Malleus - will you descend?

Would it have much of an impact if the malleus hit water?

The adage may be that from a certain height hitting water *is* like hitting concrete.

There is no legal standing for a 'registered homeopath' - anyone can call him/herself a homeopath and there is no official registration for them.

Unfortunately, there are some registered medical practitioners (ie doctors) who are also homeopathy believers and have prescribing rights - they can prescribe unlicensed homeopathic 'medicines', just as they can prescribe any other unlicensed medicine. But they and the pharmacists are the only ones permitted to do so.

But note that that law isn't actually changing here - the consolidation doesn't change the situation because it has always been the case that lay homeopaths were not permitted to prescribe unlicensed homeopathic 'medicines'. And these products cannot even be advertised or sold other than as above.

The issue is that the current regs have not been enforced - in that HoC Library Note, the MHRA say that they operate on a complaints basis. Those complaints are with the MHRA (and have been for some time) - we're just waiting for them to act.

There are currently 225 registered homeopathic products in total and this probably boils down to the 50-odd that you mentioned when you take account of the same product being manufactured by different manufacturers. (Did I really just talk about 'different' homeopathic products?!)

Lay homeopaths can use these 225 products quite lawfully - the manufacturers have been slow in gaining registration for the several thousand currently unlicensed products. I expect we will see a flurry of activity. However, to register, no evidence of efficacy is required.

These are interesting times for lay homeopaths in the UK. They and their trade bodies have shot themselves in the foot - is there a remedy for that?

Alan Henness
Director
Nightingale Collaboration

Well it's hardly surprising that homeopathy is not subject to the lawsuits that conventional medicine is.

When you have no detectable active ingredient in your $30 vial of water, it's not as if you're likely to suffer side-effects or drug interactions from it, is it?

Ah - Laurie Willberg, homeopathic journalist, returns! Not interested in childbirth or obesity, Dr Willberg - only homeopathy? Do you really favour "holistic medicine"or does your alert only go off when your system detects "threat to homeopathy profits"?

Pharma Industry thwarting the opposition? Big Tincture is the pharma industry, minus therapeutic agent.

You know, Laurie, I would describe homeopathy as being "holistic" only in the sense that it's full of holes.

So you mean to say that homeopaths have *zero* commercial or pecuniary interests? They work for free? Right?

You throw the "big pharma" gambit at critics of homeopathy.

Surely you are not so ignorant to think that the only reason anyone could possibly have to criticise homeopathy is due to personal financial gain.

Or shouldn't I call you, "Surely."

"Only an imbecile would mistake it as something else."

Way to poison the well, Laurie. Project much?

Ah, Sour Sue the apologist for mainstream medical failure... Savvy patients know that Homeopathy is an excellent system of medicine during pregnancy and childbirth. It's not Homeopathy that's bankrupting the healthcare system but pharma company greed. Homeopathic treatment is not subsidized by Australia's health care budget at all. It's privately paid for and none of those patients are the ones complaining -- just armchair critics and pharma company shills.
As far as the obesity epidemic is concerned, not for people who research the advice available from Orthomolecular medical experts or Holistic Nutritionists. Let's face it, conventional dieticians have rubber-stamped the proliferation of Frankenfoods and any sort of commercially-prepared crap as long as it follows their guidelines for protein, carbs, fats and calories. Gee, guess that strategy just hasn't worked, has it?
The solution is simple -- the definition of stupidity is continuing to do what doesn't work. What doesn't work? Mainstream medicine.

Why should Homeopaths work for free, especially when they can actually cure illness? Or are you only willing to endorse the mainstream facade of hit-and-miss treatments that might suppress symptoms in about 40 per cent of patients but exert toxic effects on all of them? This isn't a trade-off, it's a scandal.
Are you aware that the pharma companies out-earn all of the other Fortune 500 companies combined? Homeopathy doesn't even come close. And no one is charging patients thousands of dollars a month for drugs that can't cure anything.
Homeopathy is the second largest form of medicine practised worldwide. Contrary to the anti-homeopathy propaganda, if it didn't work it would have been discarded long ago.
FYI -- many Homeopaths take on pro-bono cases. Tell me that mainstream MDs treat patients for free.... Yeah, right.

There are though the disturbing local cases where people have suffered horribly through taking the advice of homeopaths, for eg cancer sufferers who have been advised against mainstream treatment and not had pain relief, surgical or 'pharma'. One very prominent e.g. of that hit the media a year or so back. Awful.

LW Writes
"Why should Homeopaths work for free, especially when they can actually cure illness? "

No, no they can't and the evidence is very clear about this.

No point in homeopaths working for free - free ineffective "therapy" is not much better than expensive non-effective "therapy".

Pot calling kettle black with the manufacturers, though.

Boiron is one of the big multinational homeopathy manufacturers and distributers which has minimal R&D and almost no ingredient costs - yet ships "remedies" all around the world, to be retailed at even higher cost - generally with no detectable molecules of whatever the original "remedy" is claimed to have been.

Then, in their clinics, homeopaths prescribe and then retail their own remedies - conflict of interest much (in medicine, the prescription is at arms length from the dispensing and retailing).

No point coming over all "holier than thou" when promoting the sale of over-priced water, alcohol or tablets.

"Sour"? Not at all. And "mainstream medical failure" - funny how our health outcomes are better than ever before - without the need for expensive drops of water on the tongue.

Lisa Milne - the mainstream medical system - like any human service, certainly has shortcomings. One of the big reasons is that it is the default system for everyone in trouble - if you perceive a need for health care, you have the right to access it.

The big difference with homeopathy is not in the realm of shortcomings - it's just that it doesn't work. The "remedies" that are alleged to be infinitessimal dilutions of anything from fragments of the Berlin Wall to simple table salt, placed in a glass bottle and banged on a hard surface, just have no physiological effect - they can't, and don't, do anything.

Homeopathy is not like massage or herbal therapy - there is no tangible therapeutic modality. If you don't believe the posters here, look it up, and see how feasible you think it is.

Here is a direct example of the scam perpetrated by Big Tincture:
You can buy so-called "Mother Tincture" over the net by multiple litre or kg quantities - there are lots of overseas and Australian sites.

You can also bulk buy dropper bottles and "pillules" made of sucrose and/or lactose (otherwise known as "pills").

All you do then is infinitely dilute the mother tincture - and there you have it - infinite profit (except for the cost of the water and/or alcohol).

Add the cost of a consultation, and perahps a weekly review, and you have a very tidy profit.

And what a lifestyle - no on-call for car accidents!

As usual you illustrate nothing more than a pathological antipathy towards homeopathy that's void of facts and full of empty opinion. Your info. regarding Boiron is just another example of how pseudoskeptics parrot opinions copied from "science blogs".
Since you have never likely been a patient of a professional homeopath it's not surprising that you don't seem to know much about it, but that's what you get from reading propaganda.
It's hardly "holier than thou" when one compares the Fortune 500 stats on the drug cartel -- kindof like comparing the cost of a Space Shuttle to a kiddie car. Worst thing is that those drugs are responsible for the highest percentage of emergency room visits -- or is that supposed to be a kept secret? Oops. Health care costs are high because of the high cost of treating the carnage caused by conventional medical treatment and passing on those multi-million dollar damage settlements to the public and government health care plans.
You know, those national health care plans that the medical associations fought tooth-and-nail to keep from becoming established in the first place? Now that they've got a virtual monopoly they'd like to keep it that way.
All the fussing about homeopathy is still nothing more than one trade union trying to keep another one out.

Read the research studies linked at www.extraordinarymedicine.org
You are totally ill-informed about what the evidence really is (probably from reading too many "science-blogs" written by pharma social marketers.

Here's a direct example of someone who has no idea about actual homeopathic pharmacy... How about you actually go and take a tour of a homeopathic manufacturing facility before commenting.
And stop reading those dippy "science-blogs".

Mike misses the point that most patients who end up in a homeopath's office have had no success or relief from conventional medicine to start out with. The fact that pharma companies are trying to use any type of regulatory trick through whatever mouthpieces they can find to deprive people of their right to choose other forms of medicine is appalling.
Millions of people use and practise homeopathy worldwide and have been doing so for over 200 years.
No one knew how aspirin worked for almost 100 years. Does that mean that it didn't actually work during that period of time? A placebo? Just anecdotal? No one knows how anaesthetic works. Should it be regulated out of use until we figure it out?

There are disturbing cases of people suffering horribly on 17 different medications and those routinely being maimed and killed as a result of toxic effects from drugs, chemotherapy, radiation (including malfunctioning radiographic equipment), botched surgeries, etc. How about misdiagnosed medical conditions, not to mention crime fostered as a result of the proliferation of pain drugs as street drugs?
Many cancers left alone are not painful at all -- it's the mainstream medical treatment that does more harm than good. Mainstream medicine has known for decades that thousands of cases of cancer go undiagnosed up until the autopsy.

Laurie Willberg

If you want to bring up the numbers of iatrogenic harms or even deaths (not that it has anything to do with the legal status of homeopathic products, of course), please only do so if you also detail the numbers of lives saved by conventional medicine, the number of people living longer and with a higher quality of life because of conventional medicine, the number of babies who survive birth because of conventional medicine and the number of those who are suffering less and in less pain because of conventional medicine.

And then give the same numbers for the alternative therapy of your choice.

Your proviso for "please only do so"... is that supposed to be an official pre-requisite? The only thing that mainstream medicine excels at is emergency trauma care. The value of the rest of it according to your opinion reads more like ad copy and anecdote. Many seniors on 10 plus drugs would disagree with you about their "quality of life", and "living longer" in a bedridden state of sedation leaves a lot to be desired. The number of babies whose mothers took Thalidomide may not have preferred to survive if asked for their opinions.
Please provide verifiable statistics for the claims you're making, because the Health Technology Assessments from the U.S. and U.K clearly show how mainstream treatments are failing. A recent one by the Swiss Government shows that homeopathy is not only effective, but cost effective.
The "legal status" of homeopathic products isn't making headlines anywhere other than in the mouthpieces who have a pathological antipathy towards homeopathy.
If you actually read medical history you'd realize that homeopathy has been at the forefront during numerous historical epidemics in many countries. During the 1918 flu epidemic people who took conventional medical advice and took aspirin died. Do your homework. Homeopathy is being currently/successfully used to treat epidemics in Cuba and Brazil.

You are under no obligation to, of course, but I see you haven't answered my question.

Again, not that it's relevant to the legal status of homeopathic products in the UK, but since you brought it up, could you tell us what happened as a direct result of the Swiss homeopathy HTA?

The Swiss government continues to wisely cover the costs of homeopathic treatment as part of its national health care plan. For those who don't know, the Swiss HTA was the largest meta-analysis of homeopathic research ever undertaken. It confirmed that homeopathy is not only effective, but cost effective, and condemned a 2005 negative study published in the British Medical Journal for violations of research ethics among other things. That same 2005 study was falsely used by a UK Science and Technology Committee over piles of positive evidence to attempt to negatively influence the UK government. It failed, just as the present attempt to manipulate regulatory standards will.

Laurie Willberg

You didn't answer the question I asked:

What happened as a *direct* result of the Swiss homeopathy HTA?

(Just testing: do basic html tags <em>work</em> here?)

(Obviously not!)

Michael, you have written an op-ed piece that is backed up by no citations or references. You are claiming that someone has made comments that are "potentially defamatory" on the basis that someone disagrees with your overly-simplified analysis of the issue. Moreover, you are indulging in the usual pseudoskeptic antics of claiming some sort of victory over your intended target (homeopathy) in a premature manner.

So I followed you advice and went to here
http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org/2011/03/01/new-homeopathic-scientific-research/

Let's take a look at the content;

I see some special pleading about how RCT can't work for homeopathy, which contradict the statements later in the piece about Gustavo Bracho Cuban homeoprolaxis clinical trial provies that homeopathy works and the evidence is suppressed by medical journals

I see non-sequitors about conventional medicine treating the symptoms while homeopathy treats the "whole person" which is really arse-backwards given that the basis of homeopathy is treatments choosen to match symptoms.

I see more special pleading about efficacy; apparently there is no need to test the efficacy of a homeopathic treatments, a simple proving on healthy people is enough.

Some evidence which is at least internally consistent?

The Bracho et al. trial about the homeopathic cure for leptospirosis in Cuba is frequently cited by homeopaths as (scientific) vindication of the powerful effect of their sugar pills.

It was neither scientific, nor a vindication of homeopathy, of course: http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/much-ado-about-nothing/

Yes Sue - of course,but the point I was making is that "all good" versus "all bad" is an inaccurate simplistic view of the world - ala Laurie's comments - no matter who you cast as pure as the driven snow or alternately as raven black.

and why would you assume I don't believe posters here, or support homeopathy, or that I haven't already researched it properly and come to a conclusion? not based on anything I've posted her.

Laurie Willberg seems to be battling alone here....where is Dr Nancy?

Be careful what you wish for!

Haven't seen Jon Wardle defending homeopathy around here much later either

(Perhaps they're here in such dilute quantities that we can't detect them...)

It's very easy to look up the optimum dose and application for any supplement through research-based websites like Natural Standard.
Some of the worst offenders for junky vitamins are the synthetics put out by drug companies and sold in drug stores.
Anyone who uses homeopathics undertands the concept of dilutions, and somehow it's detractors don't seem to know enough about it to realize that many homeopathic prescriptions may be material tinctures and in material potencies as well. The concept of "profit margins" is perfectly illustrated by the fact that the Cuban government now uses homeopathic prophylaxis against Leptospirosis, the Brazillian government against Dengue, and now the Indian government against malaria http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-14/bhopal/32234661_1_malaria-medicines-sidhi-district
Homeopathic prevention costs one tenth of conventional vaccines. No wonder the drug companies are freaking out.

Laurie Willberg said:

"...the Cuban government now uses homeopathic prophylaxis against Leptospirosis"

Can you provide a reliable source for that please?

Alan Henness -- you can Google it for yourself, including links to a peer-reviewed published study. Do your own homework rather than asking for references. This is a blog, not a thesis depository.

Laurie

You made the claim - you back it up.

But note that what you said was:

"...the Cuban government now uses homeopathic prophylaxis against Leptospirosis"

Do you really think a peer-reviewed study will back up this assertion?

However, pease provide evidence that the Cuban Government are using homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis.

If you are unwilling - or unable - to provide the substantion, we will need to draw our own conclusions from that.

You can easily find it all yourself, Alan. Don't waste my time.

Laurie

I'm calling you on this: the Cuban Government don't use homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis, do they?

They certainly do. You can also Google The Findlay Institute where the homeopathic equivalent to the vaccine is manufactured. One of the lead researchers is Dr. Gustavo Bracho.

Yes, they did an extremely poor (and generally misreported) trial of homeopathy for Leptospirosis.

However, I'm not interested where the 'vaccine' is manufactured, I'm interested in the source of your assertion that the Cuban Government is using homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis.

Can you provide the source for that or can't you? If you can't just admit it.

Your opinion about peer-reviewed published research is incorrect and hardly authoritative now that you've admitted you already knew that there was published research and pretended not to.
Now the government of India is using homeoprophylaxis for malaria
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-14/bhopal/32234661_1_malaria-medicines-sidhi-district
Have a tantrum if you like.
The pseudo-skeptic organizations (like the one you belong to) have a pathological antipathy towards homeopathy.

Laurie Willberg said:

"Your opinion about peer-reviewed published research is incorrect and hardly authoritative now that you've admitted you already knew that there was published research and pretended not to."

My opinion may be correct or incorrect as yours may be correct or incorrect, but I certainly never pretended not to know there was no research published - the first time I mentioned it was *after* you mentioned the Bracho paper.

However, that has nothing to do with whether you can back up your assertion that the Cuban Government are using homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis.

Do you, or do you not, have a source for your assertion that the Cuban Government are using homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis?

"Now the government of India is using homeoprophylaxis for malaria
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-14/bhopal/32234661_1_malaria-medicines-sidhi-district "

Let's sort out your first assertion about the Cuban Government first, shall we, then we can move on to discuss other countries.

"Have a tantrum if you like."

