Homeopathy

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

But you haven't answered my question.

It is a fact that some members of the British Royal Family use homeopathic preparations.

What is the relevance of the fact that some members of the British Royal Family use homeopathic preparations?

If few members of british royal family choose homeopathy medicine, it's their right to choose. They have decided for themselves. If you wish to know why they have choose, you need to ask them. Likewise it's a personal decision of everyone to choose or not to choose homeopathy, or for the matter of fact any system of medicine.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

As with ANY form of medicine, there are studies that are supportive and those that aren't. As Leela mentioned earlier, if homeopathy was purely a placebo effect, then it wouldn't have shown positive results in studies with animals and small children.

But I'm sure we'll all have to agree to disagree.

For more than 150 yrs, many veterinarians using homeopathic medicines to treat domestic pets such as cats, dogs and birds, as well as barnyard animals like goats, horses and cows. Is it possible to have a placebo effect with animals?

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

This discussion is getting boring...

I disagree Susan.

Dr Nancy Malik is a Homeopathic Physician (Gurgaon, India) and here. Do a Google search and you will find that Dr Malik leaves comments on dozens of blogs, forums and media articles across the internet. She promotes the use of homeopathy and answers questions around homeopathy.

It appears that to Dr Nancy Malik there is some relevance that the British Royal Family use homeopathic preparations, consult homeopathic practitioners and, according to Dr Malik, take a box of homeopathic preparations with them when they travel abroad (I am given to understand that HRH also has the services of Dr Derek Enlander, when visting New York).

I am challenging Dr Malik because I consider that in citing the Royal Family and their arrangements when travelling overseas, she is making an appeal to authority. As a professional who is seeking support for "evidenced based" efficacy and the "realness" of "scientific" homeopathy this troubles me.

Dr Malik is a Homeopathic Physician who has come onto an ME and CFS board, making various claims for the efficacy of homeopathy which she makes elsewhere, for example: "Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails. Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone".

Therefore, as a professional, I expect her to be prepared to answer my question and I don't see why Dr Malik or anyone else should be discomforted by that.

As with any thread, Susan, if you are finding my posts boring, then please just skip them.

So I will ask again:

Dr Malik, in what way does the fact that some members of the Royal Family use homeopathic preparations support the use of homeopathy by non royals?

because this response:

If few members of british royal family choose homeopathy medicine, it's their right to choose. They have decided for themselves. If you wish to know why they have choose, you need to ask them. Likewise it's a personal decision of everyone to choose or not to choose homeopathy, or for the matter of fact any system of medicine. .

does not answer the question.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Being a homeopath Physician, obviously I would discuss homeopathy. Why would not I? But had I force anyone to use only homeopathy medicine or endorse any products? I have only discussed homeopathy. Is this a crime for a homeopath physician to talk about homeopathy? I have cited research papers published in journals. I have already answered your question.By repeating the same question again and again, answer would not change. Same questions have same answers. My posts are in response to what is being already discussed in the thread. See the title of the thread "homeopathy". If a homeopath is not allowed to discuss homeopathy in "homeopathy" thread, I wonder what is this?

Regards

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

For more than 150 yrs, many veterinarians using homeopathic medicines to treat domestic pets such as cats, dogs and birds, as well as barnyard animals like goats, horses and cows. Is it possible to have a placebo effect with animals?

Dr Malik, you have stated that "Real is scientific homeopathy", so I am interested in examples of scientific studies - not anecdote.

What rigorous scientific studies have been published on the application of homeopathy in domestic animals and farm animals under the care of veterinarians where the measurement of efficacy is not based upon reports by the owners of the animals taking part in the studies?

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Being a homeopath Physician, obviously I would discuss homeopathy. Why would not I? But had I force anyone to use only homeopathy medicine or endorse any products? I have only discussed homeopathy. Is this a crime for a homeopath physician to talk about homeopathy? I have cited research papers published in journals. I have already answered your question.By repeating the same question again and again, answer would not change. Same questions have same answers. My posts are in response to what is being already discussed in the thread. See the title of the thread "homeopathy". If a homeopath is not allowed to discuss homeopathy in "homeopathy" thread, I wonder what is this?

Regards

No, you have not answered my question and please do not use straw man arguments.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Nano doses

I'm sorry, but "nano doses" is nonsense. There is no such thing as a "nano dose". 'Nano' is merely a prefix, it is not a measure of anything. Typical measures are Nanomole, which is a measure of molecules, or nanogram a measure of mass (10^-9 grams). The problem is that through serial dilutions, these measures often become irrelevant.
Also, this discussion of Nano should not be confused with nanomedicine, which refers to use of nanoscale medicines (between 1-100 nm) with very high specificity due to their molecular structure.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Being a homeopath Physician, obviously I would discuss homeopathy. Why would not I?

No-one has said that you should not discuss homeopathy on the internet.

But had I force anyone to use only homeopathy medicine or endorse any products?

No-one has said that you have forced anyone to use only homeopathy.

I have only discussed homeopathy. Is this a crime for a homeopath physician to talk about homeopathy? I have cited research papers published in journals.

No-one has criticised you for talking about homeopathy.

I have already answered your question.By repeating the same question again and again, answer would not change. Same questions have same answers.

No, you had not answered the question.

My posts are in response to what is being already discussed in the thread. See the title of the thread "homeopathy". If a homeopath is not allowed to discuss homeopathy in "homeopathy" thread, I wonder what is this?

No-one has tried to stop you from discussing homeopathy in a homeopathy thread and certainly not me.

So please do not misprepresent me.

It is a fact that you are a Homeopathic Physician.
It is a fact that you post on many sites and that you claim: Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails. Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone".

It is a fact that you answer questions about homeopathy.

What is the relevance to me of these facts?

That there is an expectation that as a professional, you would be prepared to answer my question.

It has been presented as a fact that some members of the Royal Family use homeopathic preparations.

You have reiterated this statement and added additional information, namely, that HRH is understood by you to take a box of homeopathic remedies with her when she travels abroad.

This evidently has significance for you but other than tell me that the Royal Family are exercising their right to choose, you have yet to address my question:

What relevance to discussion about the basis for claims for the efficacy of homeopathy does the use of homeopathic preparations by the British Royal Family have?

I note that you have also said:

Anecdotal evidence

Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It's a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting and not in a laboratory, giving real-world solutions.

What does that mean?

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Dr Malik, you have stated that "Real is scientific homeopathy", so I am interested in examples of scientific studies - not anecdote.

What rigorous scientific studies have been published on the application of homeopathy in domestic animals and farm animals under the care of veterinarians where the measurement of efficacy is not based upon reports by the owners of the animals taking part in the studies?

Scientific studies in support of homeopathy medicine showing it to be more effective than placebo

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471 (2000) //allergic rhinitis
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full (2005) //Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Animal studies in homeopathy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17982565 (2007) //Scientific World Journal

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/3/

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I'm sorry, but "nano doses" is nonsense. There is no such thing as a "nano dose". 'Nano' is merely a prefix, it is not a measure of anything. Typical measures are Nanomole, which is a measure of molecules, or nanogram a measure of mass (10^-9 grams). The problem is that through serial dilutions, these measures often become irrelevant.
Also, this discussion of Nano should not be confused with nanomedicine, which refers to use of nanoscale medicines (between 1-100 nm) with very high specificity due to their molecular structure.

Nano & homeopathy medicine

2007: Nanobubbles http://is.gd/iQYLA
2009: Nanostructures http://bit.ly/bTYpdX
2010: nanoparticles http://bit.ly/edUwqd

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

It has been presented as a fact that some members of the Royal Family use homeopathic preparations.

You have reiterated this statement and added additional information, namely, that HRH is understood by you to take a box of homeopathic remedies with her when she travels abroad.

This evidently has significance for you but other than tell me that the Royal Family are exercising their right to choose, you have yet to address my question:

What relevance to discussion about the basis for claims for the efficacy of homeopathy does the use of homeopathic preparations by the British Royal Family have?

I note that you have also said:



What does that mean?

Reference to use of homeopathic medicines by some members of British Royal Family is in response to Francelle's reference. See here
http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?7980-Homeopathy&p=146975&viewfull=1#post146975

"What does that mean?"

It means homeopathy is evidence-based medicine.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Reference to use of homeopathic medicines by some members of British Royal Family is in response to Francelle's reference. See here
http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?7980-Homeopathy&p=146975&viewfull=1#post146975

"What does that mean?"

It means homeopathy is evidence-based medicine.

It certainly does not. It means the Royal family use it. To try and claim that it's evidence of efficacy because it's used by Royals is a possible irrational appeal to authority ("You should use it because it's used by - Royal people"?) and claiming this provides a safe evidence base is incorrect. You might as well say 'my mum swears by Windowlene for preventing spots. Therefore Windowlene is evidence based medicine'.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Nano & homeopathy medicine

2007: Nanobubbles http://is.gd/iQYLA
2009: Nanostructures http://bit.ly/bTYpdX
2010: nanoparticles http://bit.ly/edUwqd

I'm not sure if those authors actually understand what they are measuring.

1. (2007) I'm not sure if the authors understand the process of epitaxy. Epitaxy occurs at the surface. It is not as if the surface transfers information to the water molecules that are not at the surface.
The spectroscopy is amusing, because it is meaningless. If they prepared their samples in multiplicate then they might have noticed their error. I am disappointed that the word normalization was not mentioned even once. I also find it amusing that they then go on to state that their findings are not reproducible with other spectrophotometer models! The lack a difference for the Nux Vom sample using the FT-IR technique is also strange if the other results are believed.

2. (2009) The nanostructures in question almost invariably have flaws. They would have realized this if they imaged their structures properly. The EMS itself is just noise, leading to amusing statements such as: "EMS only occurred when the sample could interact with ‘background’ electromagnetic waves given off by the measuring apparatus, suggesting that the EMS might be triggered by interacting (resonating) with this electromagnetic ‘background noise’."

3. (2010) There is substantial room for error in the procedure for this one. Otherwise I would actually suspect fraud on the part of the supplier (not supplying at reported dilutions).

None of the above actually demonstrate nanomedicine though.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471 (2000) //allergic rhinitis
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full (2005) //Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Animal studies in homeopathy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17982565 (2007) //Scientific World Journal
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/3/

You will also note how those specific cases have not been replicated. Otherwise the implication of causation is questionable. There is unfortunately a well known bias in science, known as publication bias. If you suspect publication bias, then you will predict a decline effect when you attempt to replicate the results.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I'm not sure if those authors actually understand what they are measuring.

1. (2007) I'm not sure if the authors understand the process of epitaxy. Epitaxy occurs at the surface. It is not as if the surface transfers information to the water molecules that are not at the surface.
The spectroscopy is amusing, because it is meaningless. If they prepared their samples in multiplicate then they might have noticed their error. I am disappointed that the word normalization was not mentioned even once. I also find it amusing that they then go on to state that their findings are not reproducible with other spectrophotometer models! The lack a difference for the Nux Vom sample using the FT-IR technique is also strange if the other results are believed.

The Fourier-transform Infra-red spectrum is also being used to distinguish homeopathic potencies from solvent

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

You forgot one other thing Joey....

Failed to consider:

He uses quackwatch as a reference....The site ran by a psychiatric lobbyist and is a total quack himself.

There's also www.quackwatch.tv but it's the other way round about pharma industry

 

[Snow Leopard]

The Fourier-transform Infra-red spectrum is also being used to distinguish homeopathic potencies from solvent

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914

Alcohol has no absorption in the O-H bending region.

Is this an artifact of bad translation and lack of proper peer review? I have measured a variety of alcohols with FT-IR and I can tell you, they definitely have absorptions in the O-H bending region.

The graphs and the associated 'results' in table one show no specificity at all. It is hard to believe that they actually think the graphs show anything interesting. Again, they would have noticed their error if they did their testing in multiplicate.

 

[Mark]

It certainly does not. It means the Royal family use it. To try and claim that it's evidence of efficacy because it's used by Royals is a possible irrational appeal to authority ("You should use it because it's used by - Royal people"?) and claiming this provides a safe evidence base is incorrect. You might as well say 'my mum swears by Windowlene for preventing spots. Therefore Windowlene is evidence based medicine'.

Before this particular issue gets any more confused I'd just like to point out that Nancy's earlier post #151 had a quote missing that caused two separate points to appear to be run together: she wasn't actually saying that use of homeopathic medicines by the royal family means that homeopathy is evidence-based medicine, but was answering an earlier question, as the post a little earlier in the thread asking that question makes clear.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Before this particular issue gets any more confused I'd just like to point out that Nancy's earlier post #151 had a quote missing that caused two separate points to appear to be run together: she wasn't actually saying that use of homeopathic medicines by the royal family means that homeopathy is evidence-based medicine, but was answering an earlier question, as the post a little earlier in the thread asking that question makes clear.

Ok Mark, thanks for clearing that up. Occupational hazard with threads I guess.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Before this particular issue gets any more confused I'd just like to point out that Nancy's earlier post #151 had a quote missing that caused two separate points to appear to be run together: she wasn't actually saying that use of homeopathic medicines by the royal family means that homeopathy is evidence-based medicine, but was answering an earlier question, as the post a little earlier in the thread asking that question makes clear.

I did not realised that I missed a quote. I am sorry. And thank you Mark for making the things clear.

 

[JamesK]

Just found this short video of Ben Goldacre at Nerdstock talking about placebos : [video=youtube;O1Q3jZw4FGs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q3jZw4FGs[/video]