Homoeopathic preparations not homoeopathic...

Mojo

Mostly harmless
Mojo
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
47,075
Location
Nor Flanden
...until they are prescribed by a homoeopath!

I've just found this amazing excuse for homoeopathic remedies not showing effects in controlled trials. Apparently the diluted preparations are not homeopathic unless they have been properly prescribed by a homoeopath. The diluting and succussing are not what potentises the remedy. Apparently something happens to potentise the remedy when the homoeopath prescribes it.

Although Prof Ernst claims to have studied homeopathy, his comments regarding the use of serially diluted remedies which he writes for his journal, FACT, do not demonstrate an understanding of homeopathic prescribing principles.

1) To become a homeopthic remedy, a serially diluted remedy needs to be prescribed to homeopathic standards.

2) A serially diluted remedy not prescribed to homeopathic standards is not a homeopathic prescription.

3) Research on the effectiveness of serially dilluted remedies which are not prescribed to homeopathic standards is not a test of homeopathy.

- Jerome Whitney, London UK
Click to expand...
 
I suspect what this person REALLY means by "prescribed" is "manufactured", or perhaps more accurately: "one bottleful, scooped out of a bucket of dirty water without the patient knowing".
 
Mojo said:
...until they are prescribed by a homoeopath!

I've just found this amazing excuse for homoeopathic remedies not showing effects in controlled trials. Apparently the diluted preparations are not homeopathic unless they have been properly prescribed by a homoeopath. The diluting and succussing are not what potentises the remedy. Apparently something happens to potentise the remedy when the homoeopath prescribes it.
Click to expand...

When you think about it this is not surprising given what homeopathy is meant to be i.e. a magic spell.
 
Something prescribed to these "standards" gets tested and fails, isn't real homeopathy then. Although I'm not holding my breath waiting them to define these standards.

Way to pave the road for the Real Scotsman.
 
Mojo said:
...until they are prescribed by a homoeopath!

I've just found this amazing excuse for homoeopathic remedies not showing effects in controlled trials. Apparently the diluted preparations are not homeopathic unless they have been properly prescribed by a homoeopath. The diluting and succussing are not what potentises the remedy. Apparently something happens to potentise the remedy when the homoeopath prescribes it.
Click to expand...

Mm. My impression from this is that it's a common critique that has been accomodated in the past: that the homeopathic remedy may not have noticeable effects in patients if it's not the right remedy to address the symptoms, and not in the right dilution.

In principle, this should only apply to clinical trials, but you get some claims that it can be a factor for in vitro tests.
 
Perhaps Jerome would accept two vials of diluted whatever and undertake to tell us which diluter had a diploma...
 
Zep said:
I suspect what this person REALLY means by "prescribed" is "manufactured", or perhaps more accurately: "one bottleful, scooped out of a bucket of dirty water without the patient knowing".
Click to expand...
I don't think so, because he implies that the remedies that Ernst et al. were testing, which I'm sure will have been prepared according to homoeopathic principles, were not proper homoeopathic remedies.
 
did I just hear the sound of goalposts being dragged across the floor?
 
Mojo said:
...until they are prescribed by a homoeopath!

I've just found this amazing excuse for homoeopathic remedies not showing effects in controlled trials. Apparently the diluted preparations are not homeopathic unless they have been properly prescribed by a homoeopath. The diluting and succussing are not what potentises the remedy. Apparently something happens to potentise the remedy when the homoeopath prescribes it.
Click to expand...
So anyone who prepares a homeopathic remedy is therefore a homeopath. Right? I mean what other definition of homeopath is there?
 
Psi Baba said:
So anyone who prepares a homeopathic remedy is therefore a homeopath. Right? I mean what other definition of homeopath is there?
Click to expand...
No, he seems to be saying that if a remedy is not prescibed by a homoeopath, it's not homoeopathic. He doesn't appear to be saying anything about who prepared it, other than that it isn't the method of preparation that makes it homoeopathic.

He also seems to be implying that homoeopathically prepared remedies, when used in double-blind placebo controlled tests, are not really homoeopathic, and therefore the tests are not a valid test of homoeopathy.

As vbloke says, goalposts seem to be being moved.
 
It constantly amazes me how much energy homeopaths spend explaining why homeopathy doesn't work and then insisting that it does.
 
The trials done in the labs were to the homeopaths' standards. They still fail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

I've seen footage where the homeopaths are present at every stage, and verify that there are no problems. If a non-homeopath touches what the water is contained in, they cannot claim that renders it useless since their clients much touch the container.

Erm. This is so in the realm of ridiculous. Fact is, it's fricken water. Or it is fricken water dropped onto sugar pills. I don't understand why every homeopath is not laughed out of town. It's getting very very tempting to sell the stuff. Very little overhead, cheap ingredients, and no accountability. If you can't beat em, join em?
 
Blue Wode said:
Well, this veterinary clinical trial is to have homeopathic remedies prescribed by a homeopath:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uob-dit071906.php

Wonder what excuse(s) they’ll use if it yields a negative result.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly the same one. One of the studies mentioned in the article Whitney was replying to appears to be White et al.:
In another trial, I looked at the effect of homeopathic remedies on children suffering with asthma.

If any of our trials should have given the remedies a little helping hand it would have been this one, as not only is homeopathy a popular treatment for asthma, but children are also thought to respond better to it than adults.

Nonetheless, once more no differences were seen between the children who took the homeopathic remedies and the control group.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the only trial of homoeopathy for asthma involving Prof. Ernst that appears on Pubmed.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
The trials done in the labs were to the homeopaths' standards. They still fail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

I've seen footage where the homeopaths are present at every stage, and verify that there are no problems. If a non-homeopath touches what the water is contained in, they cannot claim that renders it useless since their clients much touch the container.
Click to expand...
Ah, but that was not a test in which a remedy was prescribed to a patient by a homoeopath. Therefore, according to Mr Whitney, it is not a trial of homoeopathy, because "to become a homeopathic remedy, a serially diluted remedy needs to be prescribed to homeopathic standards". :rolleyes:
 
Mojo said:
One of the studies mentioned in the article Whitney was replying to appears to be White et al.:

This seems to be the only trial of homoeopathy for asthma involving Prof. Ernst that appears on Pubmed.
Click to expand...

Having just searched through all Ernst's publications here
http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/research.html

...it seems that it is the only one and, interestingly, it says this in its conclusion:

This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/58/4/317
Click to expand...
 
After a flame war in a homeopathy forum, I noticed that "not prescribed to homeopathic standards" is a common excuse for a failed research trial.

A non-authorised prescription meant one particular thing- the patient did not see a homeopathic doctor for an interview. Now, what I know about interviews is that they are a lengthy affair between patient and homeopath where one has to list her preferences of food, environment, weather and whatnot.

Unless such information is obtained, claims Hahneman's science, a remedy will not be properly prescribed. Hence, there is a marked difference between a person who likes more cucumbers in her salad and one who likes salad with more tomatoes. The remedies for either will be different.

I am not sure whether there are researches in which the verum group receives a "proper" remedy. Aren't there trials that will use the already existing patients of a homeopath and compare them to a control group (that would not be blinded, though)?

Still waiting for proper research. Then I can imagine walking into a drug store and say, please give me a cold remedy for a person who prefers pepsi to coke and will not tolerate wearing thong sandals, especially with socks.
 
Blue Wode said:
Having just searched through all Ernst's publications here
http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/research.html

...it seems that it is the only one and, interestingly, it says this in its conclusion:
This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yup, that's the one!

Edited for formatting.
 
Last edited:
hipparchia said:
After a flame war in a homeopathy forum, I noticed that "not prescribed to homeopathic standards" is a common excuse for a failed research trial.

A non-authorised prescription meant one particular thing- the patient did not see a homeopathic doctor for an interview. Now, what I know about interviews is that they are a lengthy affair between patient and homeopath where one has to list her preferences of food, environment, weather and whatnot.

Unless such information is obtained, claims Hahneman's science, a remedy will not be properly prescribed. Hence, there is a marked difference between a person who likes more cucumbers in her salad and one who likes salad with more tomatoes. The remedies for either will be different.

I am not sure whether there are researches in which the verum group receives a "proper" remedy. Aren't there trials that will use the already existing patients of a homeopath and compare them to a control group (that would not be blinded, though)?
Click to expand...
Well, see the study cited in posts #14, #16 and #18.

Also, remember that there are remedies which homoeopaths claim can be used consistently in emergency situations, for example arnica for pretty much any kind of bruising. Where's the individualisation there?
 
1) To become a homeopthic remedy, a serially diluted remedy needs to be prescribed to homeopathic standards.
Click to expand...
Someone should tell Boots about this.
I was browsing their homeopathic "remedies" the other day and noticed that they do not tell you what symptoms/illnesses they are supposed to be used to treat. Therefore, I can only assume that they are assuming customers wanting to buy them are either a) self-prescribing or b) getting a "diagnosis" from a homeo, but using boots to supply the "remedy" instead of buying direct.
This leads me to conclude that for any case of a) the preparation is not homeopathic, but for any case of b) the same preparation is homeopathic.

The whole thing is homeopathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom