent irrationality in the comments I’m [...]
Chris said
Bob O’H said “To the homeopaths that post here, let me be the first to say: “the plural of anecdote is not data”.”
:p
(not they have a clue as to what it means… now Simone is claiming real medicine is the #3 cause of death, uh huh… like that makes homeopathy any better)
Eric J said
What is your problem?
What do you have against Homeopathy?
I have used homeopathy many times and found that it works very well without side effects if the correct remedy is given.
I know you’ll spew off that it can’t be proven, but neither can many energy medicines ie: Reiki, Qi-gong, Accupunture.
If People are getting benefits from these healing arts, then why would you want to limit them , unless you work for a pharamceutical company which by the sound of your hate for alternative medicine you do!
I have had problems with my digestive system, I went to the “regular” allopathic Doctor and got many tests….they said nothing was wrong with me!
I then got sent to specialists and they put a camera up into me, the results came back… there is nothing wrong with me! But yet my stomach and intestines would kill and I wouldn’t go to the bathroom for weeks ( had to give myself enemas) I went to a homeopath and he gave me a remedy..it didn’t work, I then went back and got another one and now my body has returned to normal and I am healthy and feel like I used to!!
How do you explain that???
I mean you can say it is the placebo effect, but then wouldn’t the first remedy that I took have worked?
My opinion is that if it worked on me then I don’t care what it was as long as it worked!!
The pharmaceutical companies want us all hooked on their drugs as they are only concerned about making money!
Mark my words there will never be a “cure ” for cancer, ’cause the big companies make so much money off of the dying trying to stay alive!!
Lay off of Jeremy Sherr, have you ever even sat down and talked to the guy?
Peace
Neuroskeptic said
“3. PUT A STOP TO THESE ATTACKS.”
Yeah… good luck with that. Put a stop to us? That’s even less likely than homeopathy curing someone.
Rob Hinkley said
Eric J: “I know you’ll spew off that it can’t be proven, but neither can many energy medicines ie: Reiki, Qi-gong, Accupunture”
And they’re rubbish as well, with the exeption that qi-gong at least provides some gentle exercise. Or am I getting mixed up with tai-chi?
Ivor McCormack said
I recently (due to financial pressures) had to quit a course I was doing in Bioinformatics at NUI Maynooth. One of the more exciting things I learned was the growing field of targeted medicinal applications. Specifically those that could be given to people of particular genotypes who would benefit from them and not just mass market drugs. The sheer mountain that pharmas have to climb to be able to go in this direction is Huge! The ethical dimension is mind boggling, with questions abounding on whether it is right to cure the few while the many die.
Along the way, I cast off the notion that the application of herbal remedies and homoepathic practices were good. After all our ancestors chewed feverfew when they felt unwell or took st johns wort when they felt down. I cannot understand how rational, sane, modern people can now take a giant leap from what was infact very generalised old wives tales of anecdotal evidence of how this stopped my Kevin from breathing and he hasn’t looked back to curing AIDs, malairia etc. Good sweet divine nondenominational being, have we not gone through millions of years of evolution to arrive at a point where some people want us to revert to herbal eating morons.
What Sherr and his ilk is doing is wrong. Wrong on so many fronts that it would not be unfair to compare his misguided attempts at good to the evil experimentation of Mengele.
At the end of the day the herbal remedy industry is growing, its making money and proponents such as these idiot homeopaths are seeking ro replace the pharmas with another type of monopoly.
One last point, if what he claims is true, why isn’t he plying his trade in a location that would allow him to be more transparent? Why is he in Tanzania experimenting on these people? Why is the international community allowing him to do this? Why are those in power so gullible that they will listen to a man who is telling them only what they want to hear and not the truth? Answer these questions Jermey!
Slán
Smart Bombs said
How can this possibly be true? What outcomes in an AIDS patient can you measure after just 6 weeks?
I completely agree with Ivor. If he’s so sure about homeopathy being able to cure AIDS and HIV, why is he hiding away where he cannot be properly assessed? Surely he’d be able to design a trial in the UK: one group of patients ARV only, one group ARV + placebo, one group ARV + homeopathic remedy.
Paul said
“How do you explain that??? I mean you can say it is the placebo effect”
If we said it was the placebo effect, Eric J, we would be making the same elementary error that you do if you say it was the magic pill. It is (usually) illogical to assert the cause of a cure in any specific case but the most natural explanation in your case is that neither placebo nor any of the homeopathic ‘remedies’ you took were the cause.
Surely that is obvious?
Sceric said
ahh, so that explains all the homepaths in the other post ignoring your request for answering the one question about ethical behaviour…and “Eric” first ranting and complaining and then ending your e-mail with “peace” doesn’t go together, even if it is good for your vibes (quantum entangled??!!)
Wrysmile said
The pharmaceutical companies want us all hooked on their drugs as they are only concerned about making money!
So Eric are the homeopaths giving away their remedies for free? They really should I suppose since they contain no active ingredient.
Can anyone explain exactly what happens after you take the magic pill, biologically that is, within the body. Someone take me through it step by step, the actual process by which the remedy cures the patient.
stavros said
Wrysmile “Can anyone explain exactly what happens after you take the magic pill, biologically that is, within the body. Someone take me through it step by step, the actual process by which the remedy cures the patient.”
it is very simple actually: when the patient drinks the magic water, the tiny magical fairies inside his body will wake up because they will tune into the magical frequency of the magically shaken remedy. The fairies will then wander around the patient’s body and try to spot the evil trolls that are disturbing the life energy flow of the patient. The fairies will fight off the evil trolls because they are in a higher frequency than the trolls. The patient is then healed because his life force can flow through his body undisturbed. The fairies will then go back to sleep. It is interesting to note that the fairies cannot detect the evil trolls unless the patient receives the magical water -which will wake them up.
I think this pretty much sums it up. Any questions?
Nash said
Eric J at 13 “Mark my words there will never be a “cure ” for cancer, ’cause the big companies make so much money off of the dying trying to stay alive!!”
So you think that the people who work for Pharaceutical Companies don’t have relatives, loved ones or friends who had not been affected by cancer? One of my friends became a biochemist and now does cancer research because his mother died of breast cancer. The notion that he would or is holding back a cure that would prevent others going thru the grief he suffered is frankly offensive.
Warhelment said
I detect miasma.
Giovi said
You people make me weep for the very spirit of modern medicine… “First do NO harm”… this is exactly what homeopathy is GREAT for… DO NO HARM. It is very safe and effective and so therefore the only reason someone would be this adamantly against it is because their level of ignorance is so profound. Instead of judging and picking apart false statements and data… perhaps you should be treated homoeopathically yourself by a professional and then judge. I can’t believe that people are so cruel and so harsh without first opening their mind. “Your mind is like a parachute it only works if it’s open!!”
PLEASE DO MORE RESEARCH AND OPEN YOUR MIND BEFORE YOU TRY AND KILL A CENTURY OLD PROFESSION THAT ONLY SEEKS THE GREAT GOOD FOR ALL IN HEALTH AND VITALITY!!!
tom p said
Eric J at 13 “Mark my words there will never be a “cure ” for cancer, ’cause the big companies make so much money off of the dying trying to stay alive!!”
Cisplatin – 95% of testicular cancer patients are still alive 5 years after taking it. So 19 out of every 20 are cured. sounds like a cure for cancer to me.
Chris said
Giovi said “PLEASE DO MORE RESEARCH AND OPEN YOUR MIND BEFORE YOU TRY AND KILL A CENTURY OLD PROFESSION”
Irony alert: It is about two centuries old. It has nothing to do with “modern” medicine. I would suggest you do a bit more research into it yourself, then add in a bit of science education (who was Avogadro and why is he mentioned when it comes to any dilution more than 12C ?). You might figure out what the discussion is about.
stavros said
I am sorry Giovi but you are wrong on everything you say. First off, we know that homeopathy is NOT in fact effective. All meta-analysis have shown that it does not work better than placebo. See gimpy’s take on this, and you can have a look at my own discussion on the meta-analyses as well (although there are many other sources as well).
Second, who said that homeopathy is safe? If it prevents one from being properly treated then it is dangerous. And unfortunately this has happened too many times (for Malaria, AIDS etc.) A small but telling sample can be found here
curious1 said
This list is really something. I don’t have time to read all of it, but in the first bunch there are a few things I’d like to comment on:
Laurie Atikian: It seems to me that her parents weren’t consulting a homeopath, but rather a practitioner of herbology (amongst other things). He’s obviously a nut-bar, but I fail to see how two people watching their child wither away and die of pneumonia and malnutrition without seeking a second opinion becomes the responsibility of the herbologist.
The next one, Cameron Ayres, was unfortunate enough to have parents who were refusing (at the insistence of a homeopath and nurse) to take their child to an allopathic doctor. If homeopathy is benign, and they probably wouldn’t have taken him to a doctor anyway, then what is the harm in the practitioner prescribing? Again, this is a death caused by parental negligence.
Jeff Healey was a cancer patient throughout most of his life (which is why he’d been blind since childhood), and in this case chemo and other cancer treatments had failed to help him. Why does it become the fault of homeopathy that he eventually lost a long battle to cancer, after all else had failed him anyhow. Why did he have to turn to homeopathy in the first place, if the conventional medicine is so effective?
Several of these cases are similar to his. They were people who had tried our mainstream medicines, had gotten nowhere with them, and as a result had turned to an alternative (several of which have nothing to do with classical homeopathy, such as the injections of bovine adrenal fluid for the treatment of exhaustion. How on earth is there a similarity between the symptoms of exhaustion and symptoms experienced when injected with adrenaline? Does the person who compiled this list even understand the fundamental principals of homeopathy? Why are there several cases posted here under the heading “What’s the harm in homeopathy?” that clearly have nothing to do with the subject?
I agree that a homeopath advising a patient to quit allopathic medications is extremely irresponsible in many cases. But really, if the author of this horribly compiled list of “homeopathy induced deaths” is really committed to building a quackery case against homeopathy, then something legitimate, relative, and well thought out would be far more effective. This list reflects horribly on your point.
Personally, I think that each (conventional and alternative) has it’s place. I don’t have much experience with homeopathy, but the little I’ve had has been fairly effective.
I feel that to go either way is so drastically imbalanced, because I find myself:
a) wondering where the role of personal/parental responsibility lies in all of this. (I find it frightening, quite frankly, to think that anyone would entrust their lives to ANY type of health practitioner without questioning a thing)
b) wondering how many patients die each year as a result of malpractice in conventional medicinal treatment
c) questioning how many patients die each year while undergoing the most advance allopathic medical treatments available
Medicine is far from perfect, and I think there’s got to be room for alternatives. But it’s really up to the individual to think, gather information, and be responsible with the health of himself/his dependents.
stavros said
Well yeah, instead of “all meta-analyses” I should have probably said something like: “the current body of evidence from meta-analyses“…
Dana Ullman said
People who say or imply that homeopathy is “not effective” are simply providing misinformation and are not adequately informed about the body of evidence for homeopathy.
The Shang “review” in the Lancet was blown out of the water by two more recent and more comprehensive reviews of the research. Other studies and reviews that are worthy include:
References to water and homeopathic medicines:
–Site of Professor Martin Chaplin, a world renowned expert on water: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html and http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html
WB Jonas, TJ Kaptchuk, K Linde, A Critical Overview of Homeopathy, Annals in Internal Medicine, March 4, 2003:138:393-399. Although this is not a meta-analysis, it is still a very good review of the clinical literature in homeopathy.
Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza ‐ like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2007. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/485935. Four treatment trials (N=1,194) found “promising” results from Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza or influenza-like syndrome. Three prevention trials (N=2,265) did not find efficacy of Oscillococcinum in the prevention of these conditions.
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. Research conducted at the University of Vienna and published in the leading pulmonary medicine journal in the world, with substantially significant results, even if you take out the 3 best-responding patients given the homeopathic medicine. Reduced hospitalization stay by almost 50% and eliminated the need for reintubation.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo. People on homeopathic treatment also experienced changes in EEG readings. “Helpfulness from treatment” in homeopathic patients was very significant (P=.004).
Belon P, Banerjee P, Choudhury SC, Banerjee A., Can administration of potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum album, alter antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer in people living in high-risk arsenic contaminated areas? I. A correlation with certain hematological parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Mar;3(1):99-107.
Sunila ES, Kuttan R, Preethi KC, and Kuttan G. Dynamized Preparations in Cell Culture, eCAM. October 3, 2007; doi:10.1093/ecam/nem082
Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28.
The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature.
Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN.
From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and 2/3 of those 18 that scored 6 points or more and controlled contamination. Nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.
Banerjee, P.; Biswas, S. J.; Belon, P.; Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A, Volume 54, Number 7, September 2007 , pp. 370-376(7).
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0442.2007.00945.x
Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.
Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.
Responses to the “junk science” review of research published in the Lancet (2005) by Shang, Eggers, et al.: — Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.
–Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the improtane of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008 (These two reviews and re-analyses of the Shang data threw into doubt the narrow analysis of Shang and team.)
Mojo said
Giovi said, ““First do NO harm”… this is exactly what homeopathy is GREAT for… DO NO HARM.”
Yes, but it’s pants at everything else except the third element of the business plan:
“First, do no harm.
Second, ???
Third, profit!”
michele said
All those “knockers” of homeopathy have obviously never used it.
I, my family & friends have had wonderful results using homeopathic remedies.
Personally it is the only thing that worked for a long-standing chronic disease that no one else had any answers for.
I pity those that are steadfast in their ignorance.
getagrip said
I think you’ve got off on the wrong foot here, Gimps… from the email you published here Sherr is saying that people are continuing with ARVs (that’s the important bit because no one seems to have read that) and he’s giving them homeopathic remedies alongside so what’s the problem? And there doesn’t seem to be any trials taking place so the rest of the comments aren’t relevant either.
I think you have to be careful when you’re busting because if you get it wrong you’ve busted yourself. And as for the blogger that compares Sherr to Mengele – take care, my friend, your imagination seems to be getting the better of you – that’s a serious allegation.
Dr. Nancy Malik said
Homeopathy cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails
Wrysmile said
Dana
Stop just cutting and pasting crap and answer my simple question at 20
Here i’ll ask again, although I think stavros at 21 was about right although i like to know more about how the faries can spot an evil troll.
Can anyone explain exactly what happens after you take the magic pill, biologically that is, within the body. Someone take me through it step by step, the actual process by which the remedy cures the patient.
jaycueaitch said
The Malik spambot has struck again. Does she ever say anything else?
stavros said
Oh, Dana stop being so pathetic. You didn’t even understand Lüdtke’s study, did you? If anything it just states the obvious about meta-analyses!
If you actually read the paper you realize that they messed around with the trial set *post-hoc* until they got a *marginally* favorable and seriously underwhelming odds ratio (and that only using a random-effects model, with a meta-regression model they still could not get any positive effect)!
We all know that Shang’s conclusion still stands strong -as are all other meta-analyses conclusions. It is just that some of you will never accept it. And please, instead of cherry-picking the literature, have a look at my previous comment
michele said
Those of us who have been cured don’t care how it works, we just know that it has for us.
“They” didn’t know how aspirin worked but it did & there probably wasn’t an outcry because there was money to be made.
I don’t know any homeopath making pots of money. It is a very inexpensive form of treatment hence its popularity in 3rd world countries.
Derrik said
Danna, that isn’t an argument, that’s just a random selection of unrelated studies. You are seeing the equivalent of faces in the clouds, finding apparently meaningful patterns in what is merely random background noise.
If there was a meaningful story to be told it would look a bit like this:
In the early 1980s Jon Doe and Jack Sprat, in consultation with professional homeopaths developed a holistic wellbeing measurement tool based on a questionnaire for patients. This questionnaire was optimised over several pilot studies to ensure it was short enough not to be arduous to patients and simple enough that patients could consistently return the information really desired. Despite critics In the homeopathic community pointing out the questionnaires deficiency in recording certain factors its consistency and simplicity have made it a vital tool in homeopathic trials, to be used in combination with objective clinical measures, ever since.
Throughout the late eighties and early nineties a series of studies showed the efficacy of individualised homeopathic remedies for a number of serious physical and mental conditions. A serious test for homeopathy came when Sarah Jane and Jill Hill, carrying out a review of studies to date, noticed a discrepancy between the symptoms recorded for the remedy “Dishwasher Effluent” and those this remedy had cured in practice. This remedy was proved again and this time the symptoms predicted by Sarah and Jill were recorded. Since then half a dozen remedies have been re-proved in the light of efficacy studies and each time the predictions of the clinical homeopaths were found to be correct. These experiments provided a firm empirical bases for the theory connecting provings to clinical practice and critics of those provings that had failed first time around enabled the radical improvement of the proving process and a dramatic increase in the rate of new remedies becoming available.
In the 21st century further investigation of homeopathy reviled the importance of the practitioner to patient recovery. A three arm study compared patients treated by homeopaths of over 25 years experience, those treated by homeopaths of less than 10 years experience and those treated by a computer algorithm based on “fuzzy sets” showed that those homeopaths with less than 10 years experience were little better for their patients than the computer, but that homeopaths with more than 25 years experience achieved substantially better results for their patient than either the computer or inexperianced homeopaths. Such results have again focused attention on the intuitive nature of homeopathic proscribing and………
So you see; three phases of study, each made possible by the preceding phases and building on them in a coherent manner. First the tools required to carry out studies are developed. Next a series of experiments are carried out, which provide fresh insights, some at odds with previously accepted practice. This dissonance enables a real test of the coherence of the theory and the empirical data that underpins it. This test is passed, which gives confidence to the enterprise. Finally having a strong body of work to draw on and a refined methodology, studies move on to look at more subtle aspects of homeopathic practice.
This is exactly what homeopaths haven’t got, and aren’t persuing, as you disappear up your own fundaments constructing ever more convoluted theories based on misunderstood quantum theory.
Returning to the point of this blog:
Honestly if Jeremy could organise an ethical and competent study I’d be all for it. Such a thing seems to be possible, I wonder why he prefers an incompetent, unethical, “non-study” instead.
Mojo said
Dana wrote, “Responses to the “junk science” review of research published in the Lancet (2005) by Shang, Eggers, et al.: — Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.
–Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the improtane of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008 (These two reviews and re-analyses of the Shang data threw into doubt the narrow analysis of Shang and team.)”
And here are a couple of responses to those papers:
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/shang-study-remains-firmly-in-water.html
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-know-i-said-life-was-too-short.html
Of course, you already know about the first one because you posted a response, and I’m sure you will have gone back to see that your “concerns” were addressed, but it is possible that you haven’t noticed the second one yet as you have so far failed to appear in the comments to it. Perhaps you’re waiting for it to appear in Homeopathy.
gimpy said
I’m seriously considering filtering comments here. This discussion is not about the evidence for homeopathy, but about Sherr’s disregard for established ethical considerations. All the evidence you need to discuss the ethics of this situation is above.
Nadine said
It is interesting that the debate has become like a religious one, with some people claiming that they have the truth and they are good and going to heaven and all others are bad and going to hell!
The real goal in any work we do is does it help the people concerned or not. Is the work productive and constructive?
To find out if Jeremy Sherr’s work is of value or not we need to ask the people he has treated. Have they benefited or seen any positive changes whilst under his care. If many say yes they have then he has done good; if many say they have been disadvantaged then he certainly has to review his project.
Whom of you is willing to interview these people?
Robin said
Nadine, the ethics are a little more complicated than that. The vulnerable have a right to be protected.
Lavender said
Nadine, It is no good reviewing a study after it’s been completed, and discovering that people have been disadvantaged or harmed by their participation. Harm *has* occurred to some participants in some studies in the past (in various disiplines, which is why clear codes of ethics have been developed in all research disciplines. Not just health.
I am not a health professional. I do understand research design and ethics, and the disregard that has been shown in Mr Sherr’s approach is egotistical, and upsetting.
If Mr Sherr cares for the wellbeing of these people, then you should expect he would bother to ensure he has the best possible research design. This would mean that the study was worth doing becuase it would produce trustworthy date, and that the ethical protections for people taking part would be the same as for people in first-world countries. Do people from thirld-world nations deserve less?
Terminally ill people are particularly vulnerable people, and serious attention should be given to the ethics of any research being conducted with (not ON) them.
getagrip said
Gimpy said Sherr was planning trials (not actually performing them). Surely planning or considering trials is ok as long as the correct protocol is implemented? And many trials are planned and then abandoned because of various obstacles that occur in the planning process.
So… if there are no actual trials being performed and Sherr is giving homeopathic treatment (again, presumably to people who want it) then he is free to give and they are free to receive. If we’re saying that is not the case, that they are not free to give/receive, then it implies that any person with AIDS, even say in the UK, is not permitted to use homeopathy alongside their ARVs. So what if they want to use it – not to cure their AIDS – but to help with headaches or nausea or any of the normal stuff that we all have problems with? Are we saying that sick people don’t have the right to choose alternative treatment (even if other people don’t believe in it)? Or that sick people don’t have enough common sense to be allowed that freedom? Sick people are vulnerable and must be protected – and, at least in the UK, they are – but they must also be protected from enforced regimes too, as must we all.
We should think hard before advocating reducing the freedoms of any sector of society, including sick people. Freedom is extremely precious and once lost, very hard to win back. It is one of the things that make the UK a pleasant place to live for us all and we all have a responsibility to preserve it. Was it Voltaire that said “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. It still stands.
Stephanie said
To all those who go out of their way to slam Homoeopathy let me say this.
I have been a Homoeopath for about 16 years. I did a 4 year course which cost me thousands of pounds that I really could not afford, and was very hard work, but I loved it. The course was made much harder by the fact that I was in terrible pain with Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Many of my patients are children who come with a variety of ailments such as Anxiety, Asthma, Eczema, Constipation and recurrant infections of the ears, tonsils etc. Once treated most come back to the follow-up with improved health. Therefore the infections are less frequent or not at all, and they continue to get better and better. Anxiety rates drop and the child is able to cope with stress. Asthma improves, Eczema starts to move out of the body.
Oh and by the way I don’t have Rheumatoid Arthritis any more.
Any medicine which improves the state of the immune system, which Homoeopathy obviously does, has to be good for any one with AIDS.
Jeremy Sherr is doing a good job with his attempts to help these people, and he will get some good results, but not always, and, believe me, he will not be making much dosh…there is not much of it in Homoeopathy. The money is in pharmaceuticals, but down that route there will never be a cure.
Please, stop knocking the man and stop knocking Homoeopathy until you know what you are talking about.
stavros said
Stephanie:
“The money is in pharmaceuticals, but down that route there will never be a cure.”
Do you know how much money, effort, and person hours have been spent by those evil pharmas in trying to find a vaccine for AIDS? Also, demonstrating your ignorance: do you have any idea how much improvement ARV drugs have brought to patients? Life expectancy has risen spectacularly in the last couple of decades.
“Please, stop knocking the man and stop knocking Homoeopathy until you know what you are talking about.”
Please Stephanie, tell us what are we talking about? Are you going to convince us with anecdotes? Or with science? Because in science, we like evidence. And the evidence point to placebo. Thank you very much.
Nash said
Stephanie
Did your course cover ethics? I know for a fact that a current degree level course only includes this as an optional module. Have you read the Helsinki Declaration in Gimpys post or on the original sites?
Is Jeremy Sherr exempt from these? If so, on what basis? Don’t confuse good intentions with ethical behaviour. Bear in mind the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you are a SoH member then I suggest you read their ethical guidelines. He breaking a few of those as well.
“Anxiety, Asthma, Eczema, Constipation and recurrant infections of the ears, tonsils etc.” are very different from HIV/AIDs.
Sceric said
“I did a 4 year course which cost me thousands of pounds that I really could not afford”
is this a new kind of logical fallacy?? perhaps called “marekting effect”?? Stephanie: Something beeing expensive doesn’t make it automatically good, or better then cheaper ones…and by the way a “free” university degree would have told a bit more about reasoning…
Nash said
Stephanie
Doctors do a full time 5 year course followed by another 2 years full time in a clinical setting. Then some may do another 2 years study after that. So it can take anywhere from 7 to 9 years to be a fully qualified doctor. You are not superior or even their equal.
dt said
I once treated a child who had a raisin stuck in his ear. Can I call myself a homeopath now please?
Warhelmet said
Hang on a minute. Does the Tanzanian government’s decision to revoke traditional healers’ licences to stop the killing of albinos also affect Jeremy Sherr?
getagrip said
I think we need to get back to the point which is Jeremy Sherr’s treatment…
Gimpy gives us a quotation from the Declaration of Helsinki regarding medical trials. Firstly, having looked at Sherr’s blogs, he is not running a trial although he does talk about running one in the future. But if we’re going to talk about trials, point 4 states:
“This independent committee should be in conformity with the laws and regulations of the country in which the research experiment is performed.”
Sherr makes the point that the treatment he is giving ie homeopathy, is legal in Tanzania under the Tanzanian Alternative and Traditional Medicine Act of 2002. I checked it out and that seems to be true.
Gimpy also quotes from the UN issued ethical guidelines aimed at the prevention of HIV. Nothing I have read from Sherr indicates that he says he can prevent HIV although he does quote a case from another homeopath who had a patient that changed from being HIV+ to negative. He does say that AIDS can be cured, which it might be – we don’t know yet but hopefully that’s one of the things medical science is working towards. And if, in Sherr’s bumbling around Africa, he occasionally stumbles across a case where that appears to have happened, then I guess statistically it’s more likely to happen there than anywhere else and there would have to be some study undertaken to ascertain what made the difference ie ARVs or homeopathy or better nutrition or spontaneous remission etc.
So, as far as I can see, Sherr is operating legally in Tanzania, is not requiring people to stop ARVs, and is not running a trial – so what actually is the problem?
I know people don’t believe homeopathy works but if that’s correct then Sherr is bascially going around doing nothing but wasting his time and no harm is coming to the people of Tanzania. The only problem might be is if homeopathy does actually work and might cause harm to already very sick individuals. So, people, are you mad because it doesn’t work or because it does? And let’s not go down the giving-them-false-hope route because from what I’ve read they have very little to be hopeful for.
JQH said
Sherr repeatedly denigrates evidence based medicine and claims that homeopathy will cure AIDS. The logical conclusion of believing these two things is persuading people to abandon ARVs in favour of homeopathy. If this happens people will die because homeopathy is ineffective against AIDS.
Of course, if Sherr is willing to say categorically that those with HIV/AIDS should take ARVs if they wish to stay alive then I will withdraw the above conclusion.
Pete said
I think that Getagrip has sussed what is going on. Makes a change from Homeopaths bleating about how homeopathy works and sceptics ding bouncing back proclaiming that Sherr is conducting a clinical trial because he says he is.
Sceptics please recall how so many homeopaths consider multiple anecdotes to equal a clinical trial- Many still dont get it? Why should Sherr be any different? Missunderstanding of what a clinical trial is not manslaughter- nor is bluster and hyperbole on a blog a crime. I think that Sherr is just talking to people for maybe half to one hour who may or maybe on ARVs and he is NOT trying to stop medication. For those not on ARVs it is because of resources. Then he gives them a ‘magic’ sugar pill which the sceptics say does nothing. Then he collates the anecdotes.
So if Sherr is operating legally in Tanzania and the authorities there are ok with this then what is the problem?
If the above is all correct and he has local support and not making claims to cure AIDS then I expect Sherr to stay in Tanzania as he is doing no harm. The Tanzanians will decide on this and I doubt if they would like ‘experts’ of any kind from a former colonial power telling them whats best for them. They will consider that they have their own experts to decide where to go from here with Sherr and his clinic.
draust said
Just for info, the training time for a real MBChB (or equivalent) doctor to “fully trained” is only minimally 9 years – this is the time for 5 yrs degree + 1 or 2 years “pre-registration” working in hospital (time before you are formally licenced as a doctor) + 3 yrs (absolute minimum, most take longer) to qualify as a GP. At which point you would still be considered pretty inexperienced. If you aspire to be a hospital consultant it will be 5-7 yrs minimum AFTER you are licensed, so at the very least 11-12 years after you started University. Usually it is more – for people starting medical school at 18, the age at which they become consultants is typically 35 or even older.
As far as I can see Nash is spot on about the startling lack of ethical insight among the homeopathic “community”. It appears their position mostly amounts to “homeopathy cannot possibly do anything bad, so there are no big ethical dilemmas, ever”.
Of course, the potential chain of events “…therapist tells impoverished African “homeopathy can cure your AIDS” – African believes spiel and stops attending free HIV meds clinic and taking ARVs – African dies of AIDS…”
…would highlight the absurdity of the homeopaths’ “ethical” position. See Rath in South Africa for an analogy, as Gimpy has repeatedly argued.
I am totally flabbergasted that the homeopaths commenting here cannot even seem to recognise the ethical issue, let alone get to grips with it. If yet more proof that homoepaths are utterly unfit to be regarded as a “healthcare profession” were required, their attitude to Sherr and his “work” IS that proof. Indeed, it practically screams it from the rooftops.
Cybergibbons said
We’ve got no idea what Sherr is doing though. He may not be running a trial. He may not be convincing people to come off ARVs. But equally he could be.
His blog posts were highly arrogant and very much suggested he was intending to carry out a worthless unethical trial. He has claimed to be affiliated with institutions who want nothing to do with him, which I would term lying. He is obtaining funding for this through a UK charity, which I personally feel is underhand if he is not clearly stating his intentions. He has deleted a lot of blog posts, so clearly feels that what he previously said should not be out in the open.
In addition, it’s not a crime to say these things on a blog, but being a high profile homeopath, you are certain to attract attention.
The homeopathic community must address these issues. Your repetition of the same fallacious, idiotic arguments is not helping the matter.
So many aspects of the homeopathic community are similar to a cult. You leap to defend each other without looking at the underlying issues. Paranoia seems to be a fairly widespread condition – big pharma is out to get you etc. The recent posts on a popular forum by several members deny the existence of aids, physically threaten people, and contain homophobic comments.
Warhelmet said
Yes but, no but…
Current medical ethics are the result of a reaction to a whole series of systemical failures, some of which are in living memory. And arguably, are still going on. Yes, medical science has delivered huge benefits to mankind but it’s delivered a whole heap of fail as well. Medical ethics are the result of a process and they are a work in progress.
I thought that infallibility was the perogative of Popes, and even the Catholic Church has rejected it (well, sort of, but…). However, homeopaths seem to have picked up the mantle.
It’s like the Enlightenment never happened. Homeopathy is, from an anthropological viewpoint, essentially sympathetic magic. In the west, witches aren’t burnt. There are places in the world where witches are still burnt.
getagrip said
Cybergibbons says: “We’ve got no idea what Sherr is doing though. He may not be running a trial. He may not be convincing people to come off ARVs. But equally he could be.”
In order to keep debates like this real we have to use the truth as far as we can establish it. We can’t just automatically assume someone is doing something intolerable just to better fit our own arguments/axes to grind.
If we can’t keep it real these forums become worthless speculation and/or ranting which might be entertaining, might help people vent their spleen but don’t actually move the debate along.
dt said
His latest blog entries indicate he is randomising treatment to cases he has recruited, giving blinded homeopathy/placebo in addition to ARVs, and objectively recording the outcome in a blinded fashion.
(Only joking…..)
He appears to be treating isolated cases, and recording how much better they feel after he has seen them.
All so very sciency, I’m sure…
http://jeremysjournalfromafrica.blogspot.com/
These cases raise another very pertinent ethical point. Not content with breaching ethical codes about the treatment of patients, Jeremy is now breaching codes of confidentiality.
It is totally unacceptable in medical circles to reveal confidential medical information about patients who, even if not named, might be identified as a result.
Jeremy has posted sufficient personal details about all his patients including when he saw them to reveal who they are to someone else who might know them. Granted, not many may in Tanzania may have internet access, but in these days of cheap appropriate technology provision through schools in the 3rd world, and with keen local interest having been prompted by the world famous homeopath in their midst, it is quite feasible that the schoolfriends of the 14 year old who had TB from when she was 5, recently has had shingles on a leg and now her neck might see Jeremy’s blog and will figure out that one of their friends has both HIV and genital warts.
Nice one Jeremy. I’ve some advice for you. No doubt you will read it, as you are browsing this blog. The hole is big enough already. You can stop digging now.
Warhelmet said
It’s interesting to note that homeopaths NEVER mention their failures. One of the most difficult things that health professionals have to deal with is that sometimes they fail. Patients get worse, and in the worst case they die. I know a few medics and whatever their discipline, the death of a patient touches them very deeply. I’ve had the conversation where a medic questions their vocation as a result of their inability to help an individual.
Oh god, yes, I’ve met the terribly arrogant consultant more than once. As an informed consumer of health services, I will tell them off and do the “I’ll take my custom elsewhere” bit. Ahem, it does help that my missus is a director in an acute trust.
Do woos care? Do they question what they do? Never seen it, never heard of it. Dogma seems to win out over conscience. Oh, and the Daily Mail as well.
dt said
Also, he admits breaching one of his own rules, that of paying the patients who come to see him.
(He paid the girl’s school fees, as she could not afford them.)
This is somewhat reminiscent of Wakefield paying kids to take their blood.
It also makes it more likely that patients will come to him for treatment, if they think they might benefit financially. If doctors gave money to patients, I bet most of them would feel a bit better. I know I would if my GP gave me a fiver when I consult him about my flu.
And what do you think to the chances of a patient actually saying they are “no better” to the generous doctor who has just paid their school fees?
Warhelmet said
Oh, and I forgot to mention that science learns from mistakes and errors. I see no mention of error in Sherr’s blog.
michele said
Didn’t someone suggest he was in it FOR the money?
Cybergibbons said
In order to keep debates like this real we have to use the truth as far as we can establish it. We can’t just automatically assume someone is doing something intolerable just to better fit our own arguments/axes to grind.
As I said, everything that Sherr has done suggests that he wants to run an unethical trial, and he has also lied. This places suspicion on him, and he has done nothing to counter this. The homeopath community has made the situation worse by not even recognising that there could be an issue here.
The deletion of posts and response to criticism has made the situation worse – it certainly looks like there is something to hide.
homeopath said
If Jeremy can do some good in Africa with homeopathy then why do you knock him for it? Homeopathy is a SAFE and EFFECTIVE form of medicine. Drugs are expensive and the people that Jeremy is treating in Africa are desperate. I can’t see what you’ve got against him Gimpy. It’s not as if he is making millions. In fact I don’t know any rich homeopaths. We do it because we know it works and we want to help others. If I wanted to make a fortune I wouldn’t be practising homeopathy, that’s for sure. It is the joy of seeing people get better that makes it worthwhile … even if we do have to put up with endless, pointless attacks from the likes of you.
On the ethics question about degrees: I have done a homoepathy degree. It took me four years of hard slog and yes, there was a module on ethics. We are well aware of our ethical responsibilities.
Jeremy has my wholehearted support.
Stephanie said
Jeremy Sherr is not experimenting on these people he is trying to help them…ever heard of giving credit where it is due?
Did I say I was superior to Doctors? I don’t think so. But I can say I have cured some immune system problems…find a Doc who can say that. A lot of you are missing the point….immune system problems are often treated successfully with Homoeopathy…sorry if you don’t like it but that is the case. It happens with tiny children who have no idea what is going on, so when they get better we know it is working…not anecdotal but clinical evidence when it keeps happening.
That conclusion is not rocket science, neither does it need a man in a white coat to confirm it.
AIDS is an immune system problem, therefore it is not unreasonable to hope that Homoeopathy can help……
THINK before you come up with these feeble answers to things you know nothing about….and you are wrong, Homoeopaths are very aware of their failures, which is why most of us study and continue our education to try to avoid them.
Warhelmet said
Ah, homeopaths are very aware of their failures?
Stephanie, really, how can you say that in good conscience given the evidence? Unless, of course, you have a special definition of evidence. Coincidence does not automatically imply causation. And this is the reason why us skeptics what a higher level of evidence that the homeopathic community seem unable to supply. But the problem with your definition of evidence is that applied to, say, legal process, you would convict lots of innocent people and many of the guilty would get off – in fact, they would never even be considered a suspect.
I’m going to ask you a very difficult question. Have you ever harmed someone as a result of treating them with homeopathy?
Nash said
Stephanine
If Homeopathy strenghens the immune system then it will not be useful for autoimmune diseases, which rather rules it out for treating Rheumatoid arthritis, Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Addisons disease.
“Did I say I was superior to Doctors? I don’t think so. But I can say I have cured some immune system problems…find a Doc who can say that.”
This statement implies that you are superior to doctors.
getagrip said
Can we please bring the debate back to actual fact?
Ok, Sherr has deleted some posts from his blog – that’s not a legal/ethical issue. He has said that he would like to do a trial in the future – not a legal/ethical issue either (unless, in the future, he actually starts one without the proper protocol).
Sherr’s behaviour might appear suspicious and we should certainly watch what is going on out there but at the moment he doesn’t appear to have transgressed the laws of the country he’s operating in. So we must conclude that in spite of the fact that some of us disagree with the fact that homeopathic treatment is being offered, Sherr is not actually doing anything wrong.
Warhelmet said
@Getagrip…
Whether Sherr has transgressed the laws of Tanzania is a moot point. The very law that allows him to practise is under scrutiny as the result of albinos being killed by witch doctors. I am going to email the Prime Minister of Tanzania about Sherr.
draust said
Getagrip, we were not discussing whether what he was doing was illegal under Tanzanian law. We were discussing whether it was ethical, and what the statements Sherr has made tell us about his mindset, his intentions, his understanding (or rather lack of) of the ethical issues, and so on. I would refer you, inter alia, to Cybergibbon’s comments #56 and #64.
I will only say that, if a real doctor had made the sort of comments Sherr has made, and if there had been a complaint about them, then the sorts of things Cybergibbon and others have been pointing out would be precisely the kind of issues that a “Fitness to Practise” investigation / hearing would be looking into.
getagrip said
Draust, there is nothing unethical about Sherr:
a) not running a trial,
b) allowing people to continue with ARVs if they have been prescribed then, or
c) prescribing homeopathic treatment in a country that allows it.
He might be arrogant. He might not want to counter the claims made on this blog (or others). He might make stupid comments that a doctor wouldn’t make. And we might find these things undesirable but they aren’t unethical.
We might interpret his comments in ways that make us question his motives but again, it doesn’t mean he is actually acting unethically.
If we are going to accuse someone of acting unethically then we have to be really sure of our ground not base it around our own thoughts and feelings on the matter.
Paul said
Not running a trial, nothing unethical about Sherr?
http://semiskimmed.net/woo/jeremy_sherr_AIDS/two-meetings.html
+ ethical guidelines above.
Get a grip on the facts, Getagrip.
Nash said
getagrip said at 69
“Ok, Sherr has deleted some posts from his blog – that’s not a legal/ethical issue. He has said that he would like to do a trial in the future – not a legal/ethical issue either (unless, in the future, he actually starts one without the proper protocol).”
Considering the nature of what he originally wrote and then deleted it is an ethical issue. Can you tell us which version of Jeremy Sherrs story is the correct one? Now or in his original posts? Why did he claim to have the support of Muhumbili University when he doesn’t?
If his original posts were not accurate, then why post them? If you can’t see the ethical dimension surely you must ask yourself, why is he changing his story? Why should we believe anything he says now or in the future? People who keep changing their story are not reliable.
mark said
Gimpy is the Bill O’Reilly of modern medicine. He shouts down the opposition making points on subjects he knows nothing about. In true Bill O’Reilly fashion, he marshals his arguments without connection to the facts and does not take his opposition seriously. He will be successful only in rallying like-minded philistines to his cause. Good luck, Gimpy!
gimpy said
Mark, how about engaging with my arguments? But since you are a M.D. albeit one who cites Sherr as a mentor, perhaps you would like to respond to Sherr’s claims that he can treat AIDS successfully with homeopathy. Do you think this is an appropriate claim to make? What would happen if you, as an M.D., went to Tanzania and acted as Sherr has?
jaycueaitch said
Mark,if Gimpy is like O’Reilly, why are his critics posts still here? O’Reilly refuses to let people put their point across if they disagree with him – to the extent he has their mike turned off if they persist. Haerly a valid comparison.
Not only are you resorting to ad hom attacks, you are resorting to stupid ones.
Stephanie said
No I have never harmed anyone with Homoeopathy.
Alan Henness said
Stephanie said: “No I have never harmed anyone with Homoeopathy.”
It’s certainly true that your pills have not harmed anyone in themselves (since they contain nothing but sugar and have no effect), it is entirely possible that you have deterred or delayed customers from seeking proper medical help when it was needed. It is that that could harm someone.
Warhelmet said
Stephanie,
Interesting. So, homeopaths do make errors but magically these errors cause no harm? That I find difficult to believe. I don’t think that you would find a medical doctor who would take that line – incorrect diagnosis that leads to incorrect treatment that allowed a condition to become worse would be viewed as harm.
If you are wanting to separate the remedies themselves from the practitioner – OK, you have never harmed anyone with homeopathic remedies but have you ever treated someone whose condition has become worse whilst under your care? And why did their condition become worse?
And do you ever send people away because you can’t treat them? Are there limits to what conditions you would seek to treat? Is there such a thing as a hopeless case in the world of homeopathy?
I ask these q
Warhelmet said
Sorry. I ask these questions because your position is either one that is based on special definitions of common words in english that have fundamentally different meanings to the man on the Clapham Omnibus or you are self-deluded. I hesitate to say dishonest.
Warhelmet said
Stephanie.
You still have rheumatoid arthritis. Or you never had it in the first place.
My understanding is that rheumatoid arthritus is incurable. The symptoms can be controlled but that’s it.
Pete said
Hows is your email to the President of Tanzania going Warhelmet? I am sure that he is flattered by your interest- at least you are trying to help- even if I think that you are pointlessly wasting your time as the Tanzanians will decide on Sherr for themselves and not need help from UK experts who know what is best for them.
Huge profits are made by BigPharma but the problem lies with the shareholders not BigPharma itself who in effect own the companies. If shareholders sacrificed for example half their share dividend that would free up at least a few billion pounds for medical help- It isnt going to happen though is it? If we want to talk ethics then we should talk about how ethical it is for shareholders to collect their dividends when millions could be helped with the these billions. As Big Pharma shares are owned in effect by most of us via pension funds, investment funds and equities then most of us are to blame when we sit by and allow millions to die. If we are interested in ethics then attentions would be better focused on this area.
Robin said
Jesus Pete,
what a weird mismash of nonsense. What the hell have the huge profits of “big pharma” got to do with Jeremy Sherr? Stay on topic or go to alt.misc.inabilitytoengageinreasoneddebate, where they will welcome you with open arms.
Warhelmet said
@Pete – duh. What has “Big Pharma” got to do with this? I am merely intrigued by thought that the Prime Minister’s decree may also apply to Jeremy Sherr.
And in the wonderful world of teh internets, I can ask the question. Doesn’t mean that I’ll get an answer.
Oh, have you ever heard of the Wellcome Trust?
Nash said
Found this link courtousy of jdc
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/news_real/lifestylehealth/health_tom/4009169.The_old_remedies_that_still_work/
I’ve reproduced the relevant section below.
Nash said
Here’s the section for the post above (86)
[...] how many people know that a dreaded disease was consigned to history in more than 16 countries this year? It’s called filariasis, and the worm larva that causes it produces ‘elephantiasis’ – huge swellings of the legs and other body parts – that totally disables the person unfortunate enough to catch it.
It used to rage around the South Pacific islands and most of Africa. The South Pacific is now free of it, and so are Sri Lanka, Zanzibar and Togo.
That doesn’t sound like much, perhaps, but when you consider that only a few years ago it affected 120 million people worldwide, you get some idea of the massive success story. Much of the credit must go to the pharmaceutical companies who provided the drugs to kill the filaria – free of charge. One of them was the United Kingdom’s Glaxo Smith Kline. Why is it that the media never seem to give credit where it is due?
Stephanie said
Oh dear Warhelmet,
You just don’t get it do you?
In the world of Orthodox Medicine Rheumatoid arthritis is incurable. In the world of Homoeopathy we don’t treat symptoms or diseases, neither do we diagnose. We treat people with symptoms by stimulating the body’s defence mechanism to repair itself. Therefore it is perfectly logical that a faulty immune system can repair itself, just as a broken finger repairs. This is what happened to me. I had a chronic “dis-ease” which I no longer have…and yes my blood tests are now all normal.
Homoeopaths do make mistakes, of course, we are human. The big difference in Homoeopathy is that a wrong remedy may not help the person, it certainly will not harm or kill. I would rather be on the end of a wrong Homoeopathic remedy than an Orthodox drug as the outcome is usually very different.
People make their own choices about the way they are treated. If someone choses not to see their doctor that is their affair. My preference in chronic cases would be to work alongside a GP or Consultant. Some are open and interested, others are resistant and disrespectful. I have never met one who is hostile. Many Doctors now practice a bit of Homoeopathy, mostly after a short course, which is usually inadequate. Others have done a longer and more intensive course and even given up Allopathic medicine to become full time Homoeopaths.
Yes of course there are hopeless cases…that is part of life and people do die! But Homoeopathy, as in Orthodox medicine, can help people die well.
No i have never sent anyone away. Why would I? If they want to go they are free to, it is their choice not mine. I do my best as do the doctors and any other practitioners that a patient may have, to support people who need it. Nothing sinistre just caring as best we can.
I have never claimed, and neither would any Homoeopath claim that Homoeopathy is a panacea. But neither is Orthodox Medicine.
Warhelmet said
Ah, and I’ve done some more research and the Tanzanian Prime Minister’s directive does not apply to Jeremy Sherr. The Tanzanian Alternative and Traditional Medicine Act of 2002 makes a distinction between Traditional Medicine (TM) and Alternative Medicine (AM).
Non-Tanzanian citizens can apply for a temporary registration as a AM practitioner if they fulfill a number of criteria. I won’t detail them all but they must produce “any degrees or certificates from a recognized institute”. Hmm. And they must affliate themselves with a local institution. OK, Sherr studied at College of Homoeopathy in London. Of course, Sherr is registered because it is a criminal offence to practise without registration.
Rather than quote snippets from it, you can find it at http://www.lrct.or.tz/documents/23-2002_The%20Traditional%20and%20Alternative%20Medicines%20Act,%202002.pdf
There are some things in there that make me do a double-take. However, let’s be clear about some of the things that Sherr has said.
“I am concerned about AIDS and twenty five million people dying in Africa. Whole populations are being wiped out and billions of US dollars are being poured into allopathic nonsense.”
“I believe we have got to go out there and say, “Look, this is what homoeopathy can do in AIDS cases; here are the figures, here is the research, it is all watertight.” Billions of US dollars go to AIDS in Africa every year; if a small fraction went to homoeopathy, can you imagine what we could do? But nobody is going to give money or resources to anything anecdotal. I can show fantastic AIDS cases on video, where you clearly see people getting better and coming off their drugs.”
“You have to find willing partners and get a protocol through an ethics committee, and you need to talk their language. I hope it will work but if not, I will just go and do it on a small scale myself – I am determined to do that.”
Ethics committee? Pah! I sneer at your ethics committee!
Warhelmet said
Stephanie,
There are cases of spontaneous remission of RA. A quote…
The course of rheumatoid arthritis cannot be predicted in a given patient. Several patterns of activity have been described:
1)a spontaneous remission particularly in the seronegative patient within the first 6 months of symptoms (less than 10%)
2)recurrent explosive attacks followed by periods of quiescence most commonly in the early phases
3)the usual pattern of persistent and progressive disease activity that waxes and wanes in intensity.
Nash said
Stephanie
“In the world of Homoeopathy we don’t treat symptoms or diseases, neither do we diagnose. We treat people with symptoms by stimulating the body’s defence mechanism to repair itself.”
Proper doctors also treat people with symptoms. Real doctors treat people with disease.
Earlier on you said that homeopathy strengthens the immune system. Now it repairs. Which is it? The two aren’t the same.
Nash said
Stephanie
On your expensive course, was ethics covered. Can you give an example of when you shouldn’t treat a patient?
Pete said
Robin and Warhelmet
I was just pointing out the bigger picture of a $10 billion shortfall regarding supply of AVRs to developing countries and the ethics of this. BigPharma and the generic companies are in effect owned by most of us as they are public limited companies. I wasnt blaming the companies themselves who no doubt do as much as they can without spooking shareholders. If you believe that AVRs save lives and you want to save millions of Africans then efforts should be directed in this area of somehoe facilitating this $10 billion. If you want to chase Sherr around Africa the go ahead- You wont save any lives. Get your blood pressure tablets ready as I think that he will be allowed to continue as the Tanzanians will consider that he has done and is doing no harm.
That was my point- sorry if it read as nonsence and sorry if it still does.
Warhelmet said
Stephanie – in the words of House M.D. “patients lie”. Surely this must pose a problem when treating the person, not the symptoms?
Stephanie said
Nash you really are a nit picker!
Remedies strengthen and repair….they improve the entire level of health of the patient be it animal or human.
Yes ethics were covered. However if someone asked me for help and I was able to do so I would. The only time it would be really unethical would be if another Hom was already treating that person. I have never been in a situation which felt unethical so hard for me to give another example off the top of my head. Sorry.
Warhelmet…yes lying could be a problem and I have detected it once or twice so would use it as a symptom. Actually most people just want to feel well so are only too pleased to tell their story. Generally speaking people who come have already done a degree of Orthodox which has failed so Hom then becomes an option. However there are many people, and it is increasing, who bypass the doctor and go straight to Homoeopaths…or other professionals…..and before you jump on me for that one we are well qualified in pathology too.
Stephanie said
Spontaneous remission is perfectly possible early on but not after years of chronic pain and deformity…I still have the deformity but no RA.
When a Homoeopath gives a remedy it is not given flipantly and then we hope for the best. There are certain actions and reactions that we are monitoring and need to see before we know we are on track…it is not like popping an Asprin.
I can see how you folks believe so strongly that Homoeopathy is a con. It seems to be based on very little with no experience at all. Just because you don’t want to believe something doesn’t mean you are right, and in this case you are very, very wrong.
homeopath said
So then Alan, I suppose you think my patients just got better by sheer chance! Try telling them that the remedies had nothing whatsoever to do with their improvement! They now recommend me to all their friends cos they feel so well.
If, and I hope it never happens to you, you develop a chronic illness then try hpthy and see for yourself. I did, and I never looked back.
Paul said
Well, Homeopath, if we (temporarily) follow the ‘reasoning’ employed by you and your fellow homeopaths, there is evidence enough in this blog alone for us to conclude that homeopathy causes severe cognitive impairment. With so many so horribly afflicted, this is surely a medical emergency and homeopathy should be banned immediately.
Sceric said
Thanks Paul. Even if not nice, but oh so true!
By the way thanks, to all the rational people on this comment (and the related ones) and compliments on your stamina countering non-arguments and delusions.
My highest regards (especially to Gimpy, who is refraining from censoring)
Sceric
Dt said
Pete,
There may be a $10 billion shortfall in funding for ARV upscaling in developing countries.
If Boiron put its revenue from sales of homeopathy nostrums into ARVs, they could cover about 5% of this bill. This would treat maybe 2000 AIDS patients, potentially saving their lives.
How many lives would this money save when spent on buying homeopathy?
Chris said
Sceric said “(especially to Gimpy, who is refraining from censoring)”
Wanna bet.
Alan Henness said
Homeopath said: “So then Alan, I suppose you think my patients just got better by sheer chance!”
Not just chance, but there are a load of other well-known factors why your customers might attribute their feeling better to a sugar pill. You should make yourself aware of these so you don’t get fooled yourself.
“Try telling them that the remedies had nothing whatsoever to do with their improvement!”
Just send me their details…
“They now recommend me to all their friends cos they feel so well.”
Wow! They have friends who also don’t know that homoeopathy doesn’t work!
“If, and I hope it never happens to you, you develop a chronic illness then try hpthy and see for yourself.”
If I ever develop a ‘chronic’ (ie long-lasting) illness, then I’ll consult someone who has the necessary medical training, knowledge and experience. I would also expect him or her to have passed a basic biology exam and had the patience, perseverance and ability to have passed an accredited degree in proper medicine and who is registered with the General Medical Council and licensed to practice medicine.
“I did, and I never looked back.”
Good for you.
Stephanie said
I must admit that I am fascinated by this blinkered view that won’t even allow some of you people to look beyond the end of your noses. Actually it is very unhealthy to be so narrow minded. You would be very good candidates for Homoeopathic medicine.
As for Delusions we deal with them every working day, it’s what we treat….but then if you knew anything at all about Homoeopathic medicine you would have known that.
Warhelmet said
Returning to the subject… The more I look into stuff, the more sympathy I have with Sherr viz the fact that he says he has tried so hard to get funding for what he wants to do. On the other hand, the more intense the shiver that runs down my spine when I come across him dissing HAART and reverting to homeopathic type. Sympathy does not mean agreement.
Has Jeremy Sherr done a proving of Mars bars? I’m sure that it would be an excellent nosode for Type 2 diabetes. Not.
Putting aside my little jolly wheeze at Jeremy Sherr’s provings, oh god, that’s some of the bizarre incomprehensible stuff that homeopaths do.
The thing that chilled me to the bone was the statement I saw in an interview…
“I have decided that the main aim is to get out there and cure as many people as possible. I know, as all homeopaths do, that you can just about cure AIDS in many cases. But shhhh… I’m not allowed to say that, so you didn’t hear it. With the little funding that I have I will start working in Sigsbert’s existing clinics seeing as many AIDS patients as I can. Together with Margot Diskin from Ireland we will check out the northern areas of Tanzania and see if there are more opportunities to treat the sick. That is the first, high and only mission.”
Just about cure AIDS? Fuck me. It’s a strong claim. Evidence now! And his talk of “allopathic nonsense” belittles 30 years of work by clinicians and researchers in the fight against AIDS. It ignores a whole corpus of evidence that HAART does make a difference to mortality and morbidity.
To all those homeopaths and homeopathic supporters who have come to Gimpy’s Blog – do you support Sherr’s assertion that homeopathy can “just about cure AIDS”? Pure and simple. That’s my question. No questions about whether you believe that homeopathy works. Do you support Sherr’s statement?
Warhelmet said
@Stephanie – Narrow-minded? Et tu brute (am I might thave got that quote wrong).
You mistake pragmatism for idealism. You mistake anecdote for evidence. You mistake coincidence for causation.
But forgetting all of that, do you support Sherr’s assertion that homeopathy can “just about cure AIDS”?
Warhelmet said
Sorry folks if I am spouting stuff. A friend has just tested HIV positive. Trying to convince him to start HAART as soon as possible is proving difficult because he is in the denial stage. It’s very difficult to be rational when presented with the possibility that someone you know might die sooner rather than later.
Friends are getting together. We are trying to hook up our friend with an experienced counsellor from the Terence Higgins Trust. We are trying to find someone who has lived with AIDS for years to tell him that it is not the end of his life. To tell him that the sooner he starts HAART, the better his life expectancy.
I do not want to belittle anyone’s personal experience of homeopathy but this is seriously bad shit.
Warhelmet said
@Pete – I largely argree with you about the shortfall in funding for HAART. Yes, it is reprehensible. However, if I remember correctly, did not both South Africa and India want to do a legislative thing where they could produce ARVs at cost through their own pharmaceutical companies but something cropped up at a WTO meeting? The issue is not so much Big Pharma but rather Intellectual Property type stuff and an unwillingness of western governments to coerce Big Pharma to relax a bit on IP (they fear the grey market) or to stump up something to cover the short fall. It’s a failure of commerce and politics, not a failure of science.
Emma said
SORRY BUT HATE TO TELL YOU, HOMOEOPATHY WORKS… I HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES. IN INDIA THEY CAN’T AFFORD DRUGS AND SO THEY GO TO HOM. HOSPITALS, TREATED BY HOMOEOPATHY ALONE. I REPEAT HOMOEOPATHY ON ITS OWN….. NO DRUGS. AND I HAVE SEEN THINGS BEEN CURED BY DOING BEFORE DURING AND AFTER MEDICAL TESTS SUCH AS BLOOD TESTS. I HAVE SEEN SOME CASES OF CURES OR GREAT IMPROVEMENTS OF SERIOUS ILLNESSES LIKE AIDS, ITP, LEUKAEMIAS, PSYCHIATRIC CHALLENGES. I HAVE SEEN PETS AND BABIES IMPROVE FROM ILLNESSES SOON AFTER TAKING THEIR DOSE OF HOMOEOPATHY. GUESS WHAT? PETS AND BABIES DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT A PLACEBO IS….. THEREFORE IT MUST BE ACTIVE. MY NIECE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO BACK TO HOSPITAL WHEN SHE WAS A NEWBORN BECAUSE THE DOCTOR SAID IT WAS PNEUMONIA. AFTER PULSATILLA, THE TEMPERATURE/FEVER WHEN DOWN, AND SHE STARTED RESPONDING AGAIN. OTHER WISE SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DRUGGED UP….. ROCKY THE DOG HAD PSORIASIS ALL OVER HIS SKIN AND AFTER A COUPLE OF DAYS OF TAKING HIS HOMOEOPATHIC THE SKIN DISORDER TOTALLY IMPROVED BY 99%. IF WE DEPENDED ON VET SCIENCE, THEY’D BE STILL SCRATCHING THEIR BACKS FIGURING OUT WHY CORTISONE DOESN’T CREATE A CURE.
AND I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS OTHER PEOPLE BENEFIT FROM HOMOEOPATHY FOR: ECZEMA, COLDS, HAYFEVER, WOMEN’S AILMENTS, MENOPAUSAL PROBLEM, HEADACHE…..THE LIST GOES ON.
AND IF THE MOVIE “THE SECRET” IS CORRECT, THEN THANKS FOR GIVING SO MUCH ENERGY TO HOMOEOPATHY. BECAUSE WHAT YOU RESISTS PERSISTS. THE ENERGY YOU GUYS HAVE WASTED ON TRYING TO BAG HOMOEOPATHY HAS CREATED ENOUGH VIBRATION FOR HOMOEOPATHY TO REIGN AS A SUCCESSFUL THERAPY FOR CENTURIES. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND YOU MAY JUST LIKE TO ACTUALLY TRY THE TREATMENT WITH A QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED HOMOEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN BECAUSE ALL THOSE IN THE PAST WHO HAVE SET OUT TO DISPROVE HOMOEOPATHY HAVE BECAME IT’S GREATEST ADVOCATES BECAUSE THEY FIND OUT HOW SUCESSFUL A TREATMENT IT IS. SO I INVITE YOU TO ACTUALLY TRY THE MEDICINE AND THEN YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU HAVE MADE AN INFORMED CHOICE. IT REALLY IS FUNNY TO SEE PEOPLE WHO HAVENT EVEN TRIED THE MEDICINE BLINDLY WASTING SO MUCH ENERGY TRYING TO BAG SOMETHING THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT. STICK TO WHAT THEY KNOW…
AND FINALLY, IF YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING NICE, DON’T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL….
Emma said
GUESS WHAT, IN ENGLAND OVER 50 % OF MEDICAL PHYSICIANS REFER THEIR PATIENTS FOR HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT. ALSO 10 % OF BRITISH MEDICAL PHYSICIANS ARE HOMOEOPATHICALLY QUALIFIED. THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY AND THE QUEEN ARE TREATED BY HOMOEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS. FUNNY THE ROYAL FAMILY ARE SO RICH AND THEY COULD AFFORD ALL THE MOST EXPENSIVE DRUGS YET THEY CHOOSE HOMOEOPATHY PHYSICIANS. WHY ? BECAUSE IT WORKS!!!!!
LOOK AT THE REAL STATISTICS OF HOW GOOD HOMOEOPATHY IS, AND DON’T BLINDLY WASTE SO MUCH ENERGY BAGGING SOMETHING THAT WORKS.
Lavender said
Stephanie,
Thank you for taking the time to engage politely.
You wonder why people are so close minded about homeopathy. I think there are a few reasons:
1) Homeopathy does not make any sense to many of us. There is no sensible explanation for why homeopathic water should be thought of as tangibly different from spring water. Very, very smart people who understand the chemical and physical make up of all manner of things (i’m not one of them but i can read what they write) cannot believe the explanations that homeopaths offer, as they know them to be absurd. In contrast, many of the writings on homeopathy by its supporters seem poorly argued, not backed up by evidence, sometimes contradictory, and in the end appears to come down to faith (they don’t really know how it works, they just know it does).
2) So setting aside the theory, there is also the lack of quality evidence for it being effective. There is good quality research evidence that shows homeopathy to be ineffecive above the placebo effect (which can be a surpisingly strong effect and shouldn’t be underestimated as having a role in healing but that’s a whole other discussion), and a small amount of poor quality research that suggests it is. This is not going to convince anyone who understands how research works to believe in homeopathy.
3) So supporters turn to anecdotal data. Now, one of the reasons that research studies needs to be very well designed is to prevent the humans involved from fooling themselves. We do this all the time. Psychological research has uncovered many examples of the ways in which our everyday thinking can be illogical, very easily influenced; wrong in attributing meaning to random happenings, persuaded by emotion and manipulation, and cognitive dissonance (amongst other things). Cognitive processes will also affect mood, and self-esteem and healing (eg the placebo effect – expensive sugar pills have a stronger placebo effect than cheaper ones).
In short, when an individual tells you (or me) that homeopathy helped them, it is *not* realiable health information unless it is part of a well-designed trial that controls for the kind of thinking I described(in both the participant and the practicioner!). This is just as true for pharmateuticals as it is for herbal remedies or homeopathy – which is why drug-trials use double blinding.
So when you add in other complications such as self-limiting conditions; the sensible advice that homeopaths probably also offer about lifestyle etc; the therapeutic effect of a sympathetic ear, and of course that some of us have taken homeopathic treatments to no effect, perhaps you can see why many of us are so unconvinced by the claims for homeopathy.
And of course, none of this has anything to do with discussing whether Mr Sherr is exploiting poor, terminally ill people.
Chris said
Emma yelled “IN ENGLAND OVER 50 % OF MEDICAL PHYSICIANS REFER THEIR PATIENTS FOR HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT.”
This has nothing to do with Mr. Sherr’s ethics.
Emma continued screaming “LOOK AT THE REAL STATISTICS OF HOW GOOD HOMOEOPATHY IS, AND DON’T BLINDLY WASTE SO MUCH ENERGY BAGGING SOMETHING THAT WORKS.”
Sure, just give us one bit of real proof that homeopathy cured a non-limiting disease. Options include, AIDS, metastatic melanoma, rabies, Addison’s disease, Type 1 Diabetes. Choose just one, just make sure it is well documented.
homeopath said
“With so many so horribly afflicted, this is surely a medical emergency and homeopathy should be banned immediately.”
On the contrary Paul – all the more reason to try homeopathy. If everyone decided to visit their GP the health service would collapse under the strain. You need to realise that we are not doctor bashers – some of my best friends are docs. One of the greatest threats to health is a closed mind! Surely that couldn’t apply to anyone on this blog? Ha ha!
You have a very odd definition of “evidence” Paul. Walach (Walach, H. (2005) Generalized entanglement: a new theoretical model for understanding the effects of complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med. Jun;11(3) pp.549-59) argues that the current hierarchy of evidence used to evaluate clinical research is not relevant to CAM and suggests introducing a two-pronged approach to research. The current hierarchical model of evidence would, he believes, benefit from a broadening out towards a “spectrum” of research methods designed to bridge the gap between traditional medical research methods, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and those more suited to the evaluation of CAM which make use of the best external evidence available. Such a recommendation does not preclude honouring the rigour of RCTs, but would also allow for a “multi-method” approach, whereby a CAM research program could be implemented.
Homeopaths may not have the cash that the drug companies have to carry out their research, but research is certainly being done. And, according to you lot, research = evidence! I see no “evidence!” on this blog that, as you put it,
“homeopathy causes severe cognitive impairment”
Where is the evidence for that?
Alan Henness said
Emma shouted (as if shouting helps win friends and influence people): “SORRY BUT HATE TO TELL YOU, HOMOEOPATHY WORKS… I HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES.”
Well, that’s it, then, isn’t it? Emma has told us (loudly) that not only does homoeopathy work, but she’s seen it work with her very own eyes. End of debate. No more discussion needed. No more tests needed. We have obviously been deluded and closed minded (do AltMeds do irony and sarcasm?).
Wait a mo! What about all these carefully conducted double blind RCTs that showed that homoeopathy just doesn’t work? What ARE we to do about them? Just sweep them under the carpet and forget they ever happened, now that a few homoeopaths have told us of their belief that homoeopathy does indeed work? What about all the physics and chemistry and biology text books that now need completely re-written – what a great opportunity for a homoeopath to tell the rest of the world how physics and chemistry and biology REALLY work. I hope they take up the challenge. Perhaps one of them could start with the Dummies Guide to Physics and correct it up with a red pen…
If only it were that easy, Emma.
Stephanie said
Forgive me if I am repeating myself, but when one sees many people in a clinical situation getting well, and this happens over and over for years on end, I do not need a man in a white coat to tell me that Homoeopathy works.
Of course it will not work for every person on every occasion, and if you go to Boots and by the remedy to fix a certain problem it will be very likely to fail. There are no real specifics in Homoeopathy ie Arnica may help a bruise for one person but is way too specific to cure everyone’s bruising. Remedies are prescribed according to the person sitting before the practitioner. So I could have 10 children with chronic, recurrant ear infections which do not respond to anti biotics, and I could use 10 different remedies. The medicines are individualised.
You ask me if I believe Homoeopathy can cure AIDS. There will never be a single remedy as an AIDS cure, because of specifics, not possible. But yes I am quite sure that it is possible to improve the health of a number of peole with AIDS and that will result in some cures too. Just as some people will be cured of Cancer, TB and some will not.
There is a saying in alternative medicine that there are no incurable diseases only incurable people…it is so true.
To get back to the point of this whole correspondence…What Jeremy Sherr is doing can do no harm, it can only do good. He is not exploiting people, or experimenting on the, merely trying to help. So if these patients are still taking their drugs and still seeing “proper doctors”, and Homoepathic medicine is not being forced upon them as they have a choice….what is the problem?
Warhelmet said
Emma,
“GUESS WHAT, IN ENGLAND OVER 50 % OF MEDICAL PHYSICIANS REFER THEIR PATIENTS FOR HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT. ALSO 10 % OF BRITISH MEDICAL PHYSICIANS ARE HOMOEOPATHICALLY QUALIFIED.”
Interesting statistics. Where do they come from? And what exactly do they mean? Homeopathic NHS hospitals are increasingly under threat of closure. PCTs are increasingly reluctant to fund homeopathic treatment on the NHS. I could probably dig up some statistics if you want.
And, as with the rest of your rant, what exactly does it have to do with Sherr. I dispute the effectiveness of homeopathy full stop, but that’s neither here nor there. The real question is, do you support Sherr’s assertion that homeopathy “can just about cure AIDS”?
Dt said
Emma, I saw a magician saw a woman in half at a show I went to a few years ago. By your reasoning, it must be true, since I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES!
Oh, and by the way, you don’t understand what a “medical physican” is. This is not the same thing as a GP, which is what I think you mean. Even so, 50% of GPs in the UK do NOT refer patients for homeopathy, it is a considerably smaller number than this, somewhere in the order of 10-20% who have ever done this on any occasion. I know several GPs who have done this, not because they think that homeopathy works, but because they were fed up with the constant trivial complaints a patient experienced, and referred so someone else could take the strain of listening to their woes, and also because they realised there is a significant placebo effect in operation which might help.
Similarly, there are only a tiny number of GPs who are “homeopathically qualified”, nowhere near 10%. Anyhow, numbers mean nothing and using these in an argument is just a logical fallacy. (10% of Americans say they have been abducted by UFOs. Does that mean it’s true?)
Yes, the Royal family likes to indulge in the pleasantries of homeopathy when it feels the need, but every time any of them has had a significant illness, they seek out and have been treated with conventional medicine, not homeopathy.
Paul said
“You have a very odd definition of “evidence” Paul.”
I gave none and you seem to have missed the irony and the point.
Anyway… research is not being done, Homeopath – cargo cult science and pseudoscience is being done. Walach’s inane and parodic WQT etc. are examples of the latter. If you want to try to fool¹ us with irrelevant excursions into quantum theory, I suggest you take a look at e.g. Diederik Aerts’ work instead. It covers similar ground and looks like pseudoscience but isn’t (so it can’t just be quickly dismissed like Milgrom’s or Walach’s can) and you homeopaths could probably have a lot of fun with it.
¹ But it is obviously irrelevant, so you won’t be able to lead many up the quantum garden path anyway.
Robin said
Oh no!
http://skinto.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/i-take-it-all-back/
Warhelmet said
Stephanie,
“You ask me if I believe Homoeopathy can cure AIDS. There will never be a single remedy as an AIDS cure, because of specifics, not possible. But yes I am quite sure that it is possible to improve the health of a number of peole with AIDS and that will result in some cures too. Just as some people will be cured of Cancer, TB and some will not.
There is a saying in alternative medicine that there are no incurable diseases only incurable people…it is so true.”
My blood runs cold.
Boulderdash said
It looks like I have to repost my comments from the last Jeremy Sherr hit piece(Jeremy Sherr does not act alone…), as there is a problem with your assumption that Helsinki ethics is “the way, the truth and the light.” The method of bringing pharmaceutical drugs to market is severely flawed, although we should be assured that the method is in accord with the ethics document above. The truth is that the result of following the “ethical” process has yielded a lot of dead people. Something is wrong with the “science” that sends boatloads of people to an early grave.
By the way, another 1000 people have died from adverse drug reactions, in US hospitals, since my last comment (January 30, 2009).
Boulderdash said
January 26, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Methinks thou dost protest to much. You make a false assumption that clinical trials are the only way to ensure the safety of those in the study. But clinical trials have not kept people from dying. The study noted below basically has highlighted this problem. In a hospital setting where patients are given the medically correct prescription in the correct dosage, over 100,000 people die annually. This excludes all deaths due to errors in prescriptions and dosages. Additionally it is estimated that over 2,000,000 people suffer serious adverse drug reactions. These are all drugs that have passed your golden standard of clinical trials—PROVEN TREATMENTS!!!
I am not aware of any deaths in the entire history of homeopathy attributable to the homeopathic remedy, where the patient was given the proper remedy in the proper dosage.
The JAMA study summary follows:
Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients
A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Jason Lazarou, MSc; Bruce H. Pomeranz, MD, PhD; Paul N. Corey, PhD
JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.
Objective.— To estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions (ADR) in hospital patients.
Data Sources.— Four electronic databases were searched from 1966 to 1996.
Study Selection.— Of 153, we selected 39 prospective studies from US hospitals.
Data Extraction.— Data extracted independently by 2 investigators were analyzed by a random-effects model. To obtain the overall incidence of ADRs in hospitalized patients, we combined the incidence of ADRs occurring while in the hospital plus the incidence of ADRs causing admission to hospital. We excluded errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, drug abuse, therapeutic failures, and possible ADRs. Serious ADRs were defined as those that required hospitalization, were permanently disabling, or resulted in death.
Data Synthesis.— The overall incidence of serious ADRs was 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2%-8.2%) and of fatal ADRs was 0.32% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.41%) of hospitalized patients. We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.
Conclusions.— The incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in US hospitals was found to be extremely high. While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue.
From the Departments of Zoology (Mr Lazarou and Dr Pomeranz), Physiology (Dr Pomeranz), and Public Health Sciences (Dr Corey), University
Boulderdash said
January 27, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Chris said:
There are more cases here: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
(granted not all the cases are strictly homeopathic, but it should correct you not hearing of homeopathy causing harm)
I have perused the site you recommended and do not see any instance where the harm was caused by the homeopathic remedy. In fact, in none of the “anecdotes” provided, one cannot say, for certain, that homeopathy, or a homeopathic remedy was the cause of death or harm. It seems that anything that is not conventional medicine can be called homeopathy, even non-treatment.
Let me again attempt to make my point as clearly as possible.
1. I am questioning the validity of what is called “science” in the process of bringing drugs to market.
2. Several defenders of the process claim homeopathy and homeopathic remedies are not proven, therefore cannot be used to “experiment” on people.
3. I claim that the process by which conventional drugs are “proven” is severely flawed. The proof is in the pudding, one might say.
4. The “proven” drugs are directly responsible for the death of over 100,000 people. That is, 100,000 people died in the United States alone. That is, 100,000 people died in one year alone. That is, 100,000 people have died when they were given the correct drug in the correct dosage, verifiably. Think of the significance of this fact.
5. Since the article was published in JAMA, it carries significant scientific weight.
6. Since the article was published in 1998, 10 years and over 1,000,000 people have died.
7. Over 1,000,000 (ONE MILLION) people have died due to adverse drug reaction of proven drugs. These drugs were proven by an obviously flawed process that you seem to have no problem with. This is the same flawed process you wish to bestow on every other therapy. Haven’t we had enough death?
8. Every day that you that you chop away at homeopathy, another 274 people die due to adverse drug reactions when the drugs are verifiably dispensed according to medical and pharmaceutical protocol in a hospital setting. They are dying as a result of a flawed process that you assume to be the “end all” of all processes. Haven’t we had enough death?
9. The number of people who have died does not include people who have died outside a hospital setting,while taking their prescriptions according to protocol.
10. The number of people who have died does not include people who have died when an error is made in the drug prescription or dosage.
11. The number of people who have died does not include people who have died outside the United States.
12. The number of people who have died does not include people who have died due to other therapies.
13. The number of people who have died does not include people who have died due to misuse of other therapies.
14. Since this information has become clear and public, the conventional medical industry has not taken any steps to fix the problem.
15. In order to compare apples to apples, one would have to determine, I repeat, whether anyone has ever died as a direct result of being given the correct remedy in the correct dosage according to homeopathic protocol.
16. Until someone can find a case where the correct remedy and dosage was administered according to homeopathic protocol has directly resulted in a death, we will have to assume the number of deaths is zero, zilch, nada, nil.
17. For the time being, it looks like the score is:
Conventional Drugs 100,000 verifiable deaths per year
Homeopathic Drugs 0 verifiable deaths for over 200 years
Boulderdash said
January 30, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Paul said
January 29, 2009 at 9:33 am
Yes, Boulderdash, and it is an egregious example of special pleading: a spurious attempt to construct an excuse for Sherr’s unethical behaviour on the irrelevant grounds that genuine medicines and medical practices entail iatrogenic effects. Even in that you fail miserably – you erroneously and absurdly compare homeopathic harm with medical harm instead of comparing homeopathic benefit minus harm with medical benefit minus harm, and you falsely assert that “we” are not doing anything to improve the (tautologically) imperfect but infinitely superior record of science based medicine when that is, effectively, the whole purpose of medical science.
I see you passed your 6 Weeks to Words of Power Course of Study. But I digress…
You may call them iatrogenic effects, but I call them deaths. 100,000 deaths, deaths of real people, like you and me. 1,000,000 deaths since JAMA published that article.
Calling those deaths, iatrogenic effects, is not the sign of a compassionate individual. Interesting that about 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians are better known as collateral damage. Maybe that’s the term you should use—collateral damage. In fact, if you truly can continue to show your total remorselessness for what you might call the iatrogenically effected, maybe you can gain employment with the military industrial complex.
By the way, how many people must die before your conscience kicks in? How much collateral damage is too much? Certainly there is a point where there is enough?!?
The figures I have presented do indeed form a basis for comparison. There has been an implicit and explicit assumption in this discussion that the method of treatment you prescribe is “scientific,” “ethical,” and therefore “good.” And that any other treatment method is “unscientific,” “unethical,” and “bad.” So the comparison was a look at what is the downside when each methodology is properly applied according to protocol. Since the study looked only in a hospital setting and only looked at reported adverse drug reactions it is a very lowball estimate of the deaths. It is estimated that “reporting” of events may be only 5% to 20% of the total events. So the authors of the study were very lenient as to the measurement of the total deaths.
Going beyond this level would open up a can of worms for the conventional medical industry. The figures above only attempt to count the damage when your so-called ethical and scientific process is followed. The can of worms might include “iatrogenic effects” of medical errors, unnecessary surgeries, infections from hospitals and more. The death rate of these effects is not insignificant.
Let’s not forget those who have suffered “serious” iatrogenic effects. The study cited above put that number at 2,200,000. This is a very large number of people. In the ten years since the study, about 22,000,000 serious iatrogenic effects have been experienced from adverse drug effects. Again, let me remind you that these 22,000,000 serious events have come from following protocol—that is, following all the proper “procedures, science and ethics.”
Don’t get me wrong. Medical science does have place in society. If my brother-in-law had a motorcycle accident and needed some serious stitching and bone reconstruction, there is no better alternative.
So where does this leave us? A few barbs have been thrown at Mr. Sherr. Many seem to be somewhat speculative, for we do not know what is going on in Tanzania. Have the ailing Tanzanians given informed consent? Who invited Mr. Sherr? Are they agents of the government? Or of the University? Do the ailing Tanzanians have any options? Did Mr. Sherr round up some prisoners and forcibly apply his wares? (By the way, scientists/doctors in the US have been known to do this. The US military has been know to do this. But apparently that is not a problem.)
Mr. Sherr has reported positive results. Can anyone disclaim these results with any factual information. It seems that there is no interest in ascertaining the facts at this blog.
Why not? What might you find out?
I guess that’s all for today. Have a great weekend. By the way, another 5-600 people have died from adverse drug reactions, in US hospitals, since my last post.
simone said
no homeopathic cases here. A mixture of Grandmother medicine and other naturopathic tricks that have nothing to do with homeopathy in the link of what the harm in homeopathy.
Misdefining homeopaths and homeopathy as naturopaths and alternative bizzarre systems is a common mistake.
homeopath said
Who is “quickly” dismissing Walach’s research? Perhaps you may dismiss is Paul, but it is valid research, just as valid as your pal Diederick’s research. Funny isn’t it how Diedericks’s research is perfectly valid evidence, but not Walach’s. I wonder why? Perhaps it doesn’t suit your purpose, so it must obviously be rubbish. Methinks not! As your friend correctly observes in his research:
“Quantum structures are the ordinary structures of reality” (Aerts, D., 1993, \Quantum Structures due to °uctuations of the measurement situations”,Int. J. Theor. Phys., 32, 2207 – 2220.)
And we think he is right! Those quantum structures have a beneficial effect in treating people’s pathological symptoms! That’s homeopathy.
Warhelmet said
@Boulderdash – but what do the deaths from adverse drug reactions have to do with Jeremy Sherr? And do you support Sherr’s assertion that homeopathy can “just about cure AIDS” and the implication that HAART is “allopathic nonsense”? And, do like Stephanie, do you subscribe to the belief that there are no untreatable diseases only untreatable persons?
There seems to be this belief that if other people do bad stuff that it is perfectly OK for homeopaths to do bad stuff.
Oh sure, Sherr has reported positive stuff but they can hardly be described as results. Little early for results, don’t you think?
No, we do not know what is going on in Tanzania exactly. But Sherr has a history of making highly questionable remarks. He as at various points in time made statements that read as if he proposed to undertake unethical medical trials. He has, by implications, dismissed the hard work of thousands of people in the fight against AIDS. It is difficult not to prejudge what he is doing.
And informed consent? Informed consent requires that impartial information is provided to subjects. Sherr’s dismissal of HAART is concerning in that there is no evidence that he would provide impartial information, quite the reverse.
homeopath said
Alan,
You don’t say what the “load of other well-known factors” might be that patients could attribute to their recovery. What might these be?
Glad to hear you would consult someone with “the necessary medical training, knowledge and experience” if you ever needed to. Of course, I don’t suppose that could possibly include medically trained homeopathic doctors. Perish the thought!
Homeopathy would have died a death many moons ago if it had been proved to be ineffective. The fact that an increasing number of people consult homeopaths is testament to its efficacy. There are plenty of broad-minded GPs who are only too happy to work with us. They wouldn’t be happy to do so if their patients did not dervice any benefit from their homeopathic treatment. It is the patient’s choice if they wish to consult a homeopath, just as it is equally their choice if they wish to have only conventional treatment.
You seem to want to take that choice away from them and make their decisions for them. Why is that?
stavros said
homeopath:
“Those quantum structures have a beneficial effect in treating people’s pathological symptoms! That’s homeopathy.”
That’s just bull**** and you know it. Appealing to QM when EVERYTHING else is going against you is one of the lowest forms of fallacies in this context. Prove that QM is the mechanism in action and then talk about it. Don’t bring it up so lightly. And no, quantum structures are not the ordinary structures of reality. They are those of the subatomic reality -huge difference!
“Homeopathy would have died a death many moons ago if it had been proved to be ineffective.”
You mean like astrology, praying, crystal healing, reflexology and all those other “treatments”?
“You seem to want to take that choice away from them and make their decisions for them. Why is that?”
That’s also bull****. We don’t want just choices. We want choices that are equally valid and effective. The patient does not know which choices are good for him. For the same reason why we don’t want this kind of choices in education (and let the children decide) we don’t want them in medical health either. We want only proven, effective choices.
homeopath said
Stavros, the patient will not even have the chance to choose when people who think as you do make those choices for him! What you want is to remove choice completely!
stavros said
“people who think as me” are those that actually ask for evidence and scientific plausibility?
And once again: the patient does not know which treatment works. Science will determine this and then give the patient the relevant options.
Paul said
“Funny isn’t it how Diedericks’s research is perfectly valid evidence, but not Walach’s. I wonder why?”
It isn’t evidence. You are clearly unable to distinguish between theory and evidence, Homeopath, let alone between theoretical physics and pseudoscientific wibble, so it is hardly surprising that you “wonder why”. Nothing irremediably wrong with that – you could perhaps learn, after all – but have you any idea what a fool you make of yourself with imbecilic pronouncements on the correctness of [titles of] papers you are incapable of following and with risibly fallacious arguments such as the ad populum above? You must try to “recognize the extremity of [your] inadequacy”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Warhelmet said
But Homeopathy almost did die a death.
Stephanie said
I don’t expect anyone to believe that Homoeopathy works just because I say it does…it could be said that no one should believe anything unless they have experienced it for themselves.
However, in India Homoeopathy is roughly 50/50 with Allopathy…and some Ayaveda in there somewhere. In Holland, Germany and even France it is common practice to be referred to a Homoeopath or a Homotoxicologist by a GP. Do you all REALLY believe, without reservation, that all those many thousands of people ie. patients, doctors and practitioners are all completely stupid?
If so perhaps you need to ask yourselves what that says about you!
Chris said
Stephanie said “Do you all REALLY believe, without reservation, that all those many thousands of people ie. patients, doctors and practitioners are all completely stupid?”
Perhaps, but mostly because there are those who actually lie. These are the ones who are not ethical, including those whose reaction to criticism is to delete blog posts and rally supporters to swarm a blogger he does not like.
You all still need to show (from the Quackemeter blog posting over a year ago):
“Give one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy cure a non-self-limiting condition.
Options include, AIDS, metastatic melanoma, rabies, Addison’s disease, Type 1 Diabetes.
If you cannot come up with even one single example you should have the honesty and humility to admit you are wrong.”
Alan Henness said
Homeopath said: “You don’t say what the “load of other well-known factors” might be that patients could attribute to their recovery. What might these be?”
Here is a list of seven good ones (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html has an explanation of each and I suggest you read them):
1. The disease may have run its natural course (particularly since most homoeopaths only seem to ‘treat’ self-limiting conditions).
2. Many diseases are cyclical.
3. The placebo effect may be responsible.
4. People who hedge their bets credit the wrong thing.
5. The original diagnosis or prognosis may have been incorrect (ie there may have been nothing to treat in the first place).
6. Temporary mood improvement can be confused with cure.
7. Psychological needs can distort what people perceive and do.
Add to that that many also are taking conventional medicines to treat the condition and it may well be that (after all, they will generally have been proven to work, unlike homoeopathy) that the patient attributes to an improvement.
“Glad to hear you would consult someone with “the necessary medical training, knowledge and experience” if you ever needed to. Of course, I don’t suppose that could possibly include medically trained homeopathic doctors. Perish the thought!”
Nope. From what I’ve seen, ‘medically trained homeopathic doctors’ know very little about medicine, physiology, pharmacology, etc and some wouldn’t even pass O-Grade biology (an exam school children in the UK sit).
“Homeopathy would have died a death many moons ago if it had been proved to be ineffective. The fact that an increasing number of people consult homeopaths is testament to its efficacy.”
That is an ad populum fallacy and has no weight. Just because a lot of people use it, does not mean it works. At one time many, many people believed that the sun revolved around the earth (they’d all seen the sun rise and set with their own eyes, after all), but this turned out to be false – so just because a lot of people believe something does not help it be true. Now, it may well be true anyway, but you can’t use the number of people who believe it as something that bolsters the veracity of that belief. The number who pay for homoeopathy does not mean that it works, despite having seen it with their own eyes.
“There are plenty of broad-minded GPs who are only too happy to work with us.”
It has nothing to do woth being broad-minded. The accusation is usually that sceptics are in some way ‘narrow minded’. However, all we require is good evidence: with homoeopathy, none has been forthcoming. Being sceptical and requiring good evidence is not being narrow minded – just good practice where the health of others is concerned.
“They wouldn’t be happy to do so if their patients did not dervice any benefit from their homeopathic treatment.”
Perhaps not, but please don’t confuse feeling a bit better with curing. As has been said before, the placebo effect can be significant. However, it cannot cure a disease. Neither can homoeopathy.
“It is the patient’s choice if they wish to consult a homeopath, just as it is equally their choice if they wish to have only conventional treatment. You seem to want to take that choice away from them and make their decisions for them. Why is that?”
Of course patients have a choice and no one is trying to deny them a choice: but that choice has got to be informed. Should we expect patients to make a choice if they aren’t really told about the options? Would you make a choice when buying a second-hand car if the salesman didn’t fully inform you of the facts of the mileage or service history of one of them? Neither would I. It only makes sense to offer a choice if that choice is fully informed by facts. The facts of homoeopathy are that is never been shown to be any better than placebo in unbiased trials and the mechanism claimed for it to work is implausible and has no basis in science or medicine.
Boulderdash said
Warhelmet said
February 4, 2009 at 11:44 am
@Boulderdash – but what do the deaths from adverse drug reactions have to do with Jeremy Sherr?
This entire debate is attempting to judge Mr. Sherr’s efforts according to an ethical standard in an entirely different world view. The ethical standard that you all are demanding that Mr. Sherr adhere to is itself severely flawed, in that huge numbers of real people have died when that ethical standard has been properly followed. These are all deaths as a direct result of taking drugs according to protocol, a protocol you wish to impose on Mr. Sherr and, indeed, any practitioner of any alternative form of health care.
In judging Mr. Sherr, many assumptions have been made. We do not have any idea as to what he has done in Tanzania. All of it is presumption and speculation. We do not know the condition of the people in Tanzania. We do not know if they have granted informed consent or not. We do not know what conventional treatment they have received or not received. We do not know the severity of their state of disease.
And what if Mr. Sherr does cure AIDS? Are we to bury our heads in the sand? Or should we see how he did it? What if he finds a homeopathic protocol that can greatly improve the health prospects of AIDS victims?
Warhelmet said
“Don’t get me wrong. Medical science does have place in society. If my brother-in-law had a motorcycle accident and needed some serious stitching and bone reconstruction, there is no better alternative.”
Hmmm. So what you are saying is the modern medicine is OK if it does not involve drugs?
Stephanie said
Alan,
How do you know that Homoeopathy cannot cure a disease? What makes you so sure?
I suppose then I must be a liarthen. I imagined the extreme pain of Rheumatoid Arthritis, imagined the blood test, was deluded when my joints started to deform and swell.I wish that I had realised that I was making it up because it was all very frightening. Now that I no longer have it, the pain and swelling have all gone, although I am left with the deformity…… The blood tests are normal…Oh so I must be a liar because Homoeopathy cannot cure disease because you said so.
And you think Homoeopaths are stupid?
Well here are a couple more lies that I have witnessed. A girl with a brain tumour not expected to last the night was up and doing the next morning after a high potency remedy, she doesn’t even have scaring on the brain..I know this family and the Homoeopath, and a friend who no longer has Crohn’s.
All incurable and all liars…obviously.
Alan Henness said
Homeopath said: “How do you know that Homoeopathy cannot cure a disease? What makes you so sure?”
All the unbiased trials. It is homoeopaths who are making the extraordinary claim and, as far as I’m concerned, I require extraordinary unbiased evidence to substantiate an extraordinary claim. So far, I’ve been given none.
“I suppose then I must be a liarthen.”
No. I am not calling you a liar. Homoeopaths don’t seem to understand what constitutes evidence when we are talking about peoples lives and why unbiased evidence is better than biased or anecdotal evidence.
“I imagined the extreme pain of Rheumatoid Arthritis, imagined the blood test, was deluded when my joints started to deform and swell.I wish that I had realised that I was making it up because it was all very frightening. Now that I no longer have it, the pain and swelling have all gone, although I am left with the deformity…… The blood tests are normal…Oh so I must be a liar because Homoeopathy cannot cure disease because you said so.”
Back to that silly little bias thing, again! Oh why is it soooo elusive?
“And you think Homoeopaths are stupid?”
No, but they certainly seem to understand little about proper medicine, science, biology, physics, pharmacology, etc. Oh! And argumentation and what constitutes a logical fallacy.
“Well here are a couple more lies that I have witnessed. A girl with a brain tumour not expected to last the night was up and doing the next morning after a high potency remedy, she doesn’t even have scaring on the brain..I know this family and the Homoeopath, and a friend who no longer has Crohn’s.”
Instead of anecdotes (ie unverified and unverifiable stories), how about some UNBIASED evidence?
“All incurable and all liars…obviously.”
It’s you who keeps using that word, not me. There are undoubtedly some homoeopaths who are liars, but I suspect the majority are not. However, we still get back to the problem of unbiased evidence, don’t we?
michele said
Stavros, Paul etc, what a nasty bunch of people you are.
What are your backgrounds?
Chris said
Stephanie said “Well here are a couple more lies that I have witnessed. A girl with a brain tumour not expected to last the night was up and doing the next morning after a high potency remedy, she doesn’t even have scaring on the brain..I know this family and the Homoeopath, and a friend who no longer has Crohn’s.
All incurable and all liars…obviously.”
Those are nice little stories. Now where are the case reports in a journal that can be accessed in a medical library with evidence like a brain scan, medical records and verification from an unbiased person?
Due to the behavior of Mr. Sherr and others, you need a bit better proof that it actually happened.
stavros said
Michele thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion.
Can you please inform us why we are nasty? What exactly have I (we) done? Ask for evidence? Ask for proof? Not accept anecdotes when it comes to public health? What exactly was it that disturbed you so much so as to call me (us) nasty? Also, what is the relevancy of our backgrounds to this discussion?
Warhelmet said
Midichlorians.
michele said
It’s your general tone & the way you sp4eak to those that don’t agree with you.
I wondered what your agenda is.
Are you doctors or involved in the pharmaceutical industry in some way?
Paul said
Chris, even should such case reports appear, spontaneous remission would be a many orders of magnitude more plausible explanation than the homeopath’s magic pills. For Pete’s sake, even medical intervention by extraterrestrial visitors would be a more plausible explanation – and I am not being facetious when I say that.
prayersoverourchildren said
I appreciate everyone’s opinion and humbly would like to express mine. I do not know much about the medical field. I just know what it is like to be sick… to have your body fail you… to lose one little piece of yourself at a time. For years I suffered with auto immune diesease. Chemo was my life saver until the day came when my Rheumatologist stopped prescribing the infusions. I had taken them for so long that my immune system was on the verge of shutting down. Through prayer, I was led to a homeopathic doctor. Within months… I no longer had the auto-immune disease… it has been over a year, and not only is the disease completely gone… my overall health is excellent. I have more energy and strength than when I was in high school!!! I am a 41 year old mother of 3! Thank you for letting me share my experience with you.
Chris said
prayersoverourchildren… the plural of anecdote is not data. Plus you did not address the bit about “ethics and Jeremy Sherr.”
Cybergibbons said
Are you doctors or involved in the pharmaceutical industry in some way?
What is with this paranoia that homeopaths show?
I think very few of us are doctors or even involved in the medical field.
You do realise that if homeopathy really worked, doctors and “big pharma” would already be using it?
simone said
During the lebanon was in 2006, homeopathic teams were successful in treating many individuals for their state of shock. We saw a person’s face change from livid to health, from hysterical redness and stary eyes were changed once the omeopathic remedy was under the tongue. and then the thankful smile as it happens.
Children who wet their beds from fear were cured. A child who was afraid to leave his parents to go to the toilet on his own was freed of his anxiety. And these are examples of simple cases, those paralized with fears and if not taken care of by remedies, would have continued their life as automatons.
There is no way that this instant cure happens with the AIDS stricken individuals, but the relief of an expert prescription can change their life for the better and perhaps cure them completey.
Lucky for the too few Africans, they have a chance of the appropriate homeopathic treatment , by volounteers, who went to help the worst cases, pay out of their pockets to take part in the project. They get their satisfaction from seeing the healing happen. They are knowledgible brave and honest, apt to learn more and cure the ailing individuals.
Keep on the good work Jeremy and teams. Citizens of the world are proud of you
It is a big shame that will be forever remembe
simone said
I ment to delete the big shame bit for those who disclaim true cures that happened through homeopathy, whether you call it anecdotal or other does not matter to the suffering who were cured.
Alan Henness (zeno) said
Ho hum. Unproven, unprovable anecdotes #1,385 and #1,386.
Boulderdash said
Warhelmet said
February 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Hmmm. So what you are saying is the modern medicine is OK if it does not involve drugs?
I didn’t say that at all.
I said,
“Don’t get me wrong. Medical science does have place in society. If my brother-in-law had a motorcycle accident and needed some serious stitching and bone reconstruction, there is no better alternative.”
DT said
Making a person who has had an emotional “shock” feel better might well be something that would improve when someone gets given attention, sympathy, empathy, and a medication (homeopathy) they are told will help them feel better and recover.
Never underestimate the power of an elaborate placebo. I use it very succesfully with my daughter all the time. It works with physical as well as emotional trauma.
I call it “KIB therapy” (Kissing it better).
I do not invoke unprovable mystical energy transference in order to explain the phenomenon.
Chris said
Boulderdash said “Don’t get me wrong. Medical science does have place in society. If my brother-in-law had a motorcycle accident and needed some serious stitching and bone reconstruction, there is no better alternative.”
Okay, what about AIDS, metastatic melanoma, rabies, Addison’s disease, Type 1 Diabetes?
Those are some choices you have if you do the following:
“Give one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy cure a non-self-limiting condition.”
Remember the references are very important: a case report in a peer reviewed journal with oversight by a qualified unbiased entity (NOT your homeopathy society).
Lavender said
I am very happy for people to use homoepathy despite the fact I don’t believe in it. I have friends who use homeopathy and I don’t comment on it, because I know that when they are really sick they will consult a proper health professional with real qualifications and a true understnading of the human body, and illness.
What I do have a problem with, is when homeopaths and homeopathic supporters encourage situations where people might not get proven medical trreatment for serious conditions, or where they believe that already stretched and limited public health funding should *in any way* be used on homeopathic approaches.
There are many reasons why a hompeopathic treatment might *appear* to work to an individual, but this is not due to the WATER you are taking. And it is not a treatment that will work (better than placcebo)commonly. For the few of you who are citing anecdotal stories of success, there will be many many others who have not found homeopathy successful, but you will nto find them piping up on the Internet because they will have moved on to the next treatment, or the condition will ahve gone away by itself, or they’ll have sought medical treatment.
Warhelmet said
OK, hands up who doesn’t believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. Do we have some AIDS-is-caused-by-HIV deniers here? I do detect a faint whiff. It is not clear whether Sherr does or not, given that a lot of his stuff is couched in terms of classical homeopathy. But I might not have read enough. To be fair, reading Sherr is very difficult to a non-homeopath, especially given his appeals to Hanhemann. Reading the Organon is horrible.
But if you do concede that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, then how the hell does homeopathy help?
If you deny the link – I’m sorry, I’m going to have to consign you to the same dustbin as the rest of the AIDS deniers, many of whom have blood on their hands.
Stephanie said
I cannot give you references as most cases don’t even get written up. As I said before I am not asking anyone to believe what I say, quite frankly I don’t care if you believe me or not…what I do ask is that people are at least open minded, and we have some very closed minded people in this communication at present.
I would also like to add that, were I to develop symptoms of Addison’s disease, or cancer of any sort, apart from diagnosis and possible minimal surgery I wouldn’t touch Allopathic medicine. I certainly would never have Chemotherapy for cancer.
Stephanie said
No Cybergibbons, you are so wrong.
The Pharmaceutical industry know that Homoeopathy is very effective. In fact Welcome have it waiting in the wings. The reason they knock it, and that so much evidence is suppressed is because there is no money in Homoeopathic medicine…It is cheap and easy to prepare unlike pharmaceuticals.
The pharmceutical industry is big business, not an organisation full of benevolent people trying to cure the illnesses which inflict mankind. It makes fat cats fatter.And because it is such big business it is not in their interest for people to be well. This is why you never actually see these amazing curative drugs which are constantly promised to us.
Please open your eyes.
Paul said
Well Stephanie, I must admit: if someone had told me before I’d seen it for myself that such blinkered stupidity, such unimaginative and unquestioning ignorance and such unselfconscious irony, as the homeopaths, with their minds so closed to the light of reason it’s almost physically painful to witness, have exhibited here, I doubt I would’ve been open-minded enough to take them seriously.
Warhelmet said
Stephanie…
One word. Smsllpox.
Chris said
Stephanie said “I cannot give you references as most cases don’t even get written up.”
So proper documentation is not taught in homeopathy school? The UK has more than one homeopathic hospital, it would seem obvious that if there were cures of non-self-limiting diseases it would occur in one of those, and be properly documented.
In the real world a medical doctor can get into lots of trouble for not properly documenting each and every case he/she is involved in. They must also get proper diagnostic testing for the records. Medical doctors have been fined and sanctioned for sloppy record keeping. Why should a homeopath not be expected to be held to the same standard?
I’m sorry, but if you wish to be taken seriously you are going to have to solve this “lack of documentation” problem. If you claim to cure someone you need to show the test documentation, show what exactly was done and show the resulting tests. This would be especially important for those AIDS, rabies, type 1 diabetes and other supposed cures that have been claimed.
Stephanie said
Paul,
What a lot of pompous nonsense.
You certainly are not narrow minded, your mind is well and truely closed.
Alan Henness (zeno) said
Stephanie said: “there is no money in Homoeopathic medicine”
Maybe you should tell Boiron’s shareholders that – they had a turnover of 434 million Euros in 2007. Not to be sneezed at! And countless homoeopaths make a good living out of it.
Of course, GSK’s turnover was far greater. Then again, they do sell medicines that work.
Stephanie said
Good for Boiron..that is great. There certainly isn’t that sort of money in UK..and no….there are not countless Homoeopaths who make a good living out of it. Those who lecture make a lot more. Most do it because they are financially supported and for the sheer love of the subject. It is so rewarding to see a child covered in eczema now with clear skin. Or gasping with asthma, now able to breathe freely…oh no I must be wrong though, because Homoeopathy doesn’t work does it?
guthrie said
I know what I should do- start selling homeopathic concentrates to people, along with appropriate sized jugs to dilute them in. DIY homeopathy!
So it would be much cheaper, and I could undercut the big companies!
Paul said
Stephanie,..pompous huh? Well y’know you’re probably right there: after all, wtf can you say to someone who is so stupid that they do an ad pop. immediately after they’ve been told why ad pops. are stupid, without sounding “pompous”?
Warhelmet said
Stephanie,
What you are asking us to believe is that conditions that modern medicine can not cure can be cured by an invisible agency undetectable to any scientific test that modern science can throw at it. You are asking us to accept second hand anecdotal evidence that this agency is linked to positive outcomes. You do not provide even a potential mechanism by which this invisible agency is supposed to work. There is no hypothesis of a causative mechanism.
Also, you seem to be able to detect conspiracies where others do not. I’m no great supporter of Big Pharma and I’m not terribly comfortable with the over-medicalisation of certain things. But a conspiracy to keep us all ill? Do you really believe that Big Pharma could engage in such a conspiracy and escape detection? Do you think that the likes of us who you roundly criticise as being closed minded would sit back and let that happen? This community is aware of some of the wrong doings of Big Pharma. I would q.v. the practise of only submitting positive outcomes for publication and the submission of positive outcomes more than once to skew meta-analyses. We know this goes on. You should read some of Ben Goldacre’s articles.
And I detect in various posts a belief that homeopathy, homeopaths and supporters of homeopathy are being persecuted by this community. You are asking questions, you are not put to the question. This community is full of grumpy buggers but having read the spleen against Gimpy on various homeopathic message boards – we are pussycats.
Invisible agencies? Conspiracies? Persecution? Erm. Not sure I could get away with that at the moment.
And I’ve been reading of Jeremy Sherr’s blogging activity. Talk of “miracles” performed everyday. Very odd.
I don’t know how to react except to say that it is a worldview that disturbs me.
Paul said
Oh – and by the way (twerp) – my mind is full of extraordinary weird and beautiful stuff that closed-minded and pedestrianly ignorant fantasists such as yourself couldn’t even dream of.
warhelmet said
@Paul – what do your “extraordinary weird and beautiful” imaginings have to do with Jeremy Sherr and his unethical behaviour?
Boulderdash said
Chris said
February 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Boulderdash said “Don’t get me wrong. Medical science does have place in society. If my brother-in-law had a motorcycle accident and needed some serious stitching and bone reconstruction, there is no better alternative.”
Okay, what about AIDS, metastatic melanoma, rabies, Addison’s disease, Type 1 Diabetes?
Conventional Medicine may have a place in some of these areas. It’s a question of options and urgency. If there is not enough time or opportunity to seek out alternative therapies then one might wisely make use of conventional medicine. You might think of conventional medicine more appropriately as complimentary medicine. It is a good “fall back” therapy, in that it can buy you time when you need it.
Let us not forget the main point of this thread. You seek to impose on Mr. Sherr and all alternative therapists/practitioners a flawed process and ethics. That flawed process is leading to the death of 106,000 people every year. Since the study that highlighted this fact was published, over 1,000,000 people have died as a direct result of taking the correct drugs, in the correct dosage in US hospitals alone. That is not a process we should be imposing on anyone. Why does it seem you have no problem with this “ethical,” “goodscience.”
Boulderdash said
Warhelmet said:
OK, hands up who doesn’t believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. Do we have some AIDS-is-caused-by-HIV deniers here?
I personally don’t have an opinion on this, but it looks like many do—
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/group.htm
HCN said
Boulderdash, so what? It is a list of people who signed it over fifteen years ago. For an argument from popularity, it is pretty lame when it even includes “Bob Guccione, Jr. (Editor Spin Magazine, New York, NY)”.
Big Freaking Whoop
Especially since that particular Guccione (he is the son of the Penthouse Guccione) now is part of “Discover” magazine, specifically the Chief Operating Officer (it is a light weight science magazine, I don’t particularly like it). I checked many of its AIDS articles and they are mostly real science. One exception was an interview with Celia Farber (a woman he once dated, but he also dated Ann Coulter — which would indicate he has very bad taste in women).
Here is another interesting website that references that Virusmyth site a few times:
http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/dead_denialists
Now, just tell us what real evidence do you have that homeopathy is better for AIDS than the present real anti-viral medicines. Something that includes real documentation, written up in a real medical journal that can be accessed from a real medical library.
Sam said
Dana Ullman is selling FREE tickets he was given as a speaker at conference for medical professionals in NYC. He vacationed last year in italy, did he pay for it or did he business expense it??. Yet writes like he’s broke. A business owner, published author, hawking two tickets! A conference where he can network to promote himself, his business and is tax-deductible.
http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopathy-list-discussion/10219-major-integrative-healthcare-symposium-new-york-city-february-19-21st.html
Robin (the nice one) said
Prostate Cancer
January 1988 a man, 71 presented with Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. Aggressive Gleason grade 8, Metatstasis in L4 & S1 vertebrae and PSA 15.8. Urinary symptoms of frequency, precipitancy and intermitant incontinence. He was advised to go for surgery and radiation. He was lean, fastidious, irritable, flatulent and having a huge erectile dysfunction since about 10 years.
After 3 months on the protocol a CT scan of the prostate showed a regression of the tumor and PSA down to 9.3. Another 3 months (with the remedies adjusted), the tumor continued to shrink ant the PSA came down to 8.0 and the Bone scan showed that the metastatic deposits in the vertebrae had fully cleared.
He remained on the regimen for another year, the tumor totally regressed and the PSA 3.2. He was kept on the remedies in a less intense dosing schedule for another 2 years and is now monitored only occasionally and continues to do well.
Breast Cancer
January, 1995 a female, 39 years presented with a 1 cm. lump in the right breast, lower quadrant. Diagnosis, cancer Stage 2. One axillary lymph node involved with no other metastasis. She refused a lumpectomy (though Dr. Ramakrishnan usually supports surgical intervention) and turned to homeopathy. She had a history of painful menses, was overweight but could eat only a little at a time, liked pastries and craved fresh air though easily chilled. She was sensitive and gentle, spirits were low mornings and evenings.
After 8 weeks on the protcol a CT scan confirmed the tumor was reduced by 25%. At the end of 6 months a CT scan showed the tumor disappeared and the lymph node appeared normal. She continued with the homeopathic remedies for the next 2 years during which time her menses became regular and pain free. She continues to be well at the present time.
Brain Cancer
November, 1997 an 8 year old boy presented with Stage 3 glioma of the parietal lobe, a recurrance. Chief complaints were headaches and nausea. History was in February, 1997 the glioma was operated on, followed by six months of chemo. A CT scan showed the recurrance in the same place so this time the parents turned to homeopathy. The child looked and behaved mentally delayed, was a poor student and had difficulty with comprehension.
After 12 weeks on the protocol a CT scan showed the tumor had not grown. After 24 weeks the tumor had shrunk by more than 50%. In one year the CT scan was almost clear and was completely clear after 16 months from the start of homeopathic treatment.
The headaches disappeared with the tumor and the child grew more alert and articulate. He now does well in school and is completely normal.
Robin (the nice one) said
can any of you clever people explain how gravity works please?
Robin (the nice one) said
January, 1995 a female, 39 years presented with a 1 cm. lump in the right breast, lower quadrant. Diagnosis, cancer Stage 2. One axillary lymph node involved with no other metastasis. She refused a lumpectomy and turned to homeopathy. She had a history of painful menses, was overweight but could eat only a little at a time, liked pastries and craved fresh air though easily chilled. She was sensitive and gentle, spirits were low mornings and evenings.
After 8 weeks on the protcol a CT scan confirmed the tumor was reduced by 25%. At the end of 6 months a CT scan showed the tumor disappeared and the lymph node appeared normal. She continued with the homeopathic remedies for the next 2 years during which time her menses became regular and pain free. She continues to be well at the present tim
Robin (the nice one) said
November, 1997 an 8 year old boy presented with Stage 3 glioma of the parietal lobe, a recurrance. Chief complaints were headaches and nausea. History was in February, 1997 the glioma was operated on, followed by six months of chemo. A CT scan showed the recurrance in the same place so this time the parents turned to homeopathy. The child looked and behaved mentally delayed, was a poor student and had difficulty with comprehension.
After 12 weeks on the protocol a CT scan showed the tumor had not grown. After 24 weeks the tumor had shrunk by more than 50%. In one year the CT scan was almost clear and was completely clear after 16 months from the start of homeopathic treatment.
The headaches disappeared with the tumor and the child grew more alert and articulate. He now does well in school and is completely normal.
Chris said
Okay, Robin if you are so nice, link to the medical journal that was published in, surely since it is ten years old it has been published and reviewed. Sorry, but just because you say so does not necessarily make it true.
Robin (the nice one) said
any more for any more?
How many of these would awaken interest in a truly enquiring mind?
How much prejudice, fear of the unknown and closed mindedness does it require to get the predicatable knee jerk reaction, no matter how much evidence is produced?
Admit it folks, the possibility that homeopathy may work, even some of the time, is too terrifying for you to contemplate. It would turn your pathetic little world upside down.
Chris said
Robin, you do understand what the phrase “with references” means, right?
Robin (the nice one) said
Well done Chris, that must have made you feel a bit better. Can you answer the gravity question? Which if your holy journals was the answer published in?
Robin (the nice one) said
January 1988 a man, 71 presented with Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. Aggressive Gleason grade 8, Metatstasis in L4 & S1 vertebrae and PSA 15.8. Urinary symptoms of frequency, precipitancy and intermitant incontinence.
After 3 months on the protocol a CT scan of the prostate showed a regression of the tumor and PSA down to 9.3. Another 3 months (with the remedies adjusted), the tumor continued to shrink ant the PSA came down to 8.0 and the Bone scan showed that the metastatic deposits in the vertebrae had fully cleared.
He remained on the regimen for another year, the tumor totally regressed and the PSA 3.2. He was kept on the remedies in a less intense dosing schedule for another 2 years and is now monitored only occasionally and continues to do well.
Paul said
Robin (TNO) (and Chris), read my comment #141. Case reports, referenced or not, say exactly nothing about whether homeopathy works or not.
Robin (TNO), yes I could explain how gravity works, but unless you already grok much of degree-level physics and/or have some knowledge of basic differential geometry, it wouldn’t exactly be easy to do it here and I don’t see the relevance of it to this discussion anyway. Why do you want to know?
Robin (the nice one) said
Paul even you dont know why atoms attract each other. There are theories and hypotheses about gravity only. Admitedly some damn complex ones but nobody has properly explained it. However anecdotal evidence exists that suggests that gravity works. You will find there are quite a few pharmaceuticals that ‘work’ that are not understood either.
Paul said
Hehehe… Izzatso? Well at least now I can be sure that I’d be wasting my time trying to explain gravity (or the mechanisms of forces between atoms) at any level whatsoever. FYI even some of the most subtle gravitational phenomena have been confirmed in the mountains of high precision, high quality experimental and observational evidence in the physics literature. “Anecdotal evidence exists” indeed!
Physics crackpottery is an amusing diversion, Robin, but the subject at hand is medical science crackpottery and ethics, which isn’t funny at all.
Robin (the nice one) said
If you cared so much about people, which is what ethics is about ultimately, you would want to know why people are getting better from terminal illness. The fact is your agenda is not about ethics, its about your belief systems and your need to prove that something that doesnt fit with your belief structures is wrong. Thats what is so sad about the world we live in. You are no better than any of the fundamentalists you rail against, just as deluded, just as fixed in your opinions and just as dangerous. Your type have succesfully stopped J Sherr from sharing his experiences and possibly from working in Tanzania at all. I hope that makes you feel good. He never did any harm to anyone over there, by denying them or ceasing conventional treatment or by any other means. If you cared about those AIDS sufferers you would welcome any attempt to help them by generous, genuine, caring people as long as it did no harm. All you care about is being proved right. Why not try suspending belief for a while and taking a lok at the wprld with an open mind and heart. If a few more people did that the world would be a much better place.
Robin (the nice one) said
PS I dont have a degree in Physics but will Mathematics do?
Paul said
Not really. There is nothing being discussed here which requires an understanding of degree-level mathematics (or physics or chemistry or…). Perhaps someone with a degree in psychology could explain what on earth is going on in the minds of people who have fallen for the insane delusions of homeopathy though. That might be helpful – at least to me. As I implied in #155, I think it’s a remarkable phenomenon and one that could do with an explanation.
Chris said
Paul said “Case reports, referenced or not, say exactly nothing about whether homeopathy works or not.”
I understand. I am actually repeating the question made by Badly Shaved Monkey and others on the Quackometer blog over a year ago (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman.html).
I think it is quite telling that the homeopaths bring out their little stories without any kind of real reference and expect us to believe it.
All the while they have no concept of keeping records, basic mathematics, chemistry (who was Avogadro and why do we keep bringing him up?), scale (why oh why is 200C so silly, or how many atoms does the observable universe actually contain? How much more is 10E400 to 10E80?), and even basic biology.
Now Paul you asked “Perhaps someone with a degree in psychology could explain what on earth is going on in the minds of people who have fallen for the insane delusions of homeopathy though.”
Check out this podcast from Australia that I have been listening to: http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/
You should enjoy the most recent titled “Simple-Minded Certitude.”
Robin, writing another story without any real verifiable reference is not answering the question, nor is it proof. I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garden eating the lovely invisible golden apricots from my tree, which just had real snow on it this week. Just try to prove me wrong.
Paul said
“You should enjoy the most recent titled “Simple-Minded Certitude.””
Thanks Chris – downloading it now
Cybergibbons said
Robin:
1. It doesn’t matter if homeopathy works, that is not the argument here.
2. Just because you can see something yourself (effects of gravity), and it is also backed up by scientific evidence (a fair bit of work goes into it…) does not mean that anecdotal evidence wins.
jaycueaitch said
Kind of ironic that homeopaths such as Simone accuse those who disagree with them of narrow/closed mindedness when it is clear that they refuse tho contemplate that they might be wrong and strenuously refuse to engage with the discussion of Sherr’s unethical behaviour. Which is what the OP was about.
Warhelmet said
Sherr’s blog has been removed from blogspot.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Warhelmet said
http://onlinehomeopath.com/
Oh, Dalpy is going to Tanzania to assist Sherr. Dalpy’s website makes it clear that he does not believe that HIV causes AIDS.
simone said
Many of the writers above will not be interested to see this list.
http://homeopathy-israel.co.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=103&ArticleID=100
Nash said
Correct. It is not an interesting list, which is all it is. As for most practical intents and purposes no one will read these, it is totally pointless. Have you read any of this stuff? I doubt it.
simone said
If only there had been more of this kind of blog, a true effort of charity and healing.
hxxp://www.jeremysjournalfromafrica.blogspot.com/
[stop spamming! - gimpy]
Nash said
Really Simone, if you can’t see why this does not introduce bias into his trial, then you are really thick. He gives them food and all they have to do is tell him what he wants to hear. What happens when they find they are not getting better? Does the food stop?
As to amazing charity, he has spent $238 on the food, or 4 days hotel bills (8 days at his reduced hotel rate). Considering he has been there at least 3 months (a lot of posts from his blog seem to have gone missing) then he has spent $2100 on his own accomodation in a hotel. Judging by the photo of himself he doesn’t seem to be starving.
Chris said
Nash said “Really Simone, if you can’t see why this does not introduce bias into his trial, then you are really thick.”
Well that does seem to be the problem, since she has been told time and time and time again that the plural of anecdote is not data, and then just posts more cute little anecdotes.
Alan Henness (zeno) said
Yet more anecdotes and customer satisfaction surveys?
simone said
Titre du document / Document title
Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder : a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
FREI Heiner (1) ; EVERTS Regula (2) ; VON AMMON Klaus (3) ; KAUFMANN Franz (2) ; WALTHER Daniel (2) ; HSU-SCHMITZ Shu-Fang (4) ; COLLENBERG Marco (4) ; FUHRER Katharina (2) ; HASSINK Ralph (5) ; STEINLIN Maja (2) ; THURNEYSEN André (3) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Swiss Association of Homeopathic Physicians SAHP, Lucerne, SUISSE
(2) Division of Paediatric Neurology, University Children’s Hospital, Inselspital, 3010 Berne, SUISSE
(3) Kollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM)/Homeopathy, Imhoof Pavilion, Inselspital, 3010 Berne, SUISSE
(4) Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science (IMSV), University of Berne, Berne, SUISSE
(5) Zentrum für Entwicklungsförderung und pädiatrische Neurorehabilitation, Bienne, SUISSE
Résumé / Abstract
An increasing number of parents turn to homeopathy for treatment of their hyperactive child. Two publications, a randomised, partially blinded trial and a clinical observation study, conclude that homeopathy has positive effects in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim of this study was to obtain scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in ADHD. A total of 83 children aged 6-16 years, with ADHD diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV criteria, were recruited. Prior to the randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover study, they were treated with individually prescribed homeopathic medications. 62 patients, who achieved an improvement of 50% in the Conners’ Global Index (CGI), participated in the trial. Thirteen patients did not fulfill this eligibility criterion (CGI). The responders were split into two groups and received either verum for 6 weeks followed by placebo for 6 weeks (arm A), or vice-versa (arm B). At the beginning of the trial and after each crossover period, parents reported the CGI and patients underwent neuropsychological testing. The CGI rating was evaluated again at the end of each crossover period and twice in long-term follow-up. At entry to the crossover trial, cognitive performance such as visual global perception, impulsivity and divided attention, had improved significantly under open label treatment (P<0.0001). During the crossover trial, CGI parent-ratings were significantly lower under verum (average 1.67 points) than under placebo (P=0.0479). Long-term CGI improvement reached 12 points (63%, P<0.0001). Conclusion: The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions.
Revue / Journal Title
European journal of pediatrics ISSN 0340-6199 CODEN EJPEDT
Source / Source
2005, vol. 164, no12, pp. 758-767 [10 page(s) (article)] (30 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais
Editeur / Publisher
Springer, Berlin, ALLEMAGNE (1975) (Revue)
Mots-clés anglais / English Keywords
Human ; Attention disorder with hyperactivity ; Attention disorder with hyperactivity ; Pediatrics ; Efficiency ; Clinical trial ; Attentional disorder ; Double blind study ; Randomization ; Hyperactivity ; Child ; Treatment ; Homeopathy ;
simone said
I know my comment is awaiting moderation so here is a moremoderate one – only animals in these list of trials:
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).
Gonçalves et al. O uso da homeopatia no tratamento da infecção urinária 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 reduced semen loss in treatment of fertilisation of female pigs.
Riaucourt A. L´Exemple de la Filière 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. Particularité de l´utilisation de l´homéopathie en production avicole. Annals of the “Entretiens Internationaux de Monaco 2002″, 5-6 October 2002.
simone said
Those who attack homeopathy without knowing what it is, and/or very well knowing its efficacy and worth and yet attacking it for avarice, being crooked is the ilness.
You must suffer from a degree of inflexible joints to painful or total immobility so here is one trial designed for you especially:
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/
content/full/40/9/1052
Reply
Nash said
I don’t suffer from infexible joints or painful total immobility. Is this because I am attacking homoepathy as I know and understand what it is?
simone said
The greatest value [of homeopathy] in sports? Its speed of action. I can use homeopathic medicines like Arnica directly on the soccer field.”–Dr. Jean-Marcel Ferret./1
So without any further ado, what remedies should you have with you on the soccer field? We might as well start with Arnica, as, without a doubt, Arnica has almost single-handedly made homeopathy famous! I would say seventy to eighty percent of the time, you’re going to give Arnica for sports injuries; that’s because Arnica is a specific for blunt trauma.
phayes said
Simone, if it looks like scientific research but it’s a clinical trial of homeopathy or an experiment to do with homeopathy then it isn’t – it’s cargo cult science. If it further concludes “that homeopathy has positive effects”, then it is either imbecilic incompetence and delusion or plain fraud.
Smart Bombs said
@Phayes – that’s slightly unfair. It’s entirely possible to conduct proper, rigorous, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of homeopathic remedies. They have been done, and we find that the best quality studies are those least likely to show a positive effect. Only the poor quality studies show a positive effect, so that’s why we can take the position that the evidence overall shows no effect greater than placebo for homeopathy.
phayes said
@Smart Bombs, I don’t think it’s unfair at all. Firstly, there was never good reason to waste any time and resources whatsoever testing the absurd homeopathy ‘hypothesis’ – not even at its inception 200 years ago – and most certainly not since about 1842¹. Secondly, look at the dates on those ‘papers’ Simone posted, consider what the science concerning homeopathy since about 1880² and up to each year since said about plausibility and clinical significance, and pick the year you would’ve considered it time to stop sending out expeditions looking for the edges of the world.
