Outright deception.

Sorry – Homeopathy again.

EDIT – There is an update that follows the original post

Those who have ventured “below the line” on articles regarding homeopathy will perhaps have come across “Dr” Nancy Malik, a prolific pro-homeopathy zealot who can be typified by her chronic inability to read and assess the articles she is touting as showing that her beloved modality is anything other than water.

In the not too distance past, Ms Malik had a “knol” – a Google hosted blog where she collected all the scientific papers that she thought showed homeopathy worked. I assessed that here.

(Spoilers: there’s nothing in it.)

Google pulled the plug on Knol, and Ms Malik migrated her site to WordPress.
A few months ago, she got the site HONcode certified. HONcode is an independent organisation that promotes and certifies websites that they deem as giving reliable healthcare information. Obviously, I found it odd that HONcode (who seek to abide by the tenets evidence based medicine) would certify a homeopathy site. I raised this with them, and encouraged others to do so. After a brief e-mail conversation, HONcode wisely chose to suspend Ms Malik’s certification, pending a review. The HONcode logo on her site and the verification link (supplied by HONcode) changed to reflect this – now showing a ‘men at work’ sign with a red “ReExam” warning.

Both myself and Alan Henness asked Ms Malik when she might be altering her website to take this into account. This morning, after several weeks gentle prompting, we got a reply…

Her website HAD been changed!

Or had it? The HONcode logo still has the red “ReExam” logo, but when one clicked on the verify link… Something magical happened!

Rather than the usual link to the HONcode site with further information about the certification…

The real HONcode site

… one is directed to an image of the original certificate posted on Ms Malik’s Google+ site in October 2013.

The G+ image

Here is a freezepage link to Ms Malik’s WordPress site as of this morning, complete with link to her G+ site.

This is a clear and unambiguous attempt to dupe the unwary into thinking that she retains HONcode certification. Happily it was so laughably crude that even my pre-coffee eyes at 6:50 spotted it.

The genuine HONcode ceritificate for Ms Malik’s site is here.

EDIT: I’ve added some links & an image of the genuine HONcode certificate.

 

UPDATE: Alan Henness was the first of us to illicit a response from HONcode, who appear to confirm that they have rescinded their certification for Ms Malik’s site. Perhaps we might speculate that her sudden action on this issue (after 6 weeks of nought but silence on the matter)  might have been precipitated by HONcode informing her of their decision?

.@JoBrodie @br13roch @xtaldave @AnGobanSaor Here’s what @HealthOnTheNet told me about @DrNancyMalik ‘s site: pic.twitter.com/pGQoThBryU

— Alan Henness (@zeno001) June 8, 

 

 

UPDATE 2: HONcode have now removed Maliks certificate – the link to here genuine certificate now looks like this:

If Nelsons goods are banned from being imported into the US…

…guess which US homeopathy advocate is still flogging one of their products on his website?

---

UK based manufacturer of homeopathic remedies Nelsons have been severely reprimanded by the US FDA for a slew of manufacturing cock-ups. [ Quackometer | FDA letter to Nelsons]

Cock-ups include:

• “glass fragments present during the manufacture” and ” in the Clikpak Assembly”
• “one out of every six bottles did not receive the dose of active homeopathic drug solution due to the wobbling and vibration of the bottle assembly during filling of the active ingredient. The active ingredient was instead seen dripping down the outside of the vial assembly. Your firm lacked controls to ensure that the active ingredient is delivered to every bottle.”
• “The dosing process has not been validated appropriately. Specifically, your surrogate validation study, “Medication of un-medicated pillules with (b)(4),” visually demonstrates the variability of the amount of (b)(4) for the pillules in one vial. Your firm lacks control of the variation for the amount of the active ingredient in the pillules.”
• “Your firm does not have an established written program to calibrate/qualify the Perkin Elmer Clarus gas chromatograph (GC) at suitable intervals.”
• ” Your firm did not calibrate and qualify the Jasco high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) instrumentation adequately, in that there is no periodic qualification or evaluation of the pump, oven, injector, or detector. The “Use and Calibration of HPLC” procedure does not include criteria to define adequate calibration of the instrument.”

Basically – they don’t manufacture their remedies in a controlled and consistent manner, and they cannot monitor this because it’s homeopathy, there’s nothing to monitor they don’t maintain the equipment for doing so in the correct and proper fashion.

