My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« Celebrating World Homeopathy Awareness Week – Day 2 | Main | April 17 in San Francisco's ATT Park: Ed Rev, for those who learn differently »

Monday, April 12, 2010


Dr. Nancy Malik

Real is scientific homeopathy. Evidence-based modern homeopathy medicine for everyone

Sarah Walder

I feel it is time for a more advanced research model. The truth about Homeopathy lies in a research model which disables it to be proven effective or ineffective. I have seen it work with myself and others even before I believed in its ability to function.

As a side note, I have a sister with learning difficulties. Her life and learning ability has been changed significantly through Homeopathy. For me, when I saw the change in her so quickly. I was a believer in homeopathy. Once the scientific research model catches up to Homeopathy, it will be shown. However, I decided I could not wait that long to help people.

Liz Ditz
Once the scientific research model catches up to Homeopathy, it will be shown.

This makes no sense. The best model we have, double-blinded randomized controlled trials, have consistently shown that homeopathy is no better than placebo.

That has been true for the last 175 years..

Homeopathy is magical thinking. Homeopathy doesn't work, no matter which "remedy" is employed.

Dr. Nancy Malik

Studies in support of Homeopathy published in reputed journals

1. Scientific World Journal

2. Lancet

3. Neuro Psycho Pharmacology // Bacopa Monnieri for memory

Liz Ditz

Oh my goodness, Ms. Malik (because you are not a physician, you don't get the "Dr." title), you seem to be posting the little nugget above in a lot of places, like the Guardian

WarHelmet's comment is more apt:

There is a problem with suggesting that anyone who criticises homeopathy is not qualified to critcise homeopathy. Suggesting that only those who practice homeopathy can understand homeopathy means that patients would be unable to give informed consent for treatment. This would place any doctor who practices homeopathy in an extremely difficult ethical position.

Those who practice homeopathy are often loathe to explain even the basic tenets of homeopathy, preferring to steal the language of medicine. I've seen homeopaths discussing whether they mention the "vital force" to clients. Some do not, instead talking about "strengthening the immune system".

In reality, the basics of homeopathy are easy to understand. Disease is caused by invisible, undetectable forces, which act on an invisible, undetectable force in the body, which causes physical symptoms. Disease is then treated with substances that contain invisible, undetectable substances/energies.

None of the papers you cite actually support your contention.

And by the way, the convention for citing papers?

Author, paper title, journal title, volume, issue, page number.

Liz Ditz

Oh my again. Thanks to Paul Wilson who blogs at Hawk/Handsaw, I can post this. But really, you should go follow him.

I thought I'd have a quick look and explain why they're nonsense. Unfortunately, this hasn't proven to afford much in the way of intellectual exercise.

The first paper is by Graunke et al., and concerns, I kid you not, the treatment of tadpoles with homeopathic thyroxin. This is a well-known bad homeopathy paper. The tadpoles in the treatment group were more developed than those in the control group at the start of the experiment, so it wasn't much of a surprise that they were more developed at the end too. There is more discussion of this dreadful rubbish [at

The second paper is the famed Linde et al. meta-analysis, published in 1997. While this paper does say "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo", there are some other things to bear in mind:

1. The paper also says "However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition".

2. A 1999 paper by the same authors, using improved methodology and including new trials, states that "It seems...likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of
homeopathic treatments".

3. A subsequent meta-analysis by Shang et al., published in the Lancet in 2005, using further improved methodology concluded that the results were compatible with homeopathy being a placebo.

Finally, the third study, by Roodenrys et al. in the journal Neuropsychopharmocology, is not about homeopathy at all, but rather about herbal medicine. In homeopathy, remedies are typically diluted such that it is very unlikely that they contain any of the original material: there is no active ingredient. In the Roodenrys study, what is being tested is brahmi, an Indian herb, of which the paper says:

Studies have shown that the herb contains many active constituents, including a number of alkaloids and saponins, however, the major constituents are the steroidal saponins, Bacosides A and B.

So it isn't entirely surprising that brahmi might have some effect.

From this fairly cursory glance at the studies provided by Nancy Malik, it's clear that she is from the Dana Ullman school of evaluating journal articles. This involves finding some papers that superficially appear to support your position, and then spamming them all over the internet. Luckily, for this approach there is no need to understand the articles, or even to read them. For people who think that magic water is medicine, that would be rather too much to expect.

I say again. Go follow Paul, and ignore Spammer Nancy Malik

natural health therapy

Nowadays, researchers and scientists have find out a lot of ways that we can do or apply in order for us to have better health. One of them really is Homeopathy. Other may find it not so effective but when I found out that Homeopathy treats the person rather than the disease itself, I've tried it and it really made my immune system grow stronger and better and maybe that's why my immune system can fight out all the viruses that come into my body.

The comments to this entry are closed.


What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter