As we all know allopathic drug industry is a multi million dollar industry. The article in Nature is also an effort just to keep the fast getting popularity of Homoeopathy in the society. Millions of people are now shifting to Alternative therapies, to avoid the adverse side effects of the so-called scientific drugs. People are sometimes made experimental animals by these drug companies. And as the theory goes, it is the survival of the fittest, and Homoeopathy is showing its credibility by growing use. Allopathic drug companies are afraid of losing their share of the million dollars industry and trying all these cheap tricks to put down Homoeopathy. It is just a sign of frustration. But a journal with the reputation should have studied the science of Homoeopathy before getting influenced by these companies.

Go to countries like India where already 20% of the population in some states use Homoeopathy. It is used in epidemics like Chikun Gunya, Cholera, Japanese Encephalitis with very good results. No placebo can give good results in such grave diseases.

David clearly does not differentiate between traditional Chinese medicine & Homeopathy.

And he certainly has never experienced acupuncher.

I agree with David that, Homeopathy is nonsense & treating it as a science is ridiculous.

However, if David separated the various fields of complementary medicine, he would know that the meridian lines the acupuncerist's use are "maps" of major nerve points throughout the body. Acupuncher works on the nervous system to limit pain & accelerate healing. And it works. I’ve never met a patient that has not benefited.

Here in Australia we have a separate set of tertiary education institutions that provide diploma’s in complementary medicine, massage, acupuncher & others.

What people should understand is that David is only trying to state the simple fact that CAM is not "science". He's not challenging its efficacy but stating that it cannot be classified as science. As to the definition of science, wikipedia defines science as "objective knowledge". Since none of the CAM specialities are based on objective knowledge, classifying them as science should be considered as intentional mis-information on the part of those who label it so. I think this point will stand to reason in any court of law and those advertising CAM as science should be prosecuted for misleading the public.

As a scientist, I am biased (!) in favor of evidence-based medicine. The emphasis of this story, however, clearly reflects one of the main problems with "evidence-based" medicine. The question is not which system is scientifically better - rather, it should be “What treatment makes the patient feel better?”.

Take this statement in the article: "For advocates of evidence-based medicine, such arguments are equivalent to admitting that homeopathy is nothing more than a strong placebo effect brought on by an attentive practitioner. If the treatment cannot work unless the patient and practitioner believe in it, then it cannot be due to the physical properties of the remedy."

As a patient, why should I care WHY the medicine works? There is considerable EVIDENCE that the modern medical system does a disservice to patients when Doctors do not spend enough time with patients. Accusing that homeopathy works primarily due to the time spent by the practitioner with the patient, in a sense, is an admission that practitioners of allopathic medicine do not give their patients sufficient time (and there is plenty of evidence that that works).

It is about time that "evidence-based" medicine paid attention to the "evidence". For a certain proportion of patients, alternative medicine works. It may well be a placebo-effect, but as a patient I don't really care what it is called. It behooves modern science for us to find out what that is, and incorporate it into modern medical practice.

So long as alternative medicine makes a patient feel better, there will always be ardent believers for those systems. And in dismissing this bottom-line, modern medicine only fuels the supporters of alternative medicine.

The old, tedious question: can homeopathy be considered scientific? Nobody asks what it actually means to be scientific. Mainstream science, based on the outdated Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, forever insists measuring homeopathy with the wrong tools. Stuck on the stumbling blocks of the far too minimum dose and of the double- blind tests, reductionist science fails to see the implications of other aspects of homeopathy –such as Hering’s Law and the Doctrine of Signatures. To truly understand homeopathy one must shift to another dimension of science and view it from a different perspective other than the pre-established one – which is believed by most to be the only acceptable perspective. An eminent scientist once said that homeopathy cannot be possible otherwise science would have to be re-written. Well, get a pen and paper and start re-writing it! It’s time!

Stef

Being a little more informed about homeopathy (http://thisquantumworld.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/homeopathy/) and water (http://thisquantumworld.com/wordpress/2007/03/22/march-22-world-day-for-water/) won't do you any harm. It might harm the pharmaceutical industry, though.

It would be useful if the more of the posters here actually read what David wrote. His point is not that all CAM is useless (though quite a lot of it probably is) but that it is not science and that students studying for these these CAM BSc degrees are not being thought how to use scientific methods to collect and evaluate data. As he says it should be tought in another faculty.

I'm sure that David would be the first to agree that it would be much better if mainstream doctors could spend longer talking with their patients at consultations but unfortunately mainstream physicians are under enormous pressure to see as many patients as possible in as short a time as possible, while dealing with a mountain of paperwork and all the time trying to meet hundreds of largly pointless and ever changing government set targets, something their "colleagues" in CAM don't have to concern themselves with. This situation is hardly going to be helped if more NHS funds are diverted to CAM.

If therapies that currently fall under CAM wish to be scientific, they should be willing to have their therapies assessed according to modern scientific standards. For some types of acupuncture and herbalism this may well be possible, indeed many mainstream medicines are derived from herbal remedies. The multi-million (billion?) pound CAM industry must be willing to fund this research rather than always blaming "big science" for failing to do so. It's up to the CAM industry to put its money where its mouth is.

In the mean time call it what you like, just don't call CAM science!

As a 2nd year student of Homeopathy at one of the 'Mickey Mouse' universities, I would like to call into question the evidence-base upon which Dr Ben Goldacre asserts, "I can't imagine what they're teaching...I can only imagine that they teach it's ok to cherry-pick evidence. That's totally unacceptable."

Is this the art of forming an imaginatively based opinion?

If so, may I call into question the scientific reliability of his assessment of Homeopathy degree courses.

The University of Salford used to specifically have a Department of Physics. It now has a BSc. in homeopathy.
Sadly, I think there is a wider picture here.

It is very distressing that so important a thing as labeling courses as scientific and non-scientific are left to the taste of these universities.

Science is not something to be attributed to anything which generates shreds of controversial and remote evidence. There must be theory, there must be double-blind trials.

Here in University of Brasilia (UnB - Brazil) we have to endure attempts to create "scientific" courses as Astrology.

Firstly, it is demanded from scientists to keep themselves in their 'field'. Why can't pseudoscience (and religions - see the creationism american case) find itself this so-called 'field' and leave science alone? Because everybody knows what DOES work and what DOES NOT work.

I am not averse to awarding a BSc, D.O. or M.D. degree for the study of 'Chinese medicine' or 'homeopathy'. In the USA, people are even awarded PhD and M.D. for psychology and philosophy. What is required is a mastery of the discipline, not a mastering of s-c-i-e-n-c-e, whatever that amorphous term is. Listening to the podcast on this topic, I was struck by the smugness of the men interviewed advocating keeping UK universities pure from anti-intellectual influence. Have they never heard Bohr and Einstein argue quantum theory? Have they never been indicted by Feyerabend's debunking of s-c-i-e-n-c-e, one who was quite intimate with the works of Heissenberg and Schrodinger? Have they not seen the freedom that theoretical physicists operate to advance our understanding of nature in the past 20 years alone? It is about discipline, creativity, objectivity, and observation. Good science doesn't flow from some limited source of wisdom found at well-defined coordinate. Who does good scinece, lots of people from great universities. Who does mediocre science, many from lesser institutions. Who does bad science, often commercial concerns with financial or political bias. I am not too concerned about the universities being overtaken by anti-intellectuals. There is an ethos in academia that allows ideas to be openly challenged and to withstand rigorous testing.

That said, I haven't been exposed to theoretical Chinese Medicine or homeopathy. I'd be interested in how to advance this discipline.

Natural therapies are not "alternative" or "complementary" to orthodox treatments : to be so they would need to have something in common.
The former seeks to raise the level of health of the patient to as high a level as possible, thereby rendering the disease inferior. The orthodoxy see the problem as one of a "War on Disease" using the human body as a passive battlefield usually trashed in the process by drug, radiation or surgical procedures
"tested" on laboratory animals.
Have a go at homoeopathy etc by all means but don't pretend that anti-pathic treatments are
"scientific" : they aint.

I am a scientist, a toxicologist and never believed in alternate medicine such as homeopathy. I started having a persistent back pain that wasn't really diagnosed and was prescribed by a friend to try homeopathy. Just 10 days, he said. I was a reluctant non-believing user so there is no placebo and faith-effect here. But after my positive experience (no pain within the month) I started re thinking that there is something wonderful about these alternate medicine systems, however unexplainable they may seem. So one cannot simply dismiss something just because it can not be proved.

