I think you may not be understanding my point. I am not refering to the preferential publishing of positive studies (though this is a real problem in all research, so-called publication bias or the “file-drawer effect.”). I am saying that just because you can find a study that supports something doesn’t automatically mean the study’s conclusions are correct. One must look at the total available evidence, from initial consistency with well-established principles to in vitro results to animal models to actual clinical trials with real patients and diseases. No one study makes or breaks the conclusions on a given therapy. And all of this holds for mainstream medicine as much as for homeopathy.

What I am saying, then, is that just because you can cite studies that find a positive effect for homeopathic treatment, that is not a QED for the method. My interpretation of the preponderance of the evidence is this:

1. The underlying rationale is inconsistent with well-established scientific principles, and while it is possible that all we know of chemistry and physics is missing some crucial core fact that will validate the concepts of water memory or the “energy” that homeopaths refer to, I have yet to see it and it seems less plausible than the alternative explanation that such phenomena simply don’t exist.

2. In vitro studies (such as the Beneviste debacle) do not on balance support a measurable effect of homeopathic remedies. This is what I would expect, given the extreme dilutions of the preparations, and frankly many homeopaths would argue that we should not expect a measurable in virto effect since this ignores the totality of the individual assessment and treatment plan that supposedly differentiates homeopathy from mainstream medicine. However, again when a study does purport to show some effect, other homeopaths will claim it as validation, so there is some philosophical inconsistency among practitioners of homeopathy here.

3. Clinical trials are mixed, however the tighter the controls for non-specific (aka placebo) effects, the less apparent effect of homeopathic treatment. This strongly suggests that any clinical benefit is only on the perception of symptoms not on the actual disease process, which would perhaps make the practice of some psychological value but certainly does not support the curative claims often made for it.

As for pointing out that study results in scientific medicine can be overturned, you are absolutely right. That is, after all, part of the basic premise of science; that our understanding changes, evolves, and improves. Homeopaths, on the other hand, offer up Hahnemann’s original notes on provings as the core of the evidentiary package for homeopathy and sugggest that these somehow meet the standards of contemporary lab research (see post #150 above).

I understand that you and I disagree about the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, but I do not believe I am being inconsistent in my standards. You accept as conclusive the results of studies that I would argue have methodological flaws that make their conclusions invalid and that, like the Linde 1997 paper, have been superceded by better analyses which you have not addressed. You, I suspect, are sufficiently convinced based on your own personal experiences, that homeopaty is effective that no negative research results will ever change your mind. I am pretty darned skeptical of homeopathy, but I remain open to the small possibility that as more studies are done the balance of the evidence may shift or new principles of physics and chemistry may come to light which address the plausibility issue. Until then, however, I stand by my conclusion that there is now no credible evidence that homeopathy is a valid clinical therapy.

The link to part 2 is here:

http://video.google.com/videop.....5783230047

The video lasts over 47 minutes, but his excellent portrayal of some of the issues plaguing homeopathy begins at about 22:24 on the time scale in the lower right hand corner if you want to jump to that. But I wouldn’t. It’s all good.

In comparison to the spoof I linked to previously called “Homeopathy and the E.R.” by a British comedic pair, this is a serious discussion, but well worth the time.

For those who love or feel otherwise about Dr. Deepak Chopra, there’s an intense face-off between Richard Dawkins and Dr. Chopra right before the homeopathy segment.

Enjoy!

Of course not!

Homeopathic medicines are so “dilute” that there’s no measurable “active ingredient” involved.

Herbal remedies, acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, they all at least do something. Good, bad, or indifferent, there’s something there, and so the quality of the practitioner matters.

But many of the “herbal remedies” are of unreliable sourcing, and unreliable purity and dosage—and in some cases, the active ingredient is available in conventional medicines that are regulated for purity and dosage.

As Christine said, the provings are largely based on verbal reports of the proving subjects, which cannot be done with animals. Of course, the process can be stripped down and adapted to animals, but there has not been any clinical need to do that.

I would also add that we don’t have the same toxicity problems with homeopathic medicines as with conventional drugs. Giving a homeopathic medicine to a cat based on experience with humans is not as likely to be as harmful as, say, giving acetaminophen or an NSAID to a cat, because these drugs are tolerated by humans. On the other hand, toxicities abound in our species too.

A third consideration is that while equine acupuncture is documented from centuries ago, I recall that my acupuncture training at CSU was based on transposition of points from the human. Animal point maps have evolved, but human transposition points is where it began. And what an incredible treatment system it is. Many animals and their owners are glad for the innovators who began clinical practice based on empirical evidence of success in humans.