Homeopathy bashing

Well, here we concentrate the higher class of superstition: religion. We shouldn’t neglect the low-class kind like the basic pseudosciences, however. Such as alt-med. This is a very funny satire of homeopathy.

YouTube Preview Image

About Taner Edis

Professor of physics at Truman State University

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01178636347731618550 Ben

    I love the bit at the end with a drop of beer in the pint glass. Wish this show was readily available in the US.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779 Steven Carr

    Homeopathy has a sound scientific basis behind it.

    Sodium chloride will make people thirsty.

    Yet, a solution of sodium chloride, diluted to a concentation of 1 part sodium chloride to 10^20 parts water will cure thirst.

    I rest my case.

    I should add that it is very important that this cure is sold at 19.99 pounds a bottle.

    If you sell it for 20 pence, it loses all therapeutic value.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15710287176323105029 Fulvio – www.omeopatianet.it

    A Homeopath pratictioner is a Doctor first of all !
    So, as a doctor in Medicine, he would never treat a patient in such a ridicolous way especially in a emergency clinic with a patient at risk of life ….. this kind of video are just made to damage homeopahty, the pratictioners and theirs patients. Why ? Just because the Big Pharma need more profits…. and homeopathic products are not patented (no registered mark). People should think about it.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005 Jim Lippard

    Fulvio: The scientific evidence regarding homeopathy doesn't support its use to treat anything at all, and the evidence against its plausibility is overwhelming. When a dilution contains not a single molecule of an active ingredient, there's no plausible mechanism for it to work beyond the power of suggestion or the placebo effect. If water has memory (and there's no evidence that it does), there are a lot more potential contaminating substances than the homeopathic active ingredient.

    Hahnemann's "law of similars" and "law of infinitesimals" are just magical thinking, with nothing to support them.

    It's just as absurd as a treatment for cold, flu, or allergies as it is for more serious illnesses or injuries, as depicted in this comedic video.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15710287176323105029 Fulvio – www.omeopatianet.it

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15710287176323105029 Fulvio – www.omeopatianet.it

    * Forty-six patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomized to homeopathic remedies or placebo. The remedies were selected according to traditional homeopathic principles to match each individual. Both groups were allowed to continue their conventional anti-inflammatory drugs. Objective follow-up measurements were made by an independent assessor, noting the measured articular (joint) index, limbering up time, grip strength, and pain.

    Significant improvement occurred in those treated with homeopathic remedies, but not in the placebo group. Within one year, 42% of homeopathically treated patients were able to stop all conventional pharmaceutical treatments (Gibson, 1980).

    * Eighty-one Nicaraguan children, age 6 months to 5 years, with acute diarrhea (a major cause of morbidity and mortality) were treated with standard support of IV fluids, plus either an individualized homeopathic remedy or placebo, and they followed up for five days.

    The group that received a homeopathic remedy had a statistically significant decrease in duration of diarrhea and in number of stools per day after 72 hours of treatment. Such intervention has the potential for saving both lives and dollars, especially in developing countries where this issue is so prevalent. This model of study is an excellent format for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of the homeopathic method itself (Jacobs et al., 1994).

    Meta-analyses

    Woman sneezingTechniques of statistical analysis have been developed that allow for the combined interpretation of results from studies that vary in design, populations, and situations. This is very helpful when there have been many different smaller studies that individually are of less significance.

    * Two previous trials of oral homeopathic immunotherapy for patients with allergic asthma had been significant over placebo. The trial was repeated a third time with 28 patients, most sensitive to house-dust mites, with the treatments given as a complement to their usual conventional care.

    Within one week of beginning treatment, and lasting for the eight weeks of the study, those patients receiving homeopathy had a significant improvement in their respiratory function and bronchial reactivity tests. Combining all three trials in a meta-analysis strengthened the evidence that homeopathy works more than placebo (P=0004) (Reilly et al., 1994).

    * Quote from a doctor about homeopathy's challenges to medical scienceOne hundred eighty-six clinical trials were identified and 119 met the criteria for inclusion. Of those 119 trials, 89 had sufficient data to analyze statistically. More than 10,000 patients were included. The results were tabulated looking at "odds ratios" where an odds ratio of greater than one meant that there was a 95% confidence that the results were not due to placebo. The combined odds ratio was 2.45. Odds ratios of greater than one were found in many studies examining efficacy of a homeopathic intervention in the areas of allergy, dermatology, bruises, cramps, stomach and intestinal complaints, sprains, neurological issues, gynecologic complaints, childbirth, asthma, upper respiratory illnesses, and rheumatology (Linde et al., 1997).

    today, we have many practices in which we do not understand how they work, and pharmaceuticals for which we have no clear mechanism of action (in other words, the method by which they impact functions in the body).

    Historically, this has been even truer in the past, even with drugs as common as aspirin. Yet, physicians commonly use drugs that seem to give clinical results, without understanding the mechanism.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005 Jim Lippard

    I don't know the particulars of those studies, but I suspect they are either methodologically flawed or found spurious effects, since subsequent reviews (at least twelve of them since the mid-1980s) and meta-analyses of homeopathic studies have shown no effect, yielding the statement by the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that "Systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment of any medical condition."

    A 2005 article in _The Lancet_ was a review of 110 controlled trials of homeopathy compared to 110 controlled trials of conventional medicine for the same disorders or diseases. For both treatment types, smaller and more poorly controlled trials showed larger effects. But for conventional medicine, larger and better controlled trials also showed an effect, while for homeopathy, larger and better controlled trials showed no effect above placebo. This suggests that the cause of positive effects in homeopathy studies is due to poor studies rather than a real effect of homeopathy. Shang, et al., Lancet, 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984 Sabio Lantz

    Ex-Homeopath Confession
    I am an former homeopath, acupuncturist and herbalist. Now I am a Physician Assistant. That video was embarrassingly hilarious. The temptation to rationalize after committing oneself to a school of thought is huge. Digging one's way out of falsehoods can be tough.

  • Pingback: superdry

  • Pingback: nike roshe run femme


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X