One of the best homeopaths I ever went to was a pharmacologist before she studied and practiced homeopathy. Seems she had some good sense in her head that included logic and the love of empirical science, and for the the CURE of disease.

As far as the critism that homeoapthy is not scientific....I would reply with the this..
Please tell me the principles of application for a drug, any drug. What scientific principles are in place for the administraton of any drug you choose? Forget the double blind studies, forget the medical standards of practice. What principle is there for the application of any of it. Because there are no guiding principles there are never any cures. Never!

In homeoapathy each medicine works according to a body of principles in the action of the medicine. They all work within the laws of the principles of administration and formulation.

There is no principle in pharmaceutical drug administration, hence medical docotors work without principles.. take that any way you want! : )

The Law of Similars, Herrings Law of Cure, and Arndt-Schulz Law are all encompassing and uphold the success of the application of each remedy that brings a cure.

Aside from this Homeopathy is superior in Emperical Science. What ever happened to Empirical Science? Bushwacked and suppressed by drug companies for the illusion of the double blind study. All double blind studies show is that a goup of people will be toxified in the same manner by the same drug in the same dosage. There never ever is a CURE, only repression of symptoms, as the disease progresses.

To read about some homeopathic cures in animals and others visit my blog.
www.HealthSalon.org

First, I would like to point out that, although the subject of the article seemed to be whether or not homeopathy should be taught in British universities leading to a BSc degree, the author's main purpose apparently included discrediting homeopathy and CAMs in general. That said, one has to admit there are several practitioners out there that lack minimum knowledge of science and/or medicine. However, that should not be taken as an indication of whether homeopathy is effective or not. There are also bad scientists and that doesn't mean that we should throw out the window the last 20 years of discoveries done by legitimate researchers.

Now, the big question here apparently is whether or not homeopathy is science. And then we are compelled to compare homeopathy to mainstream medicine. But then again there is a trick right there. Science is supposed to come hand in hand with research. But not all physicians do research. In fact, it is my impression that most don't. So we would have to separate medicine in medical research and medical practice. As a practice, medicine is based on the discoveries made through the scientific method, but ultimately is driven by the effectiveness of their treatments on individual patients. Back to the question of whether homeopathy is science, I think currently it is not science, but it can be comparable to medical practice.

Now I know at this point advocates of homeopathy might think of a few arguments to counter my point of view, while at the same time researchers that don't believe in homeopathy (notice the use of the word believe to talk about a crowd of people who are supposed to be objective) might be infuriated that I'm actually comparing homeopathy to mainstream medical practice.

The reason why homeopathy cannot currently be considered science is because it lacks a theoretical framework based on the scientific method. Until now, no one can explain how it works and then prove it by means of experimentation. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean it does not work. Just because science cannot explain a phenomenon, that does not mean the phenomenon does not take place. Furthermore, evidence has its limits. Everyone knows that a theory that might proof true at some point in history can later be discredited by new experiments or reanalyzing the data from a different perspective.

That said, I would like to look at the evidence. This fine journal cites a paper published in the Lancet (L. Linde et al. Lancet 350, 834–843; 1997) as proving homeopathy works just to be heavily criticized by researchers to the point of being discredited. I would like to cite a later paper in the Lancet (A. Shang et al. Lancet 366, 726-32; 2005). This study was conducted as part of the Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin (PEK) through which Swiss health insurance tried to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these complementary treatments, recently included in their coverage. In this paper, researchers make a literature revision to compare studies in effectiveness of homeopathy compared to allopathy. The idea was to try to find a trend: whether better studies (i.e. those containing double blind trials, etc.) had a tendency to show homeopathy to be more effective or less effective than simple studies did. The conclusion was that more recent and scrupulous studies show homeopathy to be less effective than the simple studies. Ergo, homeopathy does not work and it's a matter of time until researchers can prove once and for all, beyond reasonable doubt, that homeopathy doesn't work. This study has been criticized by the PEK management itself and the flaws of its methodology further dissected by L. Rutten et al. in “Proof against homeopathy does in fact support homeopathy” (http://www.dokterrutten.nl/collega/critique%20Lancet.pdf).

However, lack of evidence that something doesn’t work, doesn’t actually proves it works. But I think the article “13 things that do not make sense” published in New Scientist on 19 March 2005 might actually persuade the objective thinker inside those who don’t believe in homeopathy to give some thought to the issue. At number 4 of the list, Madeleine Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, described by the magazine as “the scourge of homeopathy” is mentioned as proving homeopathy works while trying to actually do the opposite. In her paper (V. Brown and M. Ennis, Inflamm. res. 50, 47–48; 2001), homeopathic dilutions of histamine worked just as histamine activating basophils. She cannot explain why or how it works. It just does. And I don’t think any researcher can claim basophils are subject to the placebo effect.

So in conclusion, I don’t think homeopathy is science, yet. I also don’t think it is anti-science. I think it’s a discipline on the way to become science. As to the question whether it should be taught as a BSc, I would have to say that as any specialty in medicine it should require the same basic training in general medicine. Personally, I wouldn’t go to a homeopath that is not also a regular doctor (i.e. has studied medicine in a university, prior to studying homeopathy).

I am mature student studying for a BSc in Complementary Medicine and Health Sciences at Salford University and we are actively encouraged to read and critique a wide range of literature and research in the area of complementary medicine. In addition to studying anatomy, biomedicine, psychology, and research methods amongst other modules.

Equipping us with the tools to research the area of complementary medicine alongside mainstream medicine, ensures that we do not have the bias of personal opinon that David seems to have.

I fail to understand why people just don't get the point! Why can't people limit their comments to what is actually written in the article!

I've been following this discussion for a while and would like to comment on some of the comments that people have made:

Savita, you tell us that you started believing in CAM because homeopathy relieved your backache. Firstly, you say that your problem was never diagnosed. If it wasn’t diagnosed, how can you say that modern medicine didn’t help you? Why didn't you pursue the search for a diagnosis aggressively? I am sure you are still unaware of the cause of the pain! You tell us that the pain was “magically” relieved by a homeopathic mixture. Firstly we have no idea of what all medicines you took before you started taking homeopathic mixtures and how long standing your problem was so we can’t conclude how the pain got relieved. It could have disappeared due to one of many reasons: it could have subsided on its own with time through natural healing, it could be a long term effect of the medicines you took, it could be a result of a change in lifestyle, could be the result of a change in your environment…….. see what I mean, it could be the result of anything! You can’t even discount the placebo effect because even though you were a non-believer, just going through the motions of taking the medicine could have triggered the placebo effect! Coming to the homeopathic mixture you’ve been taking. Do you really have any idea what all chemicals are there in it? How and why they relieve your pain? Which all body parts they act on? Which pathway's they modify? Are they causing any genetic aberrations in your somatic or germinal cells? Have they in any way affected your hepatic, renal, nervous, cardiac, pulmonary...... systems? If you develop a problem later on, will you be able to hold those responsible liable in court? Why do you think it takes pharmaceutical companies an average of $700 million to bring a therapeutic drug to the market? Why do you think they carry out extensive animal and human studies for each of their drugs? Do you think they go to all the trouble just to prove that their drugs actually work? In case you are ignorant, the efficacy of a drug to cure disease is one of the last features to be validated! The first thing pharma companies assess is whether the drug will harm any part of the body in any possible way! Do you have any idea why so many excellent drugs never make it to the market? It’s not because they are not effective, it’s because they give rise to adverse effects in a small “fraction” of those tested.

There is a general misconception in the minds of people that homeopathic mixtures do not produce any side effects! Have you ever considered how ridiculous that sounds from a “scientific” viewpoint! All I can say about this perceived notion is that “ignorance is bliss”! Firstly, there is nothing to prove the authenticity of CAM associated “miracles” and all of these miracle claims could be purely fictional statements! How can we accept your statements as truth if you can’t prove it! And if you want to “believe” in it irrespective of your inability to prove the fact, I would ask you one simple question - why are you trying to portray CAM as “science” when there’s nothing scientific about it.

People have often commented that the best way to measure if a therapy works or not is to see if it cures patients. It is widely proclaimed that since many people have found CAM therapy effective (and here again there’s no proof of how many people, how much relief…..and so on) what difference does it make to a patient if his solution comes from CAM or modern medicine. Well that is precisely the point I am trying to make. If CAM is effective, why are its practitioners trying to classify it as science when there is nothing scientific about it? If it is effective without being science, why not say so in the first place? Why are they trying to deceive everyone who wants scientific treatments?

For all those trying to imply that “science” and “scientific” are vague terms, I would say that these terms are vague to them either because they are ignorant or because they are just trying to create confusion when none exists. Science didn’t just come out of thin air! It was born of the hard work of a great many brilliant minds, many of whom had to make innumerable sacrifices to put across their views. They succeeded because they could objectively substantiate facts. Science is based on the scientific method which in turn is based on objectivity. CAM is neither objective nor based on the scientific method and an attempt to classify it as such is an attempt to destroy the basic foundation of science and to harm all those who stand by it. Labelling CAM as science is deception on a mass scale and all those trying to pull this con should be prosecuted for doing so.

For those who keep throwing the “multi-million dollar” or “multi-billion dollar” industry tag as if that is something to be ashamed of, I would just like to point out that had there been no money to be made from medicine, most of them wouldn’t have been lucky enough to be around to pen their comments. The modern medicine drug industry is making money based on scientifically proven facts, the CAM chemicals industry on the other hand is fleecing money by selling fiction! Industries thrive on the value they deliver to customers and drugs are costly because of the huge investments required to bring them to the market and also because they save lives and that for many, is the most precious thing in world!

Dear Sir,
It is surprisng that the so called scientific community of professors and scientists are indulging in Medical Fundamentalism - something akin to religious fundamentalism which demands that "you practise only that what we want you to and not that what is good for you". Why this community is worried about the Homoeopathic System . Why they cnat say why the so called " tested , clinically proven, highly effective" allopathic medicines have dangerous side effects? Why dont they find out why such Drugs are frequently changed once the world starts realising their dangerous side effects and also inability to PERMANENTLY cure many times.
Dear scientists please keep your brand of science to you and allow the mankind to choose what it deems fit. Do not analyse a system by its own standards and not by yours or the pharamaceutical companies whom you want to protect.

Scientists do not seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that homeopathic medicines are not made using dilution alone. Dilution alone would do nothing whatsoever without SUCCUSSION. Succussion or vigorous shaking is conducted between each numerical potency, i.e. between a 1c and a 2c, a 2c and a 3c, etc.

The medicine is succussed 100 times between each numerical potency in order to bring out the formative intelligence of the substance, which is imprinted on the 60% distilled water/40% alcohol medium. Alcohol acts as a preservative.

Homeopathy can never be tested through double blind randomised trials because each prescription is individualised as every person is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine.

Briefly, all new homeopathic medicines are subject to scientific Provings. 50+ Provers are given a bottle of a new remedy being tested in the 30c potency and told to keep taking it until they develop symptoms, which are recorded and then put into a database. People must keep a careful note of their symptoms and not discuss them with any of the other Provers. The remedy is then added to the materia medica and includes the common symptoms the Provers experienced. This means the curative symptoms of the remedy are now known and it can be given to patients.

There are more than 4000 homeopathic medicines including everything on the periodic table. Homeopathy is both a science and an art.

“Science” and “scientific” are considered vague terms either because of ignorance or because some people deliberately try to create confusion when none exists. Science isn't a miracle of some sort! It was born of the hard work of a great many brilliant minds, most of whom had to make innumerable sacrifices to put across their views. They succeeded because they could objectively substantiate facts. Science is based on the scientific method which in turn is based on objectivity. CAM is neither objective nor based on the scientific method and an attempt to classify it as such is an attempt to destroy the basic foundation of science and to harm all those who stand by it. Labelling CAM as science is deception on a mass scale and all those trying to pull this con should be prosecuted.

This is all about distorting the truth and swaying the public to support the closure of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital in London.

Someone of authority should never comment on an expertise outside of their own profession unless they take the time to understand it and observe its workings.
Those who practice and utilize homeopathy know that this man has not done so, elsewise the statements he makes would not me made. Homeopathic medicine works and there are thousands of documented case studies to prove it can cure.

Louise,

Your claim that "[t]here are more than 4000 homeopathic medicines including everything on the periodic table", if true, is terrifying - perhaps even more terrifying than the inexplicable proliferation of accredited pseudoscience courses. In case you missed that week in high school, the periodic table includes uranium, lead, plutonium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and many other deadly toxins. I presume that these elements (like the other "active" ingredients in homeopathy) are diluted to the point of nonexistence, thus rendering them harmless? Well, that's all right, then.

Your comment about Homeopathy being "both a science and an art" is, at least, half right - although 'art' would be a charitable definition of the mendacious claims of alternative medicine.

Let's please have a little more reason on these posts. Funding an utterly baseless discipline - at the expense of scientific medicine - is both fraudulent and immoral. The anecdotal "evidence" on which homeopathy's supporters inevitably rely makes it no different to astrology, alchemy, phrenology or any other discredited ideology.

Of more concern is the appropriation of scientific terminology by new-age medicine. For instance, the description above of ensuring "succussion" of each solution in a prescribed manner before diluting it even further(!!) is an unconvincing imitation of scientific terminology. Terms such as "materia medica" and "numerical potency" sound impressive, but mean nothing in this context. Unfortunately, imitating a respectable discourse doesn't mean that you will achieve respectable results.

For the 'pluralists' on this post: complacent, tolerant, 'live-and-let-live' sentiments are beneficial and compassionate in many contexts, but should not be applied when the stakes are vastly higher than mere rhetoric. In fact, "tolerance" is profoundly immoral in this case. Whenever charlatans are placed in a position to affect other people's lives, the public (and, ideally, the government - although it has obviously failed utterly in its duty here) has a moral obligation to prevent them from doing so.

"Homeopathy can never be tested through double blind randomised trials because each prescription is individualised as every person is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine."

If this is typical of the response, and it appears to be, then these practicioners should definatley NOT be given degrees in science!
How ignorant!

It is simple for the proscriber to write down what they need and another to make the substance. Hahnemann clearly explains this in his definitive book. 50% of the substances made can be randomly replaced with water/alcohol base and applied to the patients, easily without their knowledge of placebo or homoeopathic content due to the high dilution. After this has been done to a suitable number of patients you can measure the efficacy and look for a statistically significant result.

As an aside I am amazed by the one sided response on this forum! Is everyone with a BSc on holiday?

The last comment by Zytheran compelled me to write again. I guess my position might be cosidered as "biased towards homeopathy". An according to Zytheran that clearly means I don't have a BSc. I not only have a BSc in Cell Biology and Genetics, I am also currently doing my PhD in Evolution using a Population Genetics approach.

Your assumption that only people without a degree or any knowledge of science would support homeopathy is highly judgemental and it apparently implies an intention to insult those who might advocate for homeopathy. I thought we were trying to discuss arguments. If you do have a BSc, where is your sense of ethics in discussing an issue without getting personally involved? Or maybe I'm mistaken and Darwin's theory just survived the test of time because evolutionists are better at "calling names" than creationists?

SCIENCE AND THE TEACHING OF COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINCE

George Lewith, University of Southampton, School of Medicine

The University of Southampton Medical School offers a CAM familiarisation course to medical students in accordance with General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines. This occurs in most UK medical schools, including Professor Colquhoun’s own medical school. I would suggest that Professor Colquhoun directs his ‘astonishment’ at the GMC (1).

(1) Owen D, Lewith G, Stephens CR. Can doctors respond to patients' increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicine? BMJ. 2001; 322: 154-157.

Some more comments:

Carlos:

“Science is supposed to come hand in hand with research. But not all physicians do research. In fact, it is my impression that most don't”
- Physicians treating patients is “applied science” (your suggestion of isolating medical practice from science and comparing it to homeopathy with the intention of equating the two doesn’t make any sense)

“Until now, no one can explain how it works and then prove it by means of experimentation. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean it does not work”
- Leave aside the “how it works”, if you can’t even prove “it works” but still “believe it does”, that’s your problem. Don’t tell us to accept your beliefs as science. Science demands objective proof!