¹ http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/19th_Century/storke/storke_commentary.html
² http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html
Jeremy Sherr - in breach of Tanzanian law? « gimpy’s blog said
[...] Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason [...]
phayes said
Oops! link ¹ ⇆ link ² in the above.
simone said
If you would have been concerned with ethics your reactions would have been one of praise to the beyond standard project of Jeremy sherr in Tanzania.
Tanzanian apparently do not need your help in controlling medical ethics, on the contrary, they require the compassionate knowledgeable, and unprejudiced observer, which is what a classical homeopath should strive to be. This project follows quite a few successful what you may call anecdotal healing of Aids and other serious illnesses with the right chosen homeopathic remedies and proper management of the cases to ultimate potential recovery.
Sgt Major Rant said
A ‘classical homeopath’ may well indeed strive to be compassionate, knowledgeable and unprejudied. By these criteria Jeremy Sherr is a sad failure as a classical homeopath. If he was truly unprejudied then he would be open to the possibility that homeopathy can do nothing for those with AIDS/HIV. His original posts on his blog clearly demonstrate he is closed minded.
Have you actually read anything on his blog? It’s just that with everything else you post or mention, you obviously haven’t bothered to read what you are referring to.
simone said
I happen to have attended Jeremy Sherr seminars of live cases for qualified homeopaths,few of whom were doctors MD’s. These yearly seminars included follow-ups. We have seen live cases in a two yealy seminars. None of them HIV, but there was cancer alright, there were a few severe mental cases which seemed to be hopeless . Over a 100 cases, from ailing babies from birth onwards to old ladies, with chronic complaints, all but for one case, had excellent results and new hope for better future. Not being his patients but knowing some personally including one of cancer in the head, I and some thousands of his students and more of his patients can attest to the efficacy of Jeremy’s treatment and teachings and of the benefit of homeopathy in very severe illnesses, including states of unconsciousness (no placebos works for babies, animals or the unconscious).
You will have to eat your hat sooner or later, and probably visit a homeopath for your grave illnessess. Lying is indeed an illness, especially depriving people of the information that may help them get well. Slander, out of context quotes, misleading human beings to trust what is not trustworthy, for reasons known to you. Sgt major Rat n
Warhelmet said
Troll?
Nash said
Why is that homeopaths always want anyone who disagrees with to become ill. Odd attitude for a ‘caring’ so-called profession.
You couldn’t make it up « Dr Aust’s Spleen said
[...] Gimpy has done a tremendous job of exposing Sherr’s messianic delusions and ethical blind-spots – but the “You couldn’t make it up” moment does not stem just from Sherr himself. It also comes from the hordes of homeopaths who have lined up to defend – and heap praise on – Sherr, and from the homeopathic “trade bodies” which have been stunningly silent on what Sherr is up to. Behold the chorus of disciples on, for instance, Gimpy’s threads here and here. [...]
simone said
The facts about an ingenious homeopathic experiment that was not completed due to “tricks of Mr. James Randy
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/
simone said
The facts about an ingenious homeopathic experiment that was not completed due to “tricks of Mr. James Randy
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/
Brilliant gimpy he has automatic set of answers to deter proesters to his attack on homeopathy. He should have the last word and his unison choir.
Nash said
Simone
Do you actually read any of the stuff you link to?
The homeopaths did not come up with the funding that they agreed to provide. They broke the protocol they agreed to. So where is the the trickery on Randy’s side?
simone said
It is you who fail to read the whole so here is the near bottom line of it, that is after the initial funding was ready.
quote:
“It is characteristic of the urgency from the exchange of e-mails and more especially the e-mail Mr. Gindis wrote to Mr. Randi: “I want to underline, though, that your participation is critical… As you can imagine, the homeopaths are very concerned about your health. In their eyes you “failed” them by getting sick right when they just about put it all together”.
In 7.4.2006 Mr. Gindis wrote to Mr. Randi in order to signal to him that the homeopathic team was ready to start: “All in all, I am impressed that he (Prof. Vithoulkas) managed to put together such a team, find a sponsoring hospital and find a way to recruit patients with advertising efforts and costs carried by the hospital and participating homeopaths”. But instead Randi suspended all activities of the experiment attributing it to his supposedly state of health!
Mr. Randi knew very well that this period was crucial for us to start the experiment and we had made this urgency explicit by sending several e-mails urging them that it was necessary to go ahead immediately. But Mr. Randi needed …six months “to recover” denying to assign a collaborator. As expected, in Autumn of 2006 a new Mayor Dr. Kaklamanis M.D. was elected in Athens.”
end quote and you can continue in the a/m link.
Nash said
Randi’s version
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/174-swift-march-14-2008.html#i2
Now that Randi has recovered.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/235-george-vithoulkas-homeopathy-challenge-starting-anew.html
Warhelmet said
James Randy – the Horny Skeptic.
simone said
Nash
It took him more than four years to decline the trial. Now it will take him some time to contrive new “scientific” excuses.
Luckily for Humankind and homeopathy (proper classical homeopathy) there are men like Vithoulkas and Sherr, whose interest is purely in homeopathy. Not the million for its sake.
You may read the cancer case analysis in Vithoulkas’ website and realize that Randy’s long standing offer is a measly one, when you consider the fabulous consequences of homeopathic treatment in such a fatal case. The total misunderstanding of modern medicine as to what really ails or heals the patient.
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1975/lang,en/
Nash said
Just read thru the Case study
Liked this bit
“It is unfortunate that the patient did not have acute diseases for years. This proves that her vitality has dropped years ago and that she became prone to develop a deep chronic disease. As said before, a positive sign in all this are the appearance of warts that resist allopathic treatment.”
Why is it unfortunate that the patient was not ill for years? Why does being healthy for a long time make you prone to developing a long term illness? What is so good about warts?
michele said
Your questions show your ignorance of homeopathic philosophy.
Warhelmet said
Michele – a gnomic statement to say the least. Where do you want to begin on the topic of homeopathic philosophy?
One thing I find particularly interesting is the impact of Swedenborgianism on homeopathic thought from Kent onwards. Kent has had a tremendous influence on homeopathy. When I read a criticism of convential medicine by a homeopath, I can’t help but hear the echoes of Kent.
Kent is considered by some homeopaths to be a very controversial figure. I would see this as evidence of there being multiple competing philosophies within homeopathy. I understand that there is schism with the world of homeopathy. Trivial example – the question of whether the vital force is intelligent or not.
simone said
Warhelmet,
Many cancer patients are known for their being “healthy” for years, never catching a flu, hardly ever getting a cold. Some skin erruption to the maximum that were treated localy, ointment or removal for warts.
And lo and behold for years nothing and then cancer.. an operationand then a second one, then radiation or chemo- and then they are on the verge of nowhere where health is concerned.
WHen in the last stages they are treated conventionally they lose their dignity (heavily doses of Opium do that), they still suffer and they are not able to relate to their family and friends.
With homeopathy, even terminal cases who have been formerly suppressed, can enjoy a peaceful departure from this world surrounded by their beloved ones when they are sane!
If this is a phenomena that is slighted by you, or anyone, you can continue tearing out of context any brilliant analysis of case that you wish to. Those who were treated homeopathically are not imressed. Go on!
Warhelmet said
Simone – Hang on a minute. Michele said something about ignorance. The point is that I do understand the philosophy of homeopathy. I mentioned Kent to demonstrate that i) I’ve read homeopathy texts and ii) there are disagreements within homeopathy on various doctrinal issues. The latter is important it means that there is no single philosophy of homeopathy.
Dro said
Very commendable reading some of Kent. If you read the Lesser writing, you may just begin to understand the philosophy, that after you read the whole of it, only if you delved in the Organon, sixth edition!
Name dropping and saying “The point that I do understand the philosophy” is also very impressive to those who in order to study the philosophy of Homeopathy work four years at studying the whole. No reductionists here, no reductions.
In fact you may in future join the club of those who were dead against homeopathy to start with, most of them doctors MD’s, but later when realizing its efficacy on themselves and patients were became devoted homeopaths, to mention just a few, Dr. Burnett, Dr. Nash , Dr. Kevin and many others those whom I mentioned admitted to being prejudiced against homeopathy.
phayes said
Yeah right… thanks for that, Dro. If I’m ever feeling ill enough to need to seek medical help, I’ll remember to cheer myself up a little bit first by thinking about things like MRSA, rates of iatrogenesis, the median (NHS employee) IQ, and how many doctors are homeopaths these days.
Warhelmet said
Dro – complete nonsense. This is just another version of the only homeopaths understand homeopathy argument. Homeopathy, in any of its flavours, does not have any particularly abtruse or difficult philosophical, moral or ethical underpinnings. Whilst many homeopaths rail against scientism, are you seriously suggesting that sociology and philosphy are also not fit tools for any enquiry into the nature of homeopathy? Does homeopathy really sit so far outside of any other body of human knowledge that it can not be examined, except by itself? Is it such a peculiar type of knowledge that it is only the practise of the knowledge that allows that knowledge to learnt?
I think not.
ez said
Warhelmet,
I’m sorry to say you have it all upside down, and what Michele not quite adequately called philosophy of homeopathy is not what you seem to relate to. (I think very few people come to homeopathy because they were intrigued by the mystical teaching about the VItal Force etc. Most people just try it for some ailment and find that it works… And why it works is another question altogether.) While Kent’s ideas about the nature of the Vital force might be interesting for some and questionable for others, they are completely irrelevant to the actual application of homeopathy to treatment of real people. What Michele was referring to was the observation of the direction of cure, which has emerged as a summary of observations of eariler (and present day) (competent) homeopaths about how people tend to get sick – the pathway of ill health, so to say, and the observation that when you treat a person with homeopathy they seem to “unroll” the list of their diseases backwards – like the most famous example of eczema replaced by asthma and sometimes replaced by depression – when such a person comes to treat their depression, first this gets better while asthma (which seemingly went away previously) reappears, and if they continue with their treatment, then asthma goes away to be replaced by eczema, and if again they go on with this, then eczema clears up for good as well. I personally know a person who has followed exactly this line of development of her state of health – she had eczema up to junior high school, then it went away and suddenly she was asthmatic, now the asthma is better, but she has unpleasant mood swings. Although she has not opted for homeopathic treatment I’d confidently predict that if she gets a good remedy and her moods stabilise she’ll have a recurrencce of asthma followed by eczematous outbreaks… But that’s beoynd the point. There are other typical sequences of people getting ill, which Hahnemann classified largely into his three miasmatic categories, and no matter how you would deny their existence, they are out there, you only have to do some research into case records, actual case records taken over a long period of time, which nobody in conventional medicine ever does, so for them any sickness “suddenly” appears and could “happen to anyone” – usually there are enough “hints” in terms of signs and symptoms before that. These things are real in the sense that they can be repeatedly encountered in real life – in case you doubt reproducibility – you simply need to go long-term, and no clinical studies will ever highlight this aspect. And certainly no placebo effect will ever cause the reappearance of old diseases in such orderly and predicable manner, what’s your opinion? Well, given that the placebo effect itself is not studied in any depth, probably we cannot really discuss this point at all.
As to Kent’s – or someone else’s religious ideas – I assume you also have read the Organon, so if you check the footnote to paragraph 1, you will learn what Hahnemann thought about all these “rationalisations” of the nature of Vital Force, which in my opinion is simply unknowable, but as many people point out, it would not preclude anyone from using its reaction to stimulation through homeopathic treatment just as the total ignorance to the nature of gravity – will you also ask physicists for “mechanism of action” of gravity in order to use its effects? – does not preclude us to use this phenomenon in our everyday life.
Moral failure – for a (competent) homeopath this is not a cause of anything, but an indication that the person needs treatment, just this. No healthy and happy person will ever dream of killing anyone, what do you think? But the homeopathic approach is completely opposite to what religions – at least, organised religions, – tend to ask of people – that they “follow the word of God and his messiahs”, so to say – people would do this themselves if they could! Their – well, let’s say, – will is weakened for some reason and this is the reason they fail to do all the good things from the Bible, which I think are good not because they are “divine” but because if they can be followed by a sufficient amount of people, then such a society will be a pleasant place to live in and ensure creative and comfortable life for all its members. THat is the reason why Hahnemann stresses the need for a homeopath to be an unprejudiced observer – and by no way a judge! – to those who come to seek his help. And obviously, not all people have their problems go as deep as to cause some “moral failure” – whatever you might mean by this expression. Certainly it’s the last thing to do – to victimise people, homeopathy seeks to empower people… If this all makes any sense to you.
gimpy said
Hmm, EZ, while I appreciate a clearly thoughtful post I can’t help but feel that your argument that homeopathy is different to religion is somewhat undermined by making appeals to Hahnemann’s teachings and writings to prove your points. In what way is this different from fundamentalist christians or muslims who cite the bible or koran in support of their actions and ideas?
Warhelmet said
Ez, I beg to differ. I see the “philosophy” of homeopathy encompassing the metaphysics of homeopathy. I’ve read the Organon and I’ve read some of the modern homeopaths as well, I’m wading through Kent. David Little is particularly interesting, especially when he talks about Jung. I’ll say that again – Jung.
To view the practise of homeopathy as completely divorced from whatever metaphysical underpinnings the practitioner has is – how can I put this – reductionism. Hahnemann stated that the practitioner should not trouble themselves with the details of how certain things work in homeopathy because they are unknowable, except to God. It looks very pragmatic until you compare it with the dogma – it becomes just another piece of dogma. It’s a denial of innate human curiosity. It’s a denial of metaphysical and philosophical enquiry.
A holistical healing system is in the business of metaphysics amongst other things otherwise it’s not holistic.
I can’t really do justice to the doctrine of disease as a product of moral failure here. It’s a doctrine that still has some currency. AIDS – the Gay Plague, etc.. The Wages Of Sin. Having said that, compare Hahnemann’s position on being an unprejuidiced observer with the vituperative attacks on allopathy.
Bah.
ez said
Gimpy,
And how citing previous research in scientific papers is different from citing the Bible then?
Zeno said
Ez said: “And how citing previous research in scientific papers is different from citing the Bible then?”
LOL!
ez said
Warhelmet,
I did not say that people are not allowed to develop their way of rationalisation of what’s behind the action of homeopathy, in no way, everyone’s free to think what they wish! I personally have my personal ideas about how the world is working, which I update depending on what new things I’ve learned etc. including what I infer from watching how people react to homeopathy. Some things (of metaphysical nature) that Hahnemann or Kent wrote I can relate to, but not to others, and I like Hahnemann much more, because he had much less of didactic metaphysics, but Kent was also a highly successful homeopath, and that’s what matters for me personally more. So I’m set to learn as much from him in terms of actual practice, rather than to enter a metaphysical debate – I like philosophy and metaphysics, but currently there is just no time for this, at least as I see it, so many people suffer and need help… But that’s beyond the point. I think that when the person’s beliefs begin to stand in the way of something (positive) that they are trying to achieve – this is something that needs to be amended, but you somehow refer to this as “moral failure”, it may be actually regarded as moral achievement under certain social circumstances…
Jung was very successful in actually treating people, as far as I know, why does he upset you? He was trying to set people free “internally”, if you see what I mean, and it’s this that I think is important.
Hahnemann does not say anywhere that everyone should strictly adhere to all that he’s written – he has just described the most effective way of using homeopathy, to which he has arrived through thorough analysis after having tried different treatment approaches in his practice. And some people even now are trying to see if there exist more effective approaches to treatement – hence all the “new” homeopathic methods, while some people just do not study enough or have limited understanding. But I have repeatedly heard from various homeopaths that after trying this or that they have found that, say, applying one remedy at a time and waiting enough to verify the response and proceed further from there, is the most effective way – which is what Hahnemann described in the 4-5-6th editions of his Organon. If some people feel obliged to follow the routine without thinking – well, this only shows their lack of freedom of thought, if you wish, you may include this in your concept of “moral failure”. But I did not put the word “competent” in brackets for no reason, a competent homeopath, the one that you’d wish to have to treat yourself, is someone who looks beyond that. Basically people should be aware of what they are like, self-awareness, and use this self-awareness not to blame themselves – to feel somehow inadequate is not constructive, but self-destructive, – but as a “given”, which ideally would permit them to maybe improve themselves if they feel they need this, or do something positive in their life, which is usually beneficial not only to others but to themselves as well. I think books like Bible do actually describe examples of people who have succeded in this, but this does not mean that someone will achieve if they blindly follow the same “guidelines” – against their nature, so to say. To each – his own way. One thing I found with people treated with homeopathy successfully si that they end up regaining self-respect, their dignity, something of which they were not aware in the beginning of treatment in the first place – that they have lost these basic survival aspects – I do think it is crucial for survival to be positive about oneself, to respect oneself for what one is.
Going back to Hahnemann, I’m sure he has had his own metaphysical understanding of what he is doing, but he did not think it appropriate to force it on other people as he has undoubtedly noticed that this does not change the way in which the remedies should be used to treat people. Dogmas appear where there are people who are ready to follow it, but again, I find it really strange to blame these people for that, I bet they do the best they can…
Well, that’s about all I can think of regarding “moral failure”, but that’s my opinion, of course, and other homeopaths may think differently – which I think they have a right to, just as I accept that you have your right to your doubts.
ez said
Zeno,
I mentioned what Hahnemann wrote in the footnote just to cut back on having to type something similar myself. I am of the same opinion, what’s wrong with that? Do you think it strange for people to sometimes have similar opinions?
But with research in general, is it not natural to study the works of previous researches to try to move the field further? And if you do study previous researchers, is it strange to cite them? How else would one accumulate a body of knowledge? If you require everyone to repeat all the steps every time – nobody would ever get anywhere beyond a certain point in any field. I’ve graduated from a math department and we learned all the basic theorems for the first couple of years of study – which permitted us to obtain tools for doing our thinking later on – but imagine what would have happened if we were not allowed to cite the basic theorems and were instead made to invent – arrive at all those theorems ourselves – a very unnatural way of things, don’t you think?
ez said
Zeno and Gimpy,
but if by saying “dogmatic” you imply that someone says that something is right “simply” because it was written by Hahnemann – then I would be as sceptical as you, although not of what Hahnemann wrote, but of what else this person has to say.
Warhelmet,
If you imply that practice of homeopathy “is based” on “moral failure” – then I’d say that you really read too much of Kent, and that is why I wrote you in the post above that actual practice of homeopathy is indeed irrelevant of whatever moral ideas any particular homeopath has, provided they are not clearly anti-social, but in this case this homeopath will be a complete failure: I was once told a story about a homeopath who prescribed Stramonium to almost all his patients, but later has gone insane himself – and guess what, showing a clear picture of the remedy Stramonium himself. Obviously none of his patients were not cured of anything. But hopefully some common sense and reasonable caution will help one to steer clear of such people.
I agree, of course, that sweepingly attacking allopaths is not appropriate, but simple observation that continuous application of conventional medicine leads – in real life, which is something that is supposed to take precedence over everything, whether you live to your satisfaction in real life, isn’t it, – unless you choose to be a victim in the name of “whatever”, which is typically detrimental to everyone including this person, – to steady increase in various chronic illnesses, although, obviously it’s not the only factor – would suggest a sensible person to inquire further, and when they find out certain things they become emotional and start all those attacks, as they simply have to express their indignation somehow – do you easily manage to keep calm when you are angry? At the same time such people, obviously, start to look for alternatives to conventional medicine, and increasing number of people come across homeopathy. That is just an observation, of course. Another anecdote, if you like.
Warhelmet said
Ez, I merely point to Kent to highlight that some homeopaths have some very strange ideas about the nature of disease. In reality, I think that homeopathy finds itself in a peculiar place where some homeopaths stick to old ideas about the causes of disease, yet others seem perfectly happy to talk about, for example, virii being an agent of causation and try to place homeopathy in that context. It’s thing again about homeopathy being schismatic.
I’ve not got any gripe with Jung, although I’d not be treated by a Jungian myself. What is interesting about Little talking about homeopathy and Jung is that it casts homeopathy as a spiritual journey. At least, it is for the homeopath. This spiritual journey may well have physchotherapeutic benefits.
I find the notion of a pragmatic version of homeopathy hard to comprehend, because homeopathy involves taking so much on faith. Can faith be pragmatic? I’m not sure about that.
