ref:effectiveness and proof of homeopathy
posts by dr pattnaik at Effectiveness and evidence
---------------------------------

dear dr pattnaik,

you have gone great work by mentioning the link to http://www.giriweb.com/ and now this wonderful .pdf file link. http://www.euricam.net/images/Scien...ortECHNov04.pdf

we need to be patient with sceptics like moopet, he represents a large community with a blind-spot for homeopathy. they can go on talking without understanding what they are saying and how they can turn away a suffering patient from homeopathy.

(moopet and other sceptics posts may be found at:
Effectiveness and evidence
is homeopathy mere placebo?
is homeopathy mere placebo?)

what do these moopets want? that homeopathy works is indisputable. now, if, in the future, a name / a theory is developed for the homeopathic ultra-molecular dilution effects - will that make these moopets happy? if, some future einstein correctly explains the homeopathic ultra-dilute phenomenon (to moopet, james randi, stephen barrett, ben goldacre... and other sceptics satisfaction) and gives it a name - say, "xyz effect" - will that make these moopets happy?

how can one ignore the clinical results? if there is a clinical effect - that means that the homeo remedy has an effect.

the research report cited by you (the.pdf link given by you) makes a wonderful comment:“When the observed fact does not correspond to a famous theory, the fact has to be accepted and the theory rejected”; “A theory must be modified to be adapted to nature and not nature to adapt itself to the theory”. Claude Bernard (Introduction à la Médecine Expérimentale)

the sceptics have zero knowledge of homeo remedy preparation. they don't know that the homeo remedies are NOT merely dilutions but with every stage of dilution there is POTENTIZATION (succusion) as well.

again, the sceptics are not aware of the clinical results.

I suggest that the sceptics themselves take doses of ANY high potency remedy and see the effect tehmselves. they are wise enough and will not show any placebo effect! they "know" that the remedy is nothing - just water and alcohol. so, it should not bother them. right? why don't they take a dose themselves and test? let them find out once and for all whether homeopathy works or not.

let them taking doses of belladonna 200. (I suggest to get the remedy from the helios pharmacy in UK (http://www.helios.co.uk/) let them take one dose every 24 hours. they may stop when they see some effect !

the pharmacological effect of gross material doses of belladonna and its derivatives are well studied and documented. the sceptics may co-relate their OWN experience with the pharmacological findgings and also check what the homeopathic materia medicas say about belladonna. again, to make things sure, they can send a sample to the lab to test whether the remedy has a even a single molecule of belladonna or not.

I, hope the moopets et al are reading this and are "wise" enough to take up this challenge.
recently, the nobel prize was awarded to a scientist who took a broth of helicobacter pylori himself to prove that these organisms cause peptic ulcer. the sceptics may follow the lead of the scientists of the conventional system of medicine and take homeo remedies themselves to prove that they are placebo! they are most welcome.

the link suggested by you http://www.euricam.net/images/Scien...ortECHNov04.pdf, makes interesting comments about homeopathy:

1) Experiments are well conducted, in controlled conditions, with a sufficient

number of plants, animals or cells, and with a fair statistical treatment. The

facts are indisputable, statistically significant and reproducible, even if they

cannot be explained using the molecular paradigm.



2) The use of modern techniques in the hands of specialists is the best way to

show sceptics that the experimental facts are well grounded and confirmed

by reproducible experiments. Even in ultra-molecular homeopathic

dilutions, specific information of the prime dissolved substance still remains

in the preparation and can be detected experimentally.

3) “When the observed fact does not correspond to a famous theory, the fact

has to be accepted and the theory rejected”; “A theory must be modified to

be adapted to nature and not nature to adapt itself to the theory”. Claude

Bernard (Introduction à la Médecine Expérimentale).



4) Veterinary studies minimize placebo effects and confirm the efficacy of

homeopathic treatments. Experiments in laboratory animals help

improving research design in homeopathy.



5) Conclusions: Clear indications exist about clinical effectiveness of

homeopathy; homeopathy is effective in uncontrolled practice or versus

comparison groups; enough indications exist that “placebo” is an

insufficient explanation for the effects of homeopathy. Homeopathy can be

similar or better in effectiveness than conventional treatment and, where it

has been studied, it is cheaper in the long run. Many interesting questions

not even asked should be prioritized, such as the potential of homeopathy to

avoid invasive procedures in children and, in primary care settings, the

long-term effect of homeopathy in preventing chronic complications.



--------

dr pattnaik, I think you should write to the b.jain journal and attach a copy of this whole report. (you may take permission from the authors). I am posting a copy of this post to the homeolist as well.

the links suggested by you, will figure in my another post - that I am writing today.

I suggest few more links for the sceptics:

http://www.homeotherapeutics.gr/

http://www.predictivehomeopathy.com/home/main.htm
(this is the weblink to dr prafull vijayakar. one may read this website and if possible, attend his seminars. he offers clear videotaped clinical evidence that homeopathy works at the genetic level. he may be contacted to get proof.
he has cured many cases that are said to be congenital malformations.
I read in a journal that he has also cured a down's syndrome case. I have myself seen the videos of a case of sturge weber syndrome, that he cured). he or his associates may be contacted for more details. details are also available at http://www.homeocases.org/home/index.asp



I am myself a witness to the homeopathic cure of several confirmed cases of thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger's Disease). this disease is said to be of genetic origin and has NO cure in conventional medicine. I have seen the patient in person as well as the hospital records (that mentions the diagnosis), the colour doppler study reports (that confirms the diagnosis). finally we can produce the cured patients and also provide photographs, as evidence. those who would like to get the details - may contact: dr dhananjay ray, a veteran homeopath of over 70 years, residing at 5/D rakhal ghose lane, calcutta - 700085, India (phone: + 91- 33 - 2350-1145). his son is writing a book or thesis on buerger's disease and its cure by homeopathy.
if homeopathy can heal the gangrene (due to "incurable" buerger's disease) WITHOUT any need for amputation - without loss of limb - how can it be a placebo? how can it be quackery? these cures were by common homeopathic polycrest remedies like lycopodium, lachesis etc.

the immunological benefits of homeo remedies has been documented durings epidemics. one may search the H7 version of EH of radar software to view the hsitorical documents. again, research reports are at:
http://homeopathic.com/articles/research/index.php
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/

thank you dr pattnaik for writing to us. we homeopaths need to work real hard and practice good homeopathy to ensure that this wonderful science and its benefits reach the masses.

regards,

dr manish agarwala
-----------------



a letter to mr moopet and other sceptics:

mr moopet - you are neither a homeopath nor a physician of conventional medicine and do not have any idea about the homeopathic facts or about clinical medicine of any system. again, if homeopathy works in india -it works in USA and UK as well. read my posts and check the links for USA and UK. I hope you will stop misleading others who come to these forums (or find these posts through google).

brother moopet, I have been told that there are 3 categories of people.
1) one who knows not and knows not that he knows not - he is a fool. shun him.
2) one who knows not and knows that he knows not - is simple. teach him.
3) one who knows and knows he knows - is great. follow him.

I provide links to people and their works, whom I consider to be in category 3. I respect the scientists, learned physicians and other wise people and look forward to learn from them.

I have my love for people in the category 2 and try to help them as much as I can. I consider myself to be in category 2.

I hope you are not in the category 1 and I or others will not need to shun / ignore you (and others of your kind) - just as tanya (tanstar) commented in a post.
tanstar wrote: "You know, when you see posters like this, just ignore them. These ignorant people enjoy nothing more than aggravating good people like you. Don't give them that benefit. Just ignore them. They'll see that they're not getting any attention, and will go elsewhere to spread their negative energy and superiority complex. Just let them be. It is absolutely pointless to engage in any type of conversation with them. Just ignore them and soon they will be on their way. P.S. Maybe one day, these sceptics will fall very ill (god forbid) and their trusted doctors won’t be able to help them. And as their final resort, they’ll go to a homeopath. Then they will turn into believers. But right now, it is pointless to try to change their minds. Keep in mind, that in the end truth will always prevail!"

there are many people who come to these forums and/or google to see whether their "incurable" illness can be helped by homeopathy or not. NO science (whether homeopathy or allopathy etc) is complete in itself. each has its own limitations - each branch is evolving and changing with time as well. the conventional medicine (allopathy) has its own uses and benefits - no doubt about that. homeopathy also has its limitations. again, there is bogus homeopathy (like polypharmacy, pseudo-homeopathic OTC combinations, ointments etc.) and bogus homeopaths who prescribe and sell those. we need to guide these suffering people to genuine experienced homeopaths. we need to offer good advice.
we need to offer correct information and guidance. no false hope - not saying that homeopathy is panacea - but, just sharing correct information -just, guiding to the coorect person. I do not mean to say that you or the whole world should believe in homeopathy and/or only take homeo remedies etc. but, I do feel (and I hope you will agree) - everyone (whether medically trained or not, whether homeopath or not, whether physician or patient) has a right to make an informed decision - has a right to get well - atleast, hope to get well.

I hope you will join me and other homeopaths in the category 2 and will not need to be shunned and ignored like people in category 1 - just as tanya pointed out.

with love, respect and compassion - I, on behalf of all homeopaths, sincerely welcome you and all sceptics to the correct information about homeopathy. after all, we are all willing to learn. there is no harm in being a sceptic - you learn by questioning. but, I, hope, it will not be "doubting thomas" situation with a blind-spot for truth. hope it will not be category 1.

you may also do the belladonna 200 test mentioned above to find out things on your own.

finally, truth and truth alone is victorious. not what I or you believe. this applies to everything. I myself deeply doubted homeopathy many years ago - but, I worked to find out the truth. I have seen it working for me and my family members and saving the life of my grandfather and so have many MD's who have converted to homeopathy, in the past and also in the present times.

take care and be happy.

dr manish agarwala

I know a little, sort of the popular-science amount. That's all. But I don't need to know a lot in order to question things in the most basic way, and I am self-educating as I go along

I've been shown that website before. Please provide me a link to the part which contains these works, because I've clicked all the obvious links and can't find anything?

IS HOMEOPATHY MERE PLACEBO?

this is my final post in this series. my other posts on this topic may be found at:
is homeopathy mere placebo?
Effectiveness and evidence
is homeopathy mere placebo?

dear friends,

some people have their doubts. is homeopathy a placebo? does it work? how do these ultra-dilute solutions work? isn't all this just quackery?
those who doubt may come from doctors of the conventional system of medicine and also general non-medical public. some of these are chronic sceptics, an obstinate bunch of people, who will never agree. some have their own motives and agenda. but, there are many who are looking for correct information.

my posts (and the links therein) is largely for those wise people, who are looking for correct info on this topic.

here are some facts:-

1) I would like to begin by pointing out that many of the sceptics may be right. they are speaking the truth when they say that homeopathy does not work. I have noted that some of these people have mentioned that they have tried homeopathy and/or observed a homeopathic practitioner and found it to be bogus and ineffective. why? here, it is important to make a distinction between bogus homeopathy (pseudo-homeopathy) and correct homeopathy.
james randi mentions at a place that he took a homeopathic formula for sleep. (this was a supermarket stuff. a combination formula.) he says he took a large number of pills, much more than the dose mentioned on the label and yet that did not help his insomnia. dr stephen barrett of homeowatch gives details of homeopaths (and their electronic machines) who touch patients with a electronic probe and prescribe 3 or 4 homeo remedies along with vitamins and supplements. I am not surprised to note that dr barrett or mr randi are not satisfied with such remedies, homeopaths and their machines.

have the james randis, ben goldacre's, stephen barrett's (and other sceptics) ever visited the clinic of a properly trained homeopath? do they know ANYTHING about homeopathy? have they tried consulting any genuine homeopath for their insomnia or whatever?

surely, the pseudo-homeopathic OTC formulas, the combinations, the ointments... and the so called homeopaths who prescribe them are not practicing proper homeopathy. again, homeopathy is not touching a queue of patients with a probe and prescribing many remedies to each patient. yes, this is all bogus.

those who want to get treated and/or would like to observe homeopathy at work, need to visit the clinic of an experienced properly trained homeopath.
one may consult homeopaths with CCH certification in USA and RSHOM /FSHOM /FFHOM/MFHOM in UK or those trained at prof. george vithoulkas's international academy at greece (IACH). again, there are many MD's who are well trained in homeopathy.

in homeopathy there are no "fixed" remedies for diseases or OTC formulas. homeopathy treats the individual - it is a highly individualised treatment.

a classical homeopath may prescribe a single remedy for all the suffering of tha patient. again, 10 patients of asthma may receive 10 different remedies. this is because the remedy given to a patient is specific - for that particular patient only. it is important to know these basic facts before researching homeopathy and its efficacy and/or getting treated.

2) there is no room for any doubt. homeopathy (correct homeopathy) definitely works. there is a large volume of clinical evidence collected in the last 200 years which confirms that homeopathy works. it works for acute as well as chronic sufferings, including for cases labelled as "incurable" by conventional medicine. homeopathy has shown results in epidemics, emergencies etc. in the present times, homeopaths like prof. george vithoulkas of greece and dr prafull vijayakar of india, among others, have well documented case studies (with all papers and video evidence) that confirm the efficacy of homeopathy. those who are interested in clinical evidence of homeopathy may check:
http://www.homeocases.org/home/index.asp
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/
http://www.predictivehomeopathy.com/home/main.htm
http://www.vithoulkas.com/
http://www.homeotherapeutics.gr/

3) many a times one may come across people writing about homeopathy and religious beliefs (like christianity), as if they explain each other. this may confuse a scientific mind. is homeopathy all about baseless concepts? is it a belief? is it a religion? the scientific minded people may read the works of dr alexandra delenick, MD (greece), prof. vithoulkas (greece) and dr prafull vijayakar (india) to know more about scientific homeopathy.
the links in 2) above, will lead you to the websites of these homeopaths.

4) are there research studies on homeopathy?
those who are interested may check the following links:
http://homeopathic.com/articles/research/index.php
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/res_toc.html
http://www.homeopathic.org/research.htm
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/researchwn.aspx

5) but, homeopathy remedies are ultra-diluted, way beyond the avogadro's number. how can they have any effect?

well, the clinical results confirm that they work! yes, the theoretical basis of this phenomenon needs to be investigated. a lot of research is going on and more will sure happen in the future.

again, it must be noted that homeo remedies are not mere dilutions - they are prepared by a unique process of serial dilutions as well as POTENTISATIONS (succusions by force). the remedies produced by serial steps of dilution-potentisation is NOT the same as mere dilution in a very large volume of water.

the physics-chemistry of the dilution-potentisation process is being investigated and the scientists are trying to understand this phenomenon.
that the remedies have shown clinical results has led the scientists to investigate this homeopathic phenomenon.

the physicists, chemists, biologists, physicians and homeopaths need to come together to investigate the theoretical basis of this phenomenon. GIRI is the multi-disciplinary group of such scientists http://www.giriweb.com/
they have published many papers and research reports.
one such research report by GIRI, which answers many questions, may be accessed at:
http://www.euricam.net/images/Scient...rtECHNov04.pdf

more weblinks on scientific research:
http://www.hpathy.com/research/bhati...icresearch.asp

how homeopathy works? a theoretical model:
http://www.hpathy.com/research/conne...athy-works.asp


6) lancet published a study in 2005 that supposedly proved that homeopathy is no better than placebo and that there is "lack of benefit" with homeopathic treatment. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...71772/abstract

the sceptics rubbed their hands in glee and used this report to state that the days of homeopathy are numbered!

the sceptics need to note that there are hundreds of research reports that confirm the benefits. (see the research links above) why do they ignore the positive reports?