“She cannot explain why or how it works. It just does. And I don’t think any researcher can claim basophils are subject to the placebo effect.”
- The last line in the above mentioned article reads “If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry”. As this was March 2005 and we haven’t yet started rewriting physics and chemistry, the results didn’t seem to have turned out to be “real”. Moreover, one of the flaws in the experiment is the “probably” in the statement “so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule”.

“I think it’s a discipline on the way to become science”
- Without scientific evidence that it works it’s never going to be “on the way”!

Michelle:

You are welcome to research all you like, just don’t get carried away with the belief that using scientific methods to research CAM is a proof that it is science!

Purushottama:

We call a spade “a spade”, and you label us as fundamentalists! If you don’t agree, give us proof, not empty rhetoric!

We are not telling people “what to do”. We are making them aware of the fact that “CAM is not science”. We are doing this so that they don’t harm themselves in the mistaken belief that CAM has any scientific basis. We are empowering people by opening their eyes to the truth that CAM is not science. They are welcome to do as they like but only after they are aware of the truth.

“Why they cnat say why the so called " tested , clinically proven, highly effective" allopathic medicines have dangerous side effects?”
Precisely the point – modern medicines have therapeutic and adverse effects and these effects have been scientifically proven and substantiated so that the patient is fully aware of them before making the choice. For CAM on the other hand, neither the therapeutic nor the adverse effects have ever been studied, proven nor substantiated and patients are misled by fiction (beliefs) rather than facts!

Louise:

“The medicine is succussed 100 times between each numerical potency in order to bring out the formative intelligence of the substance, which is imprinted on the 60% distilled water/40% alcohol medium”
- Great read as fiction! Have you ever though about how the “formative intelligence” gets “imprinted on water”?

Homeopathy is both a science and an art
- Leave along science, there is no basis of it being classified even as art!

Barbara:

“This is all about distorting the truth and swaying the public to support the closure of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital in London”
- Oh we are just dying to find out the truth. Please be kind enough to prove something!

“Someone of authority should never comment on an expertise outside of their own profession unless they take the time to understand it and observe its workings.”
- As they say, “common sense is uncommon”. All one needs is common sense to realise that CAM practitioners have been weaving a fantasy all along and have now become emboldened enough to label their “thing” as science. I have had enough opportunity to understand and observe the workings of many CAM areas including homeopathy and am suitably qualified to comment if that’s what you need!

“Homeopathic medicine works and there are thousands of documented case studies to prove it can cure.”
- Case studies are not scientific proof. You can also find a lot many case studies about ghosts, reincarnations, black magic, miracles…. A lot many people believe in them too but probe them scientifically and out come psychiatric cases and con artists!

Carlos:

Getting a scientific degree doesn’t give anyone a scientific aptitude. A lot of people do a lot of things not because they believe in it, but because they have to do it for one of many reasons – money, fame, stability, social security.. etc.
The biggest harm to the scientific community comes from those who get their scientific degrees without being true to themselves or to science. I have some respect for CAM practitioners because they are at least true to their beliefs. Those who work in the scientific field without being true to science are the ones who deserve no respect. Science is based on evidence and people are only fooling themselves if they accept non-evidence based beliefs at the same time!

Carlos, the argument here is not whether homeopathy is good or bad but whether or not it is science. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has stood the test of time precisely because there is so much scientific evidence for it, evidence that comes from a multitude of scientific fields, and because it can be tested/falsified. The same cannot be said for homeopathy, and certainly not if placebo controlled trials are ruled out.

I'm not sure what your point about the ethics of discussing an issue without becoming personally involved is. Would you suggest that anyone who wishes to discuss HIV/AIDS denialism must either be HIV positive or involved in HIV/AIDS research or treatment?

Dear Ajith, I have to disagree with you. By definition, applied sciences are the application of the knowledge generated by basic science to find new solutions to specific problems. So medicine, as medical research, is itself an applied science using the knowledge generated by biological research, mostly from physiology. I know you will try to counter my reasoning by arguing that physicians solve the health problems of their patients on a daily basis. But the definition refers to finding new solutions, e.g. a new way to diagnose or treat a condition. Once this is done, the scope of medicine as an applied science finds an end. Then every time a physician applies this knowledge, he or she is just trying to maintain or restore the health of the patient.

Now I also find myself forced to critique your reading of my first post. I clearly state “Back to the question of whether homeopathy is science, I think currently it is not science, but it can be comparable to medical practice”. So I think it is more than evident I am just comparing both of them and not equating them. I will refrain of making my point once again, because I would only repeat myself. However, I would say this: I think you didn’t pay enough attention to what you read in my post; otherwise you wouldn’t have mistaken what I said with what you think I said.

I now have to point out that you are citing the same paper I had cited. I have to commend your interest in the subject. Strangely in your post you write: “Leave aside the “how it works”, if you can’t even prove “it works” but still “believe it does”, that’s your problem” However, if you read the paper then how can you ask me to provide more proof that homeopathy works? Perhaps you also didn’t pay enough attention to that paper either. If that’s the case, let me offer a helping hand by reviewing your comments on the paper. Your first point is that since Chemistry and Physics haven’t been re-written, then the results must not be real. Unfortunately, science does not re-write itself. Until there isn’t and open-minded scientist sincere enough to candidly publish his or her findings on how this phenomenon takes place, nor Chemistry neither Physics will be re-written. But then again, some chemist or physicist might feel so overwhelmed by the amount of nonsense surrounding homeopathy that he or she will decide to prove it there’s no possible chemical or physical interaction that can account for it. And then maybe Physics and Chemistry will be re-written. It has happened before, when retrotranscription was discovered defying the notion that information will always go from DNA to RNA and not the other way around. It wouldn’t be the first time science will be re-written and –hopefully- it won’t be the last. Otherwise science would stop being science and it would become a dogma.

Now I would like to comment on your second remark about this paper, but I am not quite sure what you mean by it. You say that one of the flaws of the experiment was stating that the dilutions used in it “probably” didn’t contain a single molecule of histamine. Would you have wanted that the author said there was absolutely no histamine in the dilution? Well, that would have made sense experimentally. I am guessing you meant that the concentration of histamine should have been measured. But as you know, every measuring method has a range to which it can be applied. Trace concentrations are particularly hard to quantify. What you have to keep in mind though, is that most of the debate about the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations is that they are so diluted that probably there is not a single molecule of the “active ingredient”. The author was trying to mimic these conditions. And just as in the original homeopathic preparations the concentration was unknown but probably extremely close to zero.

Now your next statement on whether or not homeopathy is on the way to become science does not really qualify as an argument so I will take as your personal opinion. Since everyone is entitled to one’s personal opinion I will not comment on it.

I will comment though on your last statement, where you imply I am either not true to myself or not true to science, which is the reason why I don’t deserve any respect, at least from you. I won’t discuss the reasons why I became a scientist, this is not the place and I see no reason to air personal issues in order to proof I am genuinely interested in science. I will only say that I find myself true to science. For me science is a body of knowledge open to critic, where evidence and reasoning are more important than emotions and beliefs. I will accept that some practitioners of homeopathy are really ignorant in subjects vital to the practice of healthcare and there is still no plausible scientifically proven explanation for how homeopathy works. But I think there is evidence that it works, I have already cited one research article. I don’t know if there are more, I cannot spend the whole day reviewing the literature just to come up with more references, I have other work to do. But if after reading that article in which the data clearly shows that cells react to homeopathic dilutions of a biogenic chemical such as histamine, then I have to question your objectiveness and also whether you are being true to science yourself. Science is not the property of anyone and whether we like it or not we have to accept what the evidence shows. If you can proof that basophils do not in fact react to homeopathic dilutions of histamine, then I will have to accept that I was wrong and that there is no evidence for homeopathy that we know of. Of course I will be then in the liberty of looking for other publications that might proof the contrary. Science is always re-writing itself.

As a practising wizard, I encourage everyone to speak out in favour of homeopathy. Before I cast my spell, I dilute my igredients 1000 times with my 60/40 water/alcohol substrate and shake the flask 250 times. When the patient has drunk the potion, he feels better immediately. He is then open to my spell and the essence of nascent disembodiment flows through him like a dose of salts.

EVEN HAHNEMANN'S OBSERVATIONS WERE A FLUKE

Here is the OBSERVATION that the founder of homeopathy, Hahnemann, made in 1790. In attempt to disprove the explanation for Peruvian bark's anti-malarial effect put forward by Cullen - stimulation of the stomach-, Hahnemann took 15 gram of bark, corresponding to 400 mg pure quinine, and became violently ill with "malaria-like" symptoms: weakness, palpitations, fever, rash, headache, and tremor in the extremeties. This prompted Hahnemann to dilute quinine till he did to experience ill effects.
Here is the HYPOTHESIS put forward by William E. Thomas, an Australian MD: since 400 mg quinine does not produce ill effects in the average human, given the symptoms, and given that serious dilution was needed before absence of paroxysmal symptoms was observed, it must be concluded that Hahnemann was allergic to quinine. If true, then even Hahnemann's theorem that "that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms" would only apply to himself and other persons who are allergic to quinine, and not the population at large. CONCLUSION: Homeopathy believers are inspired by a fluke observation, all the result of the allergy of its founder.

i m a CAPD dialysis patient since last two years.
i m a resident of india.
my profile is posted at www.homedialysis.org.
i was lured by homeopathy practitioner that they will cure my ESRd.how even they dont know {can they rejuvanate dead glomuruli?}
i treid them and landed at hospital because of mental disoreintaion becaus eof hyponatremia .they stopped all my salt and protein telling me that this will reduce my creatinine level.
i recovered but this is pathetic .homeopathy doctors make fool of patients .
i even tried yoga and ayurveda but of no help/
i could have lost my life.
these people need to be taught some basic biology and science .

As a midwife working with pregnant women, I am grateful for all tools that help my clients to cope with the various potential discomforts of pregnancy. Homeopathy is especially helpful because it doesn't compromise the baby's well-being.
It is possible to use homeopathy constructively in an evidence-based practice. For example, one might say to a woman experiencing nausea, "I can offer you one of two different remedies: 1) a pharmaceutical medicine, which might or might not cause serious problems in your baby, or 2)a homeopathic remedy, which we know won't harm your baby, and which has helped many of my clients.
Placebos work, too, and it is my obligation to use them as appropriately as other available remedies.
It would be entirely appropriate to provide clients with a detailed description of potential benefits and side effects, etc., similar to the ones provided with pharmaceuticals. Most people don't read those, anyway, but it would allow queasy practitioners to be completely honest with their clients while still offering them the benefit of placebo treatment.
P.S. Even though I speak of them as placebos, I find that homepathy works really well for me, too. What's not to like about it?

"There are more than 4000 homeopathic medicines including everything on the periodic table. Homeopathy is both a science and an art."

Please , forgive my poor level of English, but...
including Plutonium?

The fact is that homeopathic medicine basically sells water, isn't it?

Carlos, The point is not whether any scientific research has been done on CAM but if the courses in question are science courses, and the evidence is that they contain little scientific content.

Science as you say is constantly being rewritten, but there are rules about how it is rewritten, you just can't claim something is scientific because you think it should be, in that case you're no better than ID proponants. Scientific method must be adheared to.

That said there is probably some scope for further scientific investigation of some alternative therapies, and if and when such research is done and replicated then and only then should it be included in "science". First you need to prove whether it works any better than a placebo, by well designed randomized controlled trials, then if there does appear to be something in it investigate how it works. The practitioners of these techniques must be willing to take part in such scientific trials if they wish what they do to be considered scuientific (and not all do which is OK by me).

By all means offer degrees in CAM if you must, but as BAs not BScs.

Finally Ronnie raises an interesting point, to what extent is CAM used by "scientific" medical practitioners as a placebo? Is there a case for allowing doctors to prescribe placebos? This might be a lot cheaper for the patient and/or NHS than sending them to a CAM practitioner.

Dear Paul, on your first post you state that the argument is limited to debating whether or not homeopathy is science. However, several individuals have used their post to discredit homeopathy. Most of them have said there is no evidence whatsoever to proof homeopathic dilutions have any effect. That’s the reason why I have argued that there is evidence (very little, I concede) that homeopathic dilutions do have an effect on cells. There are also serious and rigorous studies that suggest there is bias in the way homeopathy has been evaluated in several studies. However, I also state in my first post that I don’t consider homeopathy to be a science at the moment.

In that same post you ask what I meant by asking Zytheran to show some respect. All I meant was for him to avoid comments such as the one he did. By no means had I meant that only people personally involved with the issue at hand should be the only to post. Quite the contrary, I meant we can all debate arguments, keeping in mind it is the arguments that we should criticize, not the people behind them.

On your second post you assert that CAM courses shouldn’t lead to a BSc unless they include considerable scientific content. I couldn’t agree more. In my view homeopathy should be studied only by physicians that have already undergone normal medical training. That I have also already written in my first post.

Ajith - I recommend that to see clinical evidence of the "truth" of homeoapthy one should read "The Homeopathic Approach to Cancer" by Dr. Ramakrishnan MD. Here is a compliation of case studies of cancer cure and significant remission on advanced cases of cancer that were treated in hospital in India. Modern diagnositcs such as lab values, CAT scans and other exams were used to validate the cures. All cancer cases were advanced and many were cases that the conventional doctors had given up on.

I have had the opportunity to whitness cure of squamous cell carcinoma with the use of the Ramakrishnan application of remedies. Now you may not think this is not scientific but I tell you the woman who had the cure could not give a flip what you think after the tourture she had gone through in failed treatments previously via the hand of conventional medicine.

And if homeopathy does not work but by placebo please tell that to all the cats I have treated and cured of cat bite abscesses. Do you understand how hard it is to cure cat bite abscesses and fistulas with antibiotics? DO YOU? If you truly did then you would have to recant your postion on homeopathy and recognise it as the great healing modality that it is.

And for Carlos, if homeopathy was limited only to medical doctors to study it would not exist in the USA. Most of the excellent homeopathic care I have received came from lay practitioners or people trained only in homeoapthy at homeopathic schools, who have endeavored and worked many years to reawaken the practice.

If anyone would like to read about the application of remedies in cat bites, and abscesses in general, please visit the infections thread in my blog. www.HealthSalon.org

There have been several frontal attacks in the past on homeopathy from the scientific corridor virtually questioning its scientific credentials. Now the journal Nature (March 22, 2007) comes down heavily on the issue deploring the homeopathic degree courses being offered by British universities as unscientific. The core of the criticism lies in the fact that homeopathic principle holds that more dilute the medicine, stronger is its effect. Therefore the critics of homeopathy call it nothing but placebo effect. The report says: “Aside from the fact that there is no known mechanism by which this treatment could work, they argue that the evidence against it is conclusive.”

My dear scientists don’t throw away homeopathy because you have not found out its mechanism. If homeopathy is not science, biology is not science because no one know what life is; species is not a concept because no one knows what species is; genetics (molecular biology, molecular genetics, bioinformatics, etc.) is not science because no one knows what the gene is! The list is so long. Why criticize homeopathy alone? Who can tell us the mechanism of how paracetamol works against pain? But then what is pain? All these can be asked in one question. When you say science, what is it?

I treat technology useful and science that explains the technology true. Everything else in science is just bla bla.

A few points arise.

(1) It really isn't worth replying to those who think that a host of case studies constitute good evidence, other than to thank them for making my case for me.

(2) Thanks to Ajith J for the (vain) attempt to point out what I actually said.

(3) George Lewith points out that medical students get some CAM familiarisation as though it were relevant to my point. Certainly they should get some. At one stage I did that myself, Of course it must be done by people who understand what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.

(4) Carlos either hasn't heard about Avogadro's nunber, or doesn't believe it. Thanks again for reinforcing my point.

(5) Paul suggests it would be OK as a BA though not as a BSc. I'd agree if the BA were taught as 'history of ideas', or the 'psychology of gullibility'. But if, as in the existing courses, the idea is to train practitioners, I don't think calling it a BA would help very much.

(5) I'd like to point out that last Thursday, on BBC London TV news, Peter Fisher (clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital) agreed with me that, at the present time, the amount of scientific research in homeopathy is not sufficient to justify a BSc degree. The video is on my website. Some of the comments here seem to disagree with that conclusion so perhaps they should argue it out with Peter Fisher.

One more thing.

It was asked if you could get homeopathic polonium. Well CAM is a bit like university management. Don’t try to satirise it, because the next thing you know the satire has come true.

There is even a whole book about homeopathic polonium (http://www.minimum.com/b.asp?a=plutonium-nitricum-sherr ), and you can by not only polonium, but also holmium, dysprosium, europium, gadolinium, Terbium, Thulium (this is beginning to sound like Tom Lehrer), And don’t forget Excrementum caninum (yes, you got it, dog shit). With the 3C ‘potency of the latter you might even get a few molecules of it. All this at http://www.archibel.com/homeopathy/synthesis/newremedies/

And don't forget your homeopathic bioterrorism protection kit.

Fact of the matter is that Homeopathy works on scientific principles. Just becase you don't know these priciples does not make it any less true.

As I stated before, the Law of Similars, Herrings Law of Cure and the Arndt-Schulz Law are the priciples upon which homeopathy is based. When these principles are adhered to cures are found.

There are no principles for conventional drug administration, hence they never CURE anything.

Unusual remedies like polonium and exrementum canium do exist but are not routinely used, if ever in clinical practice. As in conventional pharmacology those into homeopathy are exploring and looking for new remedies to cure disease. Most are not used and fall to the wayside. Any material can be made into a potenized remedy but that does not mean it is found useful in clinical practice.

One unusual remedy is gunpowder. Based on the experience of civil war battle victims, soldiers found that rubbing gunpowder into wounds promoted healing and survival. This lead to the gunpowder remedy, highly effective in treating nasty wounds.

www.HealthSalon.org

Carlos:

Your comment: “Then every time a physician applies this knowledge, he or she is just trying to maintain or restore the health of the patient”

- Every time they are doing so, they apply “scientific” knowledge and it is because of this basic fact that medical practice cannot be compared to homeopathy.

Your comment: “By definition, applied sciences are the application of the knowledge generated by basic science to find new solutions to specific problems”

- Applied science is the application of knowledge from “natural sciences” for solving “practical problems”. Medical practice is the application of natural sciences including biology and chemistry to cure patients (a practical problem). Medical research is a miniaturised version of medical practice that is essential for defining effective protocols through experimentation. BTW, experimentation doesn’t just stop when therapy moves from research to practice. It continues right up to the treatment and cure of every patient.

Your comment: “However, if you read the paper then how can you ask me to provide more proof that homeopathy works?”
Your comment: “Unfortunately, science does not re-write itself. Until there isn’t and open-minded scientist sincere enough to candidly publish his or her findings on how this phenomenon takes place, nor Chemistry neither Physics will be re-written”

- One of the fundamental principles of scientific discoveries is that results need to be consistently replicable and reproducible. physics and chemistry didn’t get re-written not because of a paucity of “open-minded” scientists but because many of these “open-minded” scientists found repeated the experiment in the same way and couldn’t reproduce the findings. Everyday, thousands of research papers are published but only the findings that stand up to rigorous scrutiny are accepted as science. My advice to you and to everyone else is not to get too excited about any published piece of literature unless the findings have been substantiated. That is how science works, and that is precisely how non-science doesn’t work!

Your comment: “What you have to keep in mind though, is that most of the debate about the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations is that they are so diluted that probably there is not a single molecule of the “active ingredient”. The author was trying to mimic these conditions. And just as in the original homeopathic preparations the concentration was unknown but probably extremely close to zero.”

- Your premise is that homeopathy works in the complete absence of the active ingredient. If that is the case, there is no sense in just “assuming” that there are no active molecules. You need to prove it conclusively and if you can’t do so because of technological limitation, don’t just create a fantasy to prove your point. Histamine acts on basophils and this is a scientifically proven fact. The conclusion that the diluted solution had a “homeopathic” effect on basophils is valid only if you can prove with certainty that not even a single histamine molecule was present in the solution. If you can’t, it’s ignorance, not proof!

Your comment: “But I think there is evidence that it works, I have already cited one research article.”

- Firstly, you are welcome to think what you like, just don’t expect that will in any way change the facts! Your one research article never stood up to scientific scrutiny!

Your comment: “I don’t know if there are more, I cannot spend the whole day reviewing the literature just to come up with more references, I have other work to do.”

- You have a right to have n opinion on any matter but if it is based on superficial knowledge, it’s better you keep quite to avoid harming others.

Ronnie:

Your Comment: “a homeopathic remedy, which we know won't harm your baby, and which has helped many of my clients.”

- Well that’s a fantasy. I am distraught by the thought ...

Barbara:

Your comment: “Here is a compliation of case studies of cancer cure and significant remission on advanced cases of cancer that were treated in hospital in India. Modern diagnositcs such as lab values, CAT scans and other exams were used to validate the cures. All cancer cases were advanced and many were cases that the conventional doctors had given up on.”

- As I have mentioned before, “case studies are not scientific proof”. These case studies can’t equate to “large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trials” and that is what constitutes scientific proof of therapeutic efficacy.

Your comment: “And if homeopathy does not work but by placebo please tell that to all the cats I have treated and cured of cat bite abscesses. Do you understand how hard it is to cure cat bite abscesses and fistulas with antibiotics? DO YOU? If you truly did then you would have to recant your position on homeopathy and recognise it as the great healing modality that it is.”

- Well that’s just your personal opinion, there is no scientific proof. Shouting out loud won’t change reality!

[Editor's note: some content has been removed from this post. Can I please request that all commenters refrain from making any further personal remarks but instead stick to intellectual debate.]

Greetings Everyone,

For everybody's edification
I would like to offer a source for the actual scientific verification many here do not seem to know exists.

When you read this book you will realize that there is no doubt that homeopathics and other forms of vibrational medicine have already been proven scientifically valid.

Below is an excerpt from the introduction to the book "THE FIELD," by researcher LYNNE McTAGGART.

Filled with irrefutable, double-blind, much repeated scientific studies from all over the world for decades, including information in depth about the PEAR (Priceton Engineering Anomalies Research) Institute studies, and the studies of Dr Jacques Benveniste, proving the validity of homeopathic medicine and the fact that water holds vibrational memories of remedial substances which can help us to heal.

From the introduction:

"A small band of scientists dotted around the globe was not satisfied to simply carry on with quantum physics by rote. They required a better answer to many of the large questions that had been left unanswered.

Several thought again about a few equations that had always been subtracted out in quantum physics. The equations stood for the Zero Point Field - an ocean of microscopic vibrations in the space between things. If the Zero Point Field were included in our conception of the most fundamental nature of matter, they realized, the very underpinning of our universe was a heaving sea of energy - one vast quantum field. If this were true, everything would be connected to everything else like some invisible web.

They discovred that we were made of the same basic material. On our most fundamental level, living beings, including human beings, were packets of quantum energy constantly exchanging information with this inexhaustible energy sea.

Most fundamentally, they had provided evidence that all of us connect with each other and the world at the very undercoat of our being. Through scientific expeiment they'd demonstrated that there may be such a thing as a lifeforce flowing through the universe - what has variously been called collective consciousness or, as theologians have termed it, the Holy Spirit. They provided a plausible explanation of all those areas that over the centuries mankind has had faith in but no solid evidence of or adequate accounting for, from the effectiveness of alternative medicine and even prayer to life after death. They offered us, in a sense, a science of religion.

In many cases these scientists have had to fight a rearguard action against an entrenched and hostile establishment. Their investigations have gone on for thirty years, largely unacknowledge or suppressed, but not because of the quality of the work. The scientists, all from credible, top-ranking institutions - Priceton University, Stanford University, top institutions in Germany and France - have produced impeccable experimentation.

The Field represents one of the first attempts to synthesize this disparate research into a cohesive whole. In the process, it also provides a scientific validation of areas which have largely been the domain of religion, mysticism, alternative medicine or New Age speculation.

There have been many attempts to discredit the new ideas elaborated in this book by scientists with good credentials and testing methods, but thus far, no one has been successful..."

Blessings, Alexander Alexis

Alexander:

I wonder why people have a belief that all it takes to turn fiction into reality is to repeat it often enough! Have you even read through all that's been discussed so far?

Your comment: "Filled with irrefutable, double-blind, much repeated scientific studies from all over the world for decades"

- Would you be kind enough to provide proof of these studies rather than throwing out a lot of hot air! I read the extract from the introduction with amusement and it confirms my suspicion that people continue to believe that homeopathy is science because they lack clarity of thought!

- Quantum physics is science and to muddle up it’s theories through a play of words in order to come up with the conclusion that there exists “a science of religion” is either an attempt to fool us or to fool yourself!

- Just because someone wrote something doesn't mean it's true, and moreover it’s just a book, not validated scientific research data! Before accepting these claims as truth, please be kind enough to first substantiate them with scientific facts.

You quote: "There have been many attempts to discredit the new ideas elaborated in this book by scientists with good credentials and testing methods, but thus far, no one has been successful..."

- That's because the book contains just "ideas", not facts and no scientist worth their salt will be crazy enough to try and disprove someone else's "idea"! It is up to those who dream up the "idea" to prove it! The statement just repeats one the favourite con philosophies: "if you don't believe us, prove us wrong" and the answer to that is that we have better things to do with our time than to go about proving or disproving your "beliefs". If you want us to accept something as science, the onus of providing proof is yours, not ours!

You quote: “A small band of scientists dotted around the globe was not satisfied to simply carry on with quantum physics by rote. They required a better answer to many of the large questions that had been left unanswered”

- All fields of science have unanswered questions. Trying to suggest that this small band of scientists is trying to do something new is being ignorant about the nature of science. Scientists find objective answers to questions through the scientific method. Anybody can make a conjecture about how something works but unless they can provide objective proof, the scientific community is not going to listen. The author’s contention that these few scientists are facing a hostile environment is a childish observation because that is the basic nature of science – unless you provide scientific proof, the environment will continue to remain hostile!

[Editor's note: some content has been removed from this post. Can I please request that all commenters refrain from making any further personal statements but instead stick to academic debate.]

You know, something's not a scientific law just because you say it is. The "Law" of Similars is based on nothing but superstition and magic, not hard evidence and scientific observation.

Ajith:
Most of your criticism would force me to repeat myself. I don't see the point in that. I will just comment on a few points in your post.

First, you say the paper I cite hasn't stood up to scrutiny. Do you have proof of that? Normally when an experiment is irreproducible, it doesn't take long before another research group publishes results contradicting the previous ones. Are you aware of any paper that does so?

Second, the premise of homeopathy is not that it acts when there is no more "active ingredient" in the dilution. It acts when the "active ingredient" is at an extremely low concentration. If you make a dilution, you don't need to measure the final concentration of any substance, you just need to calculate it by conventional algebra. The experiment proves that, contrary to the author's expectations, extremely low concentrations of an "active ingredient" could also have an effect on cells as does the concentrated version of this ingredient.

Ajith J: "Would you be kind enough to provide proof of these studies rather than throwing out a lot of hot air!"

Please reread my post and realize that what I have provided you with is the name of a book (one of a number) which provides you with the actual names, places and dates of the real scientists who already have carried out, over decades of time, the experimentation you ask for.

What I wrote is not anyone's opinion on anything. The book, THE FIELD, by Lynne McTaggart, is a researcher's compilation of actual scientific data. If you want it, it is there for the reading. READ THE BOOK and stop telling yourself the earth is flat so you can sleep better at night.

AA

Carlos:

And as I said before, repetition won't morph a lie into truth.

You needed proof so here's one paper specific to histamine's effect on basophils (carried out by none other than CAM researchers) and other scientific published papers that disprove similar effects:

Guggisberg AG, Baumgartner SM, Tschopp CM, Heusser P. Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro. Complement Ther Med. 2005 Jun;13(2):91-100.

Hirst SJ, Hayes NA, Burridge J, Pearce FL, Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. Nature. 1993 Dec 9;366(6455):525-7.

Ovelgonne JH, Bol AW, Hop WC, van Wijk R. Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties. Experientia. 1992 May 15;48(5):504-8.

Claudia M Witt, Michael Bluth, Stephan Hinderlich, Henning Albrecht, Rainer Lüdtke, Thorolf E R Weisshuhn, Stefan N Willich Does Potentized HgCl(2) (Mercurius corrosivus) Affect the Activity of Diastase and alpha-Amylase?J Altern Complement Med. 2006 May ;12:359-65

Alexander:

Please provide details of the scientific papers that substantiate whatever is written in the book (that should be an easy task if you have actually read the book). As you are the one saying that the book is based on scientific facts, it is your responsibility to provide the facts. I can expend resources to access scientific resources, not fiction!

And for your last comment, homeopaths are the one who need to "believe" in something. Scientists just rely on facts so they sleep peacefully and without a guilty conscience!

Ajith J- "...it is your responsibility to provide the facts. I can expend resources to access scientific resources..."

Ajith, it is not my responsibility to spoon-feed you. And I did not enter this blog to argue. I came in only with the intention of providing those interested with a reference for the information many believe does not exist.

It is a distraction tactic to say you are too busy to read a book and only want the papers they would lead you to. If you cannot extend yourself to read a book which directs you to the papers you say you want, it indicates that you are unwilling to see that information. True seekers and scientists are patient, very excited about what they are exploring, and open-minded.

So, again, I say- READ THE BOOK.

Over and Out, Alexander

[Editor's note: some content has been removed from this post. This particular exchange within this thread is now considered closed by the host - further posts in this line will not be published.]

I am writing from the USA. Several years ago massage therapist were thought of as nothing more than a cover-up for prostitionaly activities. Now, it is an accepted practice. Even here in Alabama. What I see happening is millions of Americans are shut out of the traditional medicine route due to poverty and not having private insurance to pay for traditional medicine? What alternative do they have? Traditional physicians in my country can make salaries into the millions. Traditional drug companies send in drug reps to their offices to peddle pharmaceuticals. They use sex, coercion and every imaginable tactic to "push" their drug. I am a scientist and have many years experience in the public health system. I heard that Baylor University in Texas were employing botanical flower essence therapy for cancer patients to combat the nausea and other side effects including the EMOTIONAL state of the individual. I just think that patients should have choice. As more and more people in the USA are without private insurance they will have no choice but to seek out more cost effective, accessible treatments. As far as comments about methodology of the research. The challenge for homeopathy is the it is specifically tailed to the individual. That means there are so many variables with the subjects that perhaps another research methodology would suffice or even a new methodoloy.

Considering the definitions and the scope of science, scientific method and objectivity, it is obvious that CAM cannot be classified as science. However, a number of entities with vested interests are trying to take undue advantage of the popularity of science by trying to tag various aspects of CAM with “science” and other scientific domain keywords. This is a dangerous trend because it not only harms patients that accept CAM therapies under the false assurance of it being science but it also threatens the basic foundations of science by creating wrong perceptions about it in the minds of the general public and scientists alike. This threat can and has to be mitigated by the unified effort of the global scientific community.

People need to understand the fact that this discussion is not about the efficacy of CAM. CAM believers should realise that we are neither trying to destroy their belief nor trying to disprove its effectiveness. On the other hand, we will be the happiest bunch of people if anyone can actually provide scientific proof about the efficacy or the mechanism of action of CAM compounds. Being scientists, we are the most open minded and receptive audience in the world and we are not trying to shout down the views of CAM practitioners; we are simply asking them to back up their words with facts.

What we are actually trying to do is enlighten people about the true nature of science, explain why CAM is not science and motivate CAM researchers to come up with the proof demanded by science. No group will be happier than the scientific community if researchers can provide conclusive scientific proof of CAM but until that happens, we are not going to allow anyone to mislead others. CAM is not science until proven. QED

Patients are free to use CAM if they wish (it’s their right), but this should be done with the awareness that it is not science. Many people in the world will continue to use CAM even after realising that it is not based on science (if the contentions of CAM practitioners are true) so the absence of a “scientific label” will not harm the health of the industry. Patient have a right to choose their therapy and our intention is to make sure that their's is an informed decision, not one based on ignorance or deceit.

[text has been shortened slightly by the moderator]

This is really a question of educational approach rather than the evidence to support or refute homeopathy.
I am a scientifically trained physician, and have witnessed many episodes of patients recovering when the science said otherwise. Perhaps these are miracles, or perhaps they are due to chance. Who can tell? My whole life has taught me that we do not know everything (if we did we would not need science to objectively investigate anything). Indeed, anyone who has the arrogance to believe that they have all the answers is almost invariably proven wrong - even Einstein found it hard to accept the implications of quantum theory ("God doesn't play dice with the universe").
Homeopathy works because some people say it makes them better; placebos produce benefit as part of a double-blind placebo controlled trial; geographically defined Stroke Units help more stroke patients survive and have greater independence but trials have not been able to identify why - the whole unit works better than the sum of all the parts.
All of these have the common theme than when patients think you are making them better they are more likely to get better. Is this simply psychological well being, or psychologically delivered self-healing? Is it some physical mechanism or is it purely metaphysical? Who knows - the research just isn't there.
The teaching of homeopathy as a BSc should be aimed at scientific analysis of how it makes people feel better through objective dissection of the homeopathic consultation, the treatment given and the impact on the treated subject. For that matter, conventional physicians should research how placebo has its effect, or whether the improvements in the placebo arms of trials are just due to random improvements.
The question is not whether homeopathy itself deserves a BSc degree course, but whether the degree course is sufficiently scientific in its approach to warrant the title BSc (or even a degree at all).

CAM is not going to go away, and this is why we need open-minded enquiry rather than polemics. The best way to find out what works is through outcome studies. For example, if I am a migraine-sufferer, I do not want to know whether a particular drug works better than a placebo in relieving this condition. I want to know what kind of treatment to seek from among the methods claiming to be able to help: prescription drugs, acupuncture, relaxation therapies, herbs, cranial-sacral osteopathy, homeopathy, and so on.

The best way to investigate this question is by comparing different treatments with each other on a level playing field. A sample of sufferers is allocated at random to a range of treatment methods, and some are allocated to a “no treatment” group. Patients are assessed in the same way at regular intervals after the treatment. The data are analysed to find out which treatment, if any, work best, and which is most cost-effective. Outcome studies are now increasingly used in healthcare research, and the statistical methodologies are well established.

If one treatment method turns out to be better than others, critics might argue that this is because of a larger placebo effect. Placebo effects probably play a part in all forms of medicine, both conventional and complementary. But for the sufferer, and for the healthcare provider, what matters is what works.

What “Science” are you talking about? A comment on Giles and Colquhoun

Giles and Colquhoun (1, 2) don’t say what they mean by “science” [Editor's note - please note that with regard to these references, Jim Giles is a journalist reporting the views of others, while David Colquhoun is a scientist expressing his own views].

Their notion of science seems to contain two ingredients:

1. Science is a fixed body of knowledge.

2. Science can be defined by applying a particular kind of method.

They use these underlying presuppositions to suggest homeopathy and most of CAM cannot be subsumed under “science”. This view of science is outdated.
Although science is cumulative to some degree, the history of science knows of many examples where long traditions of research have been overthrown. It seems to be a consensus in the theory and history of science literature, at the latest since Thomas Kuhn’s writings, that the definition of science around what is a currently accepted body of knowledge is untenable (3, 4).

Eventually, previous ideas have been overthrown or integrated in a wider concept. The quantum revolution in physics is one such example, or the shift from a humoral pathology to cell pathology in medicine. Hence to argue that something is not compatible with present day knowledge is not scientific at all.
Scientific methods are tools. They are used until better tools are found. The randomised controlled trial is such a tool. It is very useful in certain contexts and for certain questions. But it is not useful at all for certain questions, such as applicability and safety. A broader perspective has to be adopted if a complex treatment is to be evaluated (5-7). Although experiments are at the core of the scientific enterprise, there are many instances where the truth was not discovered through experimental manipulation but by observation. This is true for some seminal examples of pharmacology, like aspirin or penicillin.

The so called gold standard of the randomised controlled trial has been criticised (8), and it is subject to a the frequently overlooked efficacy paradox (9). The placebo controlled RCT only tests against placebo. However, placebo effects are not a fixed quantity. Hence a treatment that is superior to placebo can be less effective than a treatment which is unable to prove efficacy against placebo. Yet, the absolute benefit for the patient might be greater. This was born out by one of the recent German acupuncture studies (10). In this study, acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was compared against sham acupuncture and pharmacological migraine prevention. None of the treatments were superior to sham acupuncture. Interestingly, sham acupuncture was better than conventional, pharmacological migraine prophylaxis in some parameters.

This finding highlights the predicament which is created by formulating the criteria of science via a content based, as opposed to a process oriented definition of science. Science, I contend, is not the content of what has been discovered so far. Science is the socially regulated process by which such discoveries are made. And its major goal is to understand the irregularities, not to exclude them. Homeopathy is such an irregularity, and hence it should be subject to scientific scrutiny. The notion of science that has crept into Colquhoun’s and Giles’s writing does more justice to dogma and religion than to science.

References

1. Giles, J. Degrees in homeopathy slated as unscientific. Nature 444, 352-353 (2007).

2. Colquhoun, D. Science degrees without the science. Nature 446, 373-374 (2007).

3. Latour, B. Pandora's Hope: An Essay on the Reality of Science Studies (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999).

4. Laudan, L. Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1977).

5. Black, N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. British Medical Journal 312, 1215-1218 (1996).

6. Fonnebo, V. et al. Researching complementary and alternative treatments - the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7 (2007).

7. Walach, H., Falkenberg, T., Fonnebo, V., Lewith, G. & Jonas, W. Circular instead of hierarchical - Methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6 (2006).

8. Kaptchuk, T. J. The double-blind randomized controlled trial: Gold standard or golden calf? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54, 541-549 (2001).

9. Walach, H. Das Wirksamkeitsparadox in der Komplementärmedizin. Forschende Komplementärmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde 8, 193-195 (2001).

10. Diener, H. C. et al. Efficacy of acupuncture for the prophylaxis of migraine: A multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet Neurology 5, 310-316 (2006).

Your News "Degrees in homeopathy slated as unscientific" and Dr. Colquhoun's commentary "Science degrees without the science" raise the question of what is supposed to be the curriculum required to get a degree in science. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), among others, is also included in the list of non-scientific courses. Dr. Colquhoun also took the concept of meridians as an example of quasi-sciences which should not be part of BSc degrees. He might be shocked by the fact that in China quite a few public colleges are exclusively devoted to the education of TCM doctors, active researches are carried out there and even doctorate degrees are offered to qualified candidates.
No wonder that there is a heated debate on this issue in China and some are calling for the abolition of TCM practice. The central question is always about whether TCM is science or pseudoscience.
Interestingly, some pharmaceutical companies are cooperating with TCM researchers trying to extract effective molecules from herbal medicines (1). The well-documented and systematic TCM literature over the last 2000 years suggests a manageable set of candidates to be screened. Modern pharmaceutical companies know the potential of TCM being a collection of human experiment results and try to get the most of it with the help of modern biological sciences.
The effective components have been obtained this way and can be further subjected to biochemical studies to reveal the molecular basis of its action (2). In some Chinese TCM universities, one has to understand the mechanism of a particular herbal medicine at cellular level to get a master degree and at molecular level to get a doctorate. This goes beyond simply sifting the huge body of literatures by introducing new and more fundamental aspects to TCM, which might be compared to the revolution of chemistry brought about by quantum mechanics.
The most controversial part of TCM is its underlying "theory" based on Yin and Yang, five elements (Wu Xing), Qi and meridians (Jing Luo). Although it is hard to find physical evidence for some of them, it is still possible to test it by comparing its prediction with experiments. This is virtually the golden standard to calibrate all potential theory.
Of course, there is no way to predict the outcome of these studies, which is what sciences thrill every one of us. It won't surprise me if TCM theory is shown to be totally nonsense. But this exploration is definitely scientific in itself and will work more effectively in the battle against pseudo-science than simple claim does.
Unfortunately, it is not so easy to marry modern sciences with TCM. The holistic nature of TCM is hardly examined in full aspects by reductionistic physical sciences (3). So both parties sometimes tend to downplay the significance of each other. If we are optimistic, the investigations led by pharmaceutical companies will inevitably produce a crop of scientists with the technique and knowledge to prove or disprove the value of TCM using modern sciences.

(1)For example, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116354914377323235-NnLFTPz5b_zTWYbbnant_Wwm788_20061121.html?mod=regionallinks
(2)For example, J Biol Chem. 2003 Nov 28;278(48):47408-15
(3)For example, The Scientist 2005, 19(9):39 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15463/

I’m astonished that so many who bother to read Science are so indifferent to scientific principles. Yes, homeopathy must be judged by measures outside the realm of science such as The Doctrine of Signatures. In other words, it’s magic! But courses of homeopathic remedies are so expensive; why not just h