Dro said
Nothing to do with faith. It works on infants, animals, on the unconsious, on the non believers.
What faith!
Nash said
A homeopath said that it wouldn’t work on me because I don’t believe in it.
If that isn’t faith healing, I don’t what is.
simone said
It is amazing how you turn texts around.
We know homeopathy works!
To repeat the Faith issue
Homeopathy works on those that are not in the state to possess faith, namely, babies, infants, the unconscious, animals, (and even seeds and plants).
Homeopathic remedies has proven its immediate action in conditions of various acute psychosis attacks, in delivery of babies, in cases of shock.
Why Nash, try and look for a great homeopath whom you bear his name… Like many other doctors he condemned homeopathy, but on finding its superior action on the patients he started using it. I quote from his writings
On Arnica montana – a remedy often perscribed for the unconscious,
“stupor or muttering, delirium with involuntary discharges of stool and urine in a low type of fever.
Hypertrophy of heart induced by overexertion, as from running, rowing, etc,: young men.
Typhoid fever, with greatest indifference; putrid breath, and red sots on the body.
Bad effects even in inflammations, from mechanical injuries, falls , bruises and contusions.
My colleagues and myself have given this remedy in more than one instance of CVA with great effect, adding other remedies as the person came about and the following symptoms arose.
Warhelmet said
Dro – no, that’s not what I meant. If you see homeopathy as more than just a collection of remedies that just happen to work (or not as the case maybe) you run into the problem of things like the mechanism of action being unprovable. Without proof, you are using faith.
simone said
The proving of remedies is the basis for giving remedies.
There are more recorded “anecdotes” of proven recorded cured cases than in all the established medicine research put together (with or without the taking of medications like Viox and Thalidomide etc. off the shelves and some “improved” vaccinations).
Every remedy has a known picture of disease which is treated successfully when the picture of the patient’s disease fits. Most complications in the picture of remedy arise with suppression of somekind, including that of chemical medications.
The long term effect of remedies proved itself to only thirty million patients in Europe, probably more millions than this in India and much more all over the globe.
Chris said
The plural of anecdote is not data.
… and yet those records are so lacking that you cannot come up with definite evidence that non-limiting diseases like rabies or type 1 diabetes have been permanently cured with homeopathy!
simone said
Pray you Warhelmet what mechanism?
Please read the book of George vithoulkas
“A New Model of Health and Disease” and you’ll get the mechanism alright of all you stand for, based in good reference from the WHO, and other good statistical bodies which would greatly please you.
Warhelmet said
Simone – you are missing the point. I’ll try it a different way.
What did the Romans ever do for us?
ez said
Chris,
“you cannot come up with definite evidence” – well, if you refuse to read what old doctors like Burnett wrote 100 years ago, and only desire to see something published in modern medical journals, which as we have seen last week are just as reliable as any tabloid, then given that treatment of certain conditions is prohibited in many countries for anyone except licensed medical doctors, and some countries even legally determine the protocols of treatments, you are going to wait forever for the type of evidence that you for some reason expect someone to provide you… But you are welcome to do all this waiting, of course, if that is your preference. Not everybody is so entrenched.
Chris said
excuses, excuses
ez said
Chris,
are you talking about your excuses for trying to avoid to try out homeopathy for yourself? You can relax as no homeopath will ever force you to take a remedy against your will, while you (sceptics on the whole, rather than you personally, though) seem to try to force a lot of people to stop using homeopathy by making it inaccessible to them. Does not really seem a fair attitude, does it?
Smart Bombs said
Translation: there isn’t any evidence
It’s quite simple really – give one group of patients homeopathic remedies, one group inert sugar pills, and measure any difference in outcomes (making sure the patients, homeopaths, and pharmacies don’t know which pills are which).
Oh wait, that’s been done already, and the result is? No evidence that homeopathy performs any better than placebo.
Warhelmet said
Sorry. A bit missing off my last post. Essentially, my argument is about pragmatism and idealogy. And Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”. The People’s Popular Front of Judea (or was it the Judean People’s Popular Front) were idealogical opposed to the Roman occupation. And the question arose:
“What have the Romans done for us?”
Pragmatic answers involve “a lot”. And Ez might like to imply a pragmatic strand of homeopathy but,
“What has medical science done for us?”
would be my response. It’s the responses to that question that measure how pragmatic homeopathy apologists actually are.
simone said
Actually a very good homeopath a contemporary Roman Mangialavori, he did a lot for homeopathy and some very sick patients and still does, he has some very good elaborate cases in his website, I strongly recommend the reading thereof.
There are the Greeks who also did a lot for us homeopaths, George Vithoulkas, Vassilis Ghegas Dr of Med. the brilliant student of Vithoulkas. their writings and lectures full of cases. Vithoulkas has treated more than 150,000 cases all recorded in the School of Athens (To Doctors MD.) and in the Academy in Alonissos.
Some of the Indians you want to read after the Greeks and the Romans are Rajan Sankaran, His father’s writings P. Sankaran, Dr. M.l. Agrawal, Praful Vijayakar, Both Vijayakar and Sankaran are descendents of homeopaths, Prafuls Son is a Homeopaths and so the chain goes on to bear healthy untainted fruit.
There is London Royal homeopathic hospital, many famous British Homeopaths have, Lady Marjorie Blacky, Queen Elizabeth’s homeopath and doctor.
You can delve in their numerous writings and records for instance the lectures on Digestive Drugs given by Dr. D.M. Borland at the London Homeopathic Hospital in 1940. Same on Children’s type, Emergencies, Borland Influenza, Pneumonia, Borland’s Mother and infant.
You could read dr. Burnett’s Fifty Reasons for Being a Homeopath,
Curability of Tumors, Traumatism in The Causation And Cure of Tumors, and other cases of Tumors, and other writings.
and indeed in Jeremy Sherr’s writings as well.
If you already feel that you want to see more then Close, Genius of Homeopathy will serve you for the philosophical part you may want to look at the article The Logic of Homeopathy. There is a lot you can quote out of context there to abate him/us homeopaths.
It will suffice I think for the meantime.
simone said
Yes Yes I know my comment is awaiting moderation.
March 30, 2009 at 18:38
Actually a very good homeopath a contemporary Roman, Mangialavori, he did a lot for homeopathy and some very sick patients and still does, he has some very good elaborate cases in his website, I strongly recommend the reading thereof.(all uou would need to do you probably know is google “homeopathy and Mangialavori”
There are the Greeks who also did a lot for us homeopaths, George Vithoulkas, Vassilis Ghegas Dr of Med. the brilliant student of Vithoulkas. their writings and lectures full of cases. Vithoulkas has treated more than 150,000 cases all recorded in the School of Athens (To Doctors MD.) and in the Academy in Alonissos.
Some of the Indians you want to read after the Greeks and the Romans are Rajan Sankaran, His father’s writings P. Sankaran, Dr. M.l. Agrawal, Praful Vijayakar, Both Vijayakar and Sankaran are descendents of homeopaths, Prafuls Son is a Homeopaths and so the chain goes on to bear healthy untainted fruit.
There is London Royal homeopathic hospital, many famous British Homeopaths have, Lady Marjorie Blacky, Queen Elizabeth’s homeopath and doctor.
You can delve in their numerous writings and records for instance the lectures on Digestive Drugs given by Dr. D.M. Borland at the London Homeopathic Hospital in 1940. Same on Children’s type, Emergencies, Borland Influenza, Pneumonia, Borland’s Mother and infant.
You could read dr. Burnett’s Fifty Reasons for Being a Homeopath,
Curability of Tumors, Traumatism in The Causation And Cure of Tumors, and other cases of Tumors, and other writings.
and indeed in Jeremy Sherr’s writings as well.
If you already feel that you want to see more then Close, Genius of Homeopathy will serve you for the philosophical part you may want to look at the article The Logic of Homeopathy. There is a lot you can quote out of context there to abate him/us homeopaths. Maybe you want to start there!
It will suffice I think for the meantime.
ez said
Warhelmet –
and in response to your question “what medical science has done for us” I would answer, as I already mentioned this, that conventional medical science has made us on the whole a much sicker crowd. I have already written that rates of almost all chronic diseases are steadily rising and have been rising over the last half of a century already, and another hint is to try to imagine that suddenly all conventional care were suddenly withdrawn and returned to what was available some 150 years ago – a guess how many people will survive this? The 10 percent of american population who are diabetic now (at least in big cities)? My guess is that the mortality rates will be much worse than they were at that point in time – which means that we are now much weaker as a whole than we used to be… But I’m guessing, of course, it’s just my opinion, you are entitled to yours.
gimpy said
EZ, by and large I’ve been content to let this debate happen without much input of my own, however your latest comment has provoked me into a response. Frankly you are talking out of your arse.
Go look at some statistics on the rise of average life expectancy, then look at statistics on the age of onset of disease. Then do the correlation between increased life expectancy and increased diseases of old age. Then come back and be sensible. Until you have done this I will hold all your posts in moderation because I’m in a bad mood and you and your fellow denigraters of medical progress are really fucking me off. Expect another post on the inadequate response to Jeremy Sherr tomorrow btw. It will be angry.
simone said
As Vithoulkas said
“dead at twenty five and kept alive until 75″
ez said
I’m sorry to have upset you, gimpy. It’s that I almost daily read in newspapers in the country where I live that “it was thought that such and such disease was thought to be typical for people over 40-50, but now the rates of people in their teens, 20-30-ties contracting this disease are consistently on the rise”, and these articles usually cite governmental health and population statistics, sometimes even giving numbers. So I make my conclusions. I admit I did not check the statistics myself, though, but what I see directly around me certainly confirms these publications.
I did not ever wish to insult anyone, was just trying to tell you why I decided to choose an alternative approach to health myself, – and suggested that you make your own choice after listening to opinions and experience of others and doing your own research, of course, not before that. Also I don’t recall suggesting that conventional medicine should be banned and people denied access to it right away, did I? If you are happy with it, then be it, you have the right to it, of course.
But I think that, indeed, this has gone too far, and will tell you frankly that I am surprised that you did not interfere sooner.
I’ll be away from your blog now, though, that’s the last post, so as not to clog you and distress your followers – and as this post is actually addressed to you personally, you may leave it unpublished if you wish.
Best,
EZ
phayes said
It is surprising and annoying that these believers in the medical efficacy of a particularly stupid and infantile form of witchcraft seem determined to spoil the debate by deliberately misrepresenting themselves as ignorant and deluded cretins in your blog comments, isn’t it?
Warhelmet said
Ez & Simone – I’m going to resist the temptation to flame.
Homeopathy stresses the experiential. My experience of conventional medicine – well, it worked for me. And for many other people too.
Dogmatic – yes, they are dogmatic – assertions about the evils of allopathy are insulting to those who’ve been helped by conventional medicine. They are insulting to those who work in conventional medicine out of altruism. In some ways, they are an insult to societal consensus, to society as a whole.
I would not disagree with the assertion that some people have very positive experiences of homeopathy. It has “worked” for them. Whilst I might not agree with the interpretation of the experience, I do respect the experience. Pragmatically, positive outcomes are good.
Dogmatic assertions about the evils of allopathy cast homeopathy into the healthcare wilderness. It drives nails into the coffin of NHS funding for homeopathy.
gimpy said
I’m sick to the back teeth of this relentless casting of slurs by the castigating tongues of homeopaths and their supporters.
simone said
Warhelmet threats:
“Dogmatic assertions about the evils of Allopathy cast homeopathy into the healthcare wilderness. It drives nails into the coffin of NHS funding for homeopathy.”
Why on earth did they fund homeopathy in the first place you might ask yourself, or the NHS.
Why did the Queen establish the London Royal Homeopathic Hospital. Was she deluded by Lady Marjorie Blacky? The royal family is being treated a more than 150 years by homeopaths. Did the Queen mother live to be a 103 and work until the last months of her life in spite of homeopathic treatment, or maybe this was the ‘secret’ to her vitality?
Why does Toni Blair use homeopathy, is he daft?
Rockefeller consulted only homeopaths during his 96 years of life, and never let a doctor near him. Was it because he had no money for the expensive medical care?
David Beckham and family – same?
Eleven presidents of the US. Clinton the twelfth, does health insurance cover homeopathy?
What about some silly people such as Yehudi Menuhin, Mahatama Gandhi, Mark Twain, Henri James, Ravi Shenkar, the former PM of India, and my patients, one comes to be treated and the whole family follows suite?
There are more renowned names to this list that you would care to know.
It is thanks to them and to the millions , who do come to seek our help, that homeopathy will persist and grow, it is thanks to the millions all over the world who will not have it any other way.
You and gimpy must have to do something with the funding no doubt as you speak. You seem to be aware of the numbers and statistics and be connected in the doing thereof (I refer to your comment 115) You know very well by now that homeopathy is superior to whatever you have to sell us in the guise of defending ethics.
The Lancet was bought off in 2005 to say homeopathic remedies are placebo. Have they forgotten their own report of 1997 confirming that homeopathy is very effective?
Nash said
The Royal Family is treated by homeopaths except for when they become ill and see a real doctor. The Queen lived to 103 despite hoes, not because of them.
“Why does Toni Blair use homeopathy, is he daft?
” He doesn’t. He’s not that daft.
Did you know, that 35 out of 44 US Presidents don’t use or never used homeopathy.
None of the members of U2 use homeopathy. What’s good enough for Larry Mullen, Adam Clayton, Bono and The Edge is good enough for me. Bono is God, so you can’t have a higher authority than that.
gimpy said
Nash, consider this a warning. If you persist in posting blatantly false opinions about the deification of that pompous overrated singer you will be banned.
Warhelmet said
Bono has truck with da Popes. I think it’s beatification that he’s after. St. Bono. Or St. Paul Hewson.
notspock said
Can we all play this game?
For a start, anyone in the 19th Century, perhaps even up to a fair way into the 20th, might not have seen much in the line of working medicine.
So Mark Twain and Ghandi – out.
Tony blair might not be daft himself, but Carole Caplin might be. Peter Foster is definately not daft.
The Beckhams? You aren’t trying hard enough.
I thought of one. Lance Armstrong, I bet he likes his drugs strong and allopathic.
(And to make it clear, I’m not talking about ones that are illegal for healthy professional cyclists).
Now theres a thought, should falco remedies be banned for sportsmen?
Another name you dropped – Vithoulkas – Did he really say “conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race.”
Another quote: “Why on earth did they fund homeopathy in the first place” (Me, just now)
Warhelmet said
Yes, I know which PCTs fund homeopathy and those that don’t. This information can be found in a number of places. The Freedom of Information Act means that it can be got at in great detail, if someone is prepared to put the time and effort in. I also know how commissioning works. I don’t work in the NHS but I have done. And I have done work for the NHS on a third party basis. I have never had anything to do with funding.
Some socialised medicine existed in the UK before the advent of the NHS, but the NHS came out of the Beveridge Report. The Beveridge Report can be seen in many lights, but, for me, the most powerful concept behind it was the desire to create a New World once the Second World War. It set out to tackle Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.
I don’t pretend to understand why the Homeopathic Hospitals were incoporated into the NHS. Googling has not revealed any information – I suspect that the information is an archive somewhere – or maybe someone else knows? But, their position is rather anomolous in the current NHS. The creation of NICE has had an effect on commissioning and will continue to do so. The likelihood is that more PCTs will stop commissioning homeopathy, because of the lack of an evidence base. With limited resources, the NHS can not afford to think in terms of individual anecdotal “it works for me” evidence. It’s concerns are far more utilitarian.
I can’t really see PCTs commissioning services from anyone who is root-and-branch ideologically opposed to the vast majority of what the NHS is about. Convential medicine DOES WORK. Not all of the time, and sometimes there are side effects, but…
Going back to some of Ez’s comments about chronic diseases… The one that I know about is type 2 diabetes. Are you doing to blame that on people being poisoned by allopathy? Or has some new miasm appeared? Or is that people stuff their faces with food and don’t do enough exercise? A much more mundane explanation.
Oh, Simone, if you are a member of the Society of Homeopaths, you’ve broken their ethical guidelines.
simone said
Why so pray you tell me? I dibulged David Beckham’s and Clinton and the rest of the living crowd of notorious figures being treated by homeopaths.
Paul McCartney and George Harrison as well. Bonne?
simone said
Notspock,
You can find most anything that Vithoulkas said publikly in his website.
If you read in in context you will also understand a great deal that can contribute to your and your family’s health.
Vithoulkas himself decided to study homeopathy after he was offered and refused operation on his spine and the homeopathic remedies saved him from the agonizing pain he had and his spine was also gradually strengthened and cured. You could see him running up and down the stairs in his age, now over seventy. (he had asked the surgeons what are the risks of the operation and they said 20% risk of paralysis – he prefered to suffer the pain , not knowng then anything about homeopathy).
notspock said
I did have a quick look, but surely if you wish to quote Vithoulkas you could summarize what you think about his dismissal of allopathic/scientific/real medicine.
My family’s health?? I think they do prefer “strong and allopathic” I won’t go into details yet, as its undignified (but extremely interesting), never mind unethical as it should be for you and your “patients”
For me personally, I do have eczema. I don’t take anything to sort that out, but what I actually do is based on real scientific principals, and trial and error and “that seems to work, but am I sure I’m not kidding myself”. I’ve not seen it much recently.
However, when I did have lyme’s disease (well, localized borreliosis), I most certainly went to the docs. Sod treating the whole person, I was after some antibiotics to kill that spirochete.
I do have the knowledge to appreciate or ignore or criticise “real medicine” of many conditions we’ve had to put up with, I could summarize for you in a few sentences what I think about real dilemmas and inconsistencies.
I personally know exactly what’s happening to me and everyone around me’s health. I even can guess more about the conditions than the docs.
So, can you summarize or state what you think about “medicine … cause of the degeneration of the human race.”
or do you follow rather than think?
PS My mum likes her thalidomide. But I’d like some falco 1C -does it work?
simone said
To do with charity and mother Teresa, No prejudice, clean of any interests but to do good:
”
At present, four charitable homeopathic dispensories are run under the guidance of the Mother’s Missionaries of Charity. One of these dispensories primarily provides homeopathic medicines to poor and sick children in Calcutta, while the other three provide homeopathic medicines to anyone who needs them. Considering the serious health problems that poor people in India experience, it is truly miraculous that homeopathic medicines are so effective as the primary method of treatment for many children and many adults.
Mother Teresa opened her first charitable homeopathic dispensory in Calcutta in 1950. She even prescribes homeopathic medicines herself sometimes.
Dr. (Sister) M. Gomes, a physician who has worked at the Mother’s Mission in Calcutta since 1945, notes that one of the obstacles to the spread of homeopathy in the Mother’s work is inadequate funding for homeopathic hospitals. At present, several Sisters are studying homeopathy at a homeopathic medical college in order to improve the care they can offer poor people.”
simone said
“Several Harvard-affiliated physicians have told me in private conversation that homeopathy has helped their family members or friends, but they would not want to say so publicly due to fear of ridicule. Open-minded doctors and scientists need to realize they are not alone and to have the courage to call for more research on this most interesting and paradoxical form of treatment.”
David Anick PhD MD
Research Associate, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School
The Impact Trainings are truly a path to enlightenment said
Numbers on your, weight have been?Update?Whenever you access, having to hold.Health and life, works to kill.Poor job is The Impact Trainings are truly a path to enlightenment, just that well your profits and.Directly on dirt, provider in this.,
Homeopathic Action Trust still funding unethical trials « gimpy’s blog said
[...] study, like previous HAT projects, appears to be in breach of the ethical requirements for human trials, not least The Declaration of [...]
cherry picker for sale said
cherry picker for sale…
[...]Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason « gimpy’s blog[...]…
Homemade Baby Gift Ideas, Homemade Baby Shower Gifts said
Homemade Baby Gift Ideas, Homemade Baby Shower Gifts…
[...]Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason « gimpy’s blog[...]…
tonsilloliths said
tonsilloliths…
[...]Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason « gimpy’s blog[...]…
adult match maker said
adult match maker…
[...]Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason « gimpy’s blog[...]…
Natural Treatments For Dermatitis said
Natural Treatments For Dermatitis…
[...]Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason « gimpy’s blog[...]…