W.H.O. does not consider homeopathy as quackery.

homeopathy is considered as a separate discipline of recognised medical study in india. there are homeopathic medical colleges and hospitals.

why, give so much importance to one particular study? isn't there a bias?

the indian government has stated that it will provide positive evidence to lancet.

again, it must be noted that the lancet study is itself flawed.
more discussion on the lancet report may be seen below:

the faculty of homeopathy, UK does not agree with lancet's conclusions:
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArt...000/000057.htm

prominent US scientists counter lancet's claim:
http://www.homeopathic.org/pressrelease082505.html

a very detailed discussion on the lancet report may be seen at:
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-...s/default.aspx
(please check the many weblinks on this webpage)


7) the repertorial databases like the complete repertory created by roger zanvoort and the synthesis repertory by archibel group, speak volumes about the clinical efficacy of homeopathy.
http://www.archibel.com/
http://www.morphologica.com/


8) the placebo issue...

- is homeopathy a placebo? are all effects due to placebo?
well, homeopathy has worked for babies, animals and its effects have been noted on plants as well. it cannot be a placebo.
the many links mentioned above, will give you more info.

here is a research study, that found effect of homeo remedies on fungi and bacteria, cultured in-vitro in laboratory:
http://www.gcchr.com/experimental_rese.htm

- homeopathy has been able to cure many cases, labelled "incurable" by conventional medicine. is all this placebo effect? if, placebo is so effective - why doesn't the conventional medicine start curing everything with placebo!
why do they leave the placebo's for homeopaths!

- many of the sceptics do not have the correct facts. do they know that the classical homeopath himself uses a lot of placebo? the homeopath may prescribe a single dose of the remedy and wait for a period of time, while continuing to prescribe blank unmedicated pills. perhaps, there is no one, other than the homeopath, who better understands the placebo effect!

the homeopath observes the placebo effect as well as the remedy effect and notes that he needs to give the right remedy in the right potency at the right time - or else there is an aggravation / relapse / no effect etc.. had the remedy and the placebo been the same - there would have been no need to do a case taking / deciding the remedy and potency etc. - the homeopath could have simply given any remedy from his chest or simply, continued the blank pills!

physicians of the conventional system of medicine are welcome to visit the clinic of any experienced, well trained homeopath and actually witness all this.

an open-minded wise MD should be pleasantly surprised to see the hering's laws in action...
--------------

hope this post and the links will help someone looking for information.

hope he discovers homeopathy - a non-toxic, holistic, individualised, non-suppressive approach to fundamental healing.

may all be healthy and happy,

with sincere regards,
dr manish agarwala

I've got a quick question - you mention Randi taking a large number of homeopathic sleeping pills to no effect as a publicity stunt (which has been replicated by many others, iirc) and something has always struck me as odd in that.
Since he would be taking many times the dose, and homeopathic remedies work better when they are diluted... would that mean you would expect less of an effect anyway? Could people potentially take a dangerous "overdose" by only taking a sip of their medicine instead of the whole swig? Or by filling a glass with water and then adding the remedy?
I've never seen this talked about, or if I have I wasn't paying enough attention.

mr moopet,

you are a good example of "a fool may ask more than the wisest men can answer"

I do not like to be be rude but you compelled me. this is the last time I am directly replying to you. I generally ignore people like you.

my initial training was in the field of conventional medicine and I have studied immunology, microbiology as a part of medical curriculum. the many links that I have quoted refer to works of scientists, embryologists, physicists with many publications in reputed journals. surely, I / they know more science, genetics, immunology than foolish people like you.

a fool betrays his foolishness by opening his mouth.

this is the link you were asking for:
http://www.euricam.net/images/Scient...rtECHNov04.pdf
and this was sent to you by dr pattnaik as well. why ask for this link again and again? check the credentials of these people. all these people are not homeopaths. and they sure know more than you - they are experts in their fields.

I have provided enough links and info in my posts and I am speaking from years of personal as well as clinical experience.

your knowledge of homeopathy is ZERO and you argue with medically trained experts with years of practice?

james randi's sleep formula was a pseudo-homeopathic formulation (with many remedies) and it did not work because it was not specific to him and his symptom. a classical homeopath would have done a full case taking and prescribed a SINGLE remedy, specific to this case and that would have worked immediately. why randi's supermarket formula did not work has nothing to do with dose.

as you are so clever, do the belladonna 200 test that I have mentioned in another post. take one dose every 12 hours and see whether you feel something or not. it is plain water-alcohol right? you as a very wise and learned person won't be fooled by a placebo, right? so take it and see. this is my challenge to ignorant people like you, ben goldacre, dr barrett, james randi etc. first test and then talk.

let any sceptic do the test, by taking doses of ANY high potency remedy, every 12 or 24 hours under full public observation and see whether the remedies have any effect or not. this is my challenge.
have the courage to call the homeopaths and their organisations. call the media, the legal experts, government representatives. do the test and let it be confirmed once and for all whether homeo remedy has any effect or not.

although you deserve harsh words, I seek forgiveness from you, for being rude. I feel sorry for you. you are young and in-experienced. learn to study hard and then talk. leave homeopathy and this forum if you are not interested / do not believe. why waste your time? spend your time in learning the things that intererst you. that will do you good.

you will be fully ignored henceforth. hope other homeopaths and elders on this forum will do the same. who is interested in convincing you? and anyway,
"a fool may ask more than the wisest men can answer"

dr manish agarwala

PS: first you write as "string theory" and then as "moopet". now, you may post again as someone else. like other famous sceptics, who publicly own their comments / mention their contact details on their websites etc., why don't you mention your real name? why use pseudonyms?

You've just contradicted yourself. The belladonna couldn't work on me because you haven't done a "full case taking and prescription" on me.

Quote:

Um. I'm well known as the name moopet. Have been for about a decade. Why change it? I've never posted as "string theory" and it shows your up a bit when you choose to make such accusations. Most people online use a handle. Mine is pretty unique - there are, to my knowledge, two other people in the world who use it habitually online, and they less than me. My real name, however, is used by many.

Stop taking the fight to the man.

Just to clarify:

Moopet is being truthful. We are 2 different individuals although I agree with what he says. The misconception may have arisen because I stopped posting on this board just before xmas because I was too busy with other stuff but Moopet responded to some of my threads after this date.

Dr Manish has made some challenges and sweeping statements in this thread that I would like to counter.

He has asked skeptics to take a belladonna preparation every 12 hours to see what the effects are, as proof of homeopathy. If I accepted this challenge there are only 2 possible outcomes. Either I would feel the effect he predicts or I wouldn't. If I felt the effect this means absolutely nothing because it is a non-blinded test with a sample size of one - utterly meaningless to science. If I felt no effect, again the result would be meaningless for the same reason.
The only meaningful test of the belladonna preparation would be a double-blinded, placebo-controlled test with a large sample size. Even then, the result would have to be repeatable by a different group to be taken seriously.

Of course these tests have been done and homeopathy has already failed them. That's when the homeopaths decided that DBPC tests weren't applicable to homeopathy.

Dr Manish has also indicated that he has a wealth of scientific papers that back homeopathy's claims. He provides links to these papers (mostly from homeopathy sites, no surprise there) and asks how skeptics can resist in the face of such overwhelming evidence.
Simple - there is vastly more independent evidence that contradicts homeopathy than supports it. Science and medicine DO NOT accept homeopathic treatments as valid. Sure, there are a few doctors and scientists who support homeopathy but then again there are always a minority of cranks supporting the wildest notions.

So as a last resort Dr Manish resorts to name-calling and arrogance, telling Moopet that he is naive and unscientific. But I ask, Who is the one ignoring the majority of the scientific eveidence - Moopet or Dr Manish?

That sounds like it should be rather easy to setup. And, as Dr Manish has already indicated, any effects should be pretty obvious.

Is this true ? I don't see how the DBPC test should not apply to such a simple test. What speaks against this, given Dr Manish's statement about the Belladonna preparation.

Confused ...

Nothing, really. There's two sides to homeopathic arguments - one says that such-and-such a preparation will have an obvious effect (as above) and one says that it's the whole approach, including placebo effects caused by good bedside manner, etc, and has to be tailored to fit the individual - off the shelf remedies will have no effect.
Reconciling these two is half the battle, since it seems from what I've been reading that the answer fits the need to defend homeopathy at the time.

If it can be agreed that the belladonna test can be blinded and actually performed, we could be onto a conclusive proof, one way or the other.