Eh? What tantrum? I have called you out on the evidence for your assertion - so far you have not supplied any and appear to be trying to deflect attention away from this rather than answer a very simple question.

"The pseudo-skeptic organizations (like the one you belong to) have a pathological antipathy towards homeopathy."

Whether I have an antipathy (pathological or otherwise) to homeopathy is irrelevant, as is whether I belong to any organisation - real or imagined.

The question still stands: Do you have the evidence that the Cuban Government use homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis or not?

Do your own homework, Alan. The info. is on the web and available to anyone.

Laure Willberg said:

"Do your own homework, Alan. The info. is on the web and available to anyone."

It's not my homework to do - the onus is fairly and squarely on *you* to back up what *you* claimed.

If you can't back it up, just admit it.

Alan, these philosophical tactics of yours may work in Skepticland, but in the real world it's up to you to satisfy yourself.

Laurie Willberg said:

"Alan, these philosophical tactics of yours may work in Skepticland, but in the real world it's up to you to satisfy yourself."

No, in the real world, we ask for evidence for assertions, rather than just believe what someone on the Internet tells us.

This is particularly important when the discussion is about people's health and where, if given wrong or misleading information, people may be harmed or lives put at risk.

Again, how do you know that the Cuban Government is using homeopathic leptospirosis prophylaxis?

No, Alan. "Skeptic" organizations indoctrinate their members in tactics such as yours. You don't have a sincere interest in Homeopathic medicine at all.
Considering that Glaxo was just fined $3 billion for falsified research and offering inducements to MDs to push their products, the "wrong and misleading information" and the fact that "people may be harmed or lives put at risk" is a huge problem for those who generally place blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry. How much time do you invest in wanting to protect yourself or the public from toxic drugs?
I have pointed you in the right direction for the evidence you claim to want. You are either too lazy or just playing head games to go there.

I used to have a sincere interest in homeopathy - until I started looking at what it actually is and what the research shows.

Nineteenth century German Hahnemann developed his principles at time when there was little technology to produce imaging or laboratory evidence. We now have a lot more evidence, which doesn't support Hahnemann's theories, the same as it doesn't support ancient Greek "humors". The philosophers did the best for their time, but sometimes they got it wrong.

Now we know what cell organelles look like, thanks to electron microscopy. We know the proportion of potassium that is inside the cell vs extracellular. We can measure minute concentrations of ions. That's how we know that homeopathy can't do anything. The clinical evidence shows us that homeopathy doesn't do anything. Time to move on.

Laurie, Here in Australia we have had a carbon tax for a week. Before it started, a law was passed to provide for fines of up to 1.1 million dollars for companies who told others that their prices went up because of the carbon tax. You have to ask yourself if this is consistent with the USA first amandment, and whether it is a government using $$$ to pass on a symbolic message to industry. Many governments hate industry and many are chemophobic.
I'd suggest that the Glaxo matter was more to do with the US government saying "my dick is bigger than yours" than with the porential or real harm caused by Glaxo. I would not be inclined to use it as a pro-homeopathy argument, it's not really relevant.

Considering the millions of dollars that the medical industry pumps into political campaigns and the overwhelming back door influence of industry lobbyists, any notion that governments "hate industry" or are "chemophobic" is laughable. Glaxo's annual profits are in the hundreds of billions -- a $3 billion fine is nothing to them.
It's a fact that homeopathy has never killed anyone. It's a fact that hundreds of thousands of people are killed and maimed annually as a result of the use of prescription drugs.
For the record, I consider carbon taxes and carbon trading to be a scam.
People who get on the horn and blog that homeopathy doesn't work are nothing more than propagandists. At first they claim that there is no research supporting it, and then when confronted with positive research (over 200 studies in fact) put their heads in the sand and pathologically claim they wouldn't even believe it if it were true... Considering that homeopathy is used by hundreds of millions worldwide and is the second largest form of medicine utilized anywhere and growing at a rate of over 20% a year, these pseudo-skeptical claims that it "doesn't work" are not only false, they're bizarre.

Samuel Hahnemann expostulated on the existence of micro-organisms capable of causing disease well before Pasteur (who history shows plagiarized the work of others but was great at tooting his own horn). He was a master chemist. His research involved using himself, friends and family as test subjects. He actually invented the concept of the clinical trial.
200 years of clinical evidence show that homeopathy is a far more effective form of medicine in the treatment of acute and chronic disease than anything the mainstream has to offer. As I have said before, mainstream medicine excels at emergency trauma care -- in hospitals. Your local family MD does not treat emergency cases in her office either. But if you want to speed up healing after an accident homeopathy will do it.
Studies in Hormesis clearly show that microdoses of homeopathic substances do indeed have biological effects. Studies at the ITT Bombay clearly show that dilutions as high as 200C contain starting materials.
No, the form of microspectroscopy did not exist in Hahnemann's time. But they do now.
If you want the straight goods on homeopathy you're not going to get them on pseudo-skeptical propaganda blogs.
See www.extraordinarymedicine.org
Some people seem to be confused by the distinctions between "science" and "technology". Medicine uses technology, but it certainly ain't science.
People in industrialized nations who use homeopathy are in the upper educational and income brackets. And they generally end up in a professional homeopath's office because mainstream medicine has failed them.
I doubt the people studying at the Arizona Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix for a joint MD/Homeopathy degree consider themselves to be charlatans.

Laurie, I think the global warming science has a pathetic standard also. But then, I'm ans experienced scientist who knows what to look for.

What I look for in your post above is "It's a fact that homeopathy has never killed anyone." My problem is that it's a fact that homeopathy has never cured anyone.

"Homeopathy has never cured anyone"?! You really are short on facts here. In India Homeopathy and mainstream medicine are taught side by side in medical schools. You have obviously never studied medical history either.
Stop reading "science blogs" and parroting their misinformation.

Laurie, A cure is more than words of confident assertion. A cure is like a long-lived skin rash disappearing after a treament, time after time in person after person. Think a cure for smallpox. There has to be physical evidence for physical afflictions.
I have studied medical history. My namesake, Sir Charles Sherrington, was a Knight, a Nobel laureate, taught 3 later laureates and was President of the Royal Society. Read his books and papers for a view that might open your eyes, except that there are not many pictures, mostly long words.
I'd be happy to see you sitting side-by-side with Indian homeopathic students if I thought it might cure your self-delusion. I fear it would not.
To repeat a question. If pure water can cure afflictions (other than thirst), then any other pure liquid should be able to do the same. Has homeopathy even been tried using pure ethanol rather than pure water, in a double blind experiment designed to see if it is water that is the special curative? Formally, I mean, not recreationally, which I imagine happens nightly.

Hi, Geoff, thanks for the heads-up about what a "cure" is... For your information it's the opposite of symptom suppression, which is what pharmaceuticals are all about.
While I realize that Samuel Hahnemann's "Organon of Rational Medicine" is tougher reading than a tabloid, if you stick it out you'll be able to discern the difference between the two. Maybe you could read an aphorism each evening before bed.
You will find your answers in the works of Profs. Rustum Roy and Iris Bell at Penn State University and Dr. Lionel Milgrom who has published extensively.
The medical history and effectiveness of Homeopathy has been well documented by Dr. Harris Coulter.
You have demonstrated no knowledge of homeopathic pharmacy whatsoever -- ethanol is used in the preparation of the starting materials, and it is not mere dilution, but serial dilution and succussion that are key to the process. The latest research from ITT Bombay has detected starting materials in remedies as high as 200C.
It's your choice not to use Homeopathy, however your approach is typical of more pseudo-skeptic propaganda than fact.
It is nice that you appear to have a distinguished ancestor, however this does not imbue you with anything other than an arrogant attitude.

Laurie, the only reason I post here is to try to point sharper readers than you are, away from plain pseudo-cientific crap. I am not at all interested in further discussion of the topic. Don't regard this as a win by you. Simply regard it as a confirmation that quacks can and do still fleece the innocent. Sleep well, try some temazepam if you conscience keeps you awake. Geoff.

Only pseudoskeptic bloggers claim that homeopathy doesn't work. If that were the case it would have disappeared a long time ago.
See www.extraordinarymedicine.org
If you wish not to use it that's your choice. It may be the end of you but not the end of homeopathy.