If this was a real drug company, the implications could be disastrous. If one in six packs of antibiotics was duff, you can bet that we’d hear about that and there would be huge fines levied all round.

One wonders if users of the duff batches of remedies noticed the lack of “powerful gentle natural effective” homeopathic active ingredient, and promptly complained to Nelsons about this?

This failure to adhere to best practice has landed Nelsons on the FDA red list [Link – scroll down to United Kingdom] – “Detention Without Physical Examination of Drugs From Firms Which Have Not Met Drug GMPs” – it seems (from my reading of this notice) that Nelsons cannot export their goods to the US, and if US customers officials discover people bringing Nelsons products into the US they are to confiscate the goods. This will clearly have a negative impact on their US exports, and Nelsons are clearly rather proud of their export success [Link].

NB. Nelsons also make the Prince Charles’ Duchy Orignal line of herbal remedies [Link – Warning – Daily Mail].

So, can Nelsons products be sold in the US?

I don’t know about the legal ramification about being on the red list, but I cannot find mention of a US based manufacturing facility. Indeed, the Nelsons website states that

Our range of products meet the appropriate UK and global regulatory and licensing requirements, and are made in our Wimbledon manufacturing facility which operates to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and rigorous procedures. [Link]

Clearly the FDA might have something to say about the “Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and rigorous procedures”.

However, as Nelsons homeopathic products are manufactured in Wimbledon, UK, it follows that any Nelsons products sold in the US must have been imported. I don’t imagine that the FDA red notice acts retrospectively, but obviously, as we are repeatedly told that “homeopathy is exceedingly popular and therefore it must work” 🙂 – one imagines that US stocks of Nelsons goods will soon run dry. I invite you to keep your eye on this page [link – warning – may cause nausea and temporary blindness ;)] to see when then this occurs.

Obviously, such a high profile and conscientious homeopath will ensure that the information on his website will remain up-to-date and entirely responsible. Moreover, given the concerns about the quality of Nelsons goods, one wonders if said homeopath will stop supplying them, to avoid the stigma of being tainted by Nelsons new-earned reputation for poor quality goods.

Blogpost: Should homeopathy be banned on the NHS?

A quickie about this poll: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/mar/19/homeopathy-banned-nhs

Prof Edzard Ernst has said that homeopathy should not be offered on the NHS.

Correct.

In a nutshell, it is an implausible modality which lacks robust scientific evidence to demonstrate:
A) that it works
B) how it works.

Application of Occam’s razor (still a valid tool in scientific deduction) suggests that it is nothing more than a highly ritualised placebo (see posts passim).

However, this poll in ‘Teh Grauniad’ has been worded (either accidentally or not) in a way to polarise opinion and push any undecided liberals (small ‘l’ – them who generally dislike banning of anything – myself included) in the direction of the ‘no’ button, and add to the popular fallacy/delusion amongst the altmed community that OMG THE SKEPTIKZ ARR FACISTS.

The wording Prof Ernst, should not be offered, is a much better way of posing the question, as it sticks to the heart of the matter without invoking any sort of totalitarianism amongst those that seek to only offer evidence-based treatment on the NHS.

I strongly believe that homeopathy should not be offered on the NHS, because it has not been conclusively demonstrated to work any better than a placebo. A cash-strapped NHS (whatever may become of it) should not be spending taxpayer’s money on stuff that does not work.

If people want to waste their own money on some of the most expensive sugar imaginable, that’s their own business.

Besides, this poll is nothing more than a “who can spread the word around their community fastest” competition, and irrespective if the outcome, is just an appeal to popularity.

Quickie – Homeopathy for Radiation poisoning?

Taken from here

---

A few quack websites (e.g. such as the one discussed here) have lept on the terrible events surrounding the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan to make a fast buck off the backs of scared and vulnerable people.

This one is no better than the others, but it couches and prefaces the descent to batshittery with some sensible advice about emergency planning and what have you.

See if you can spot the odd one out in this list:

Having a preparedness plan should put in place now, not when you need to go to the store and purchase goods that the rest of the population is wanting also. Stores will sell out within hours in an emergency. Things to have on hand are;

•  Bottled water and food for at least one week, preferably longer.
• A camp stove and fuel to cook with.
• Flashlights and extra batteries
• Portable radio that is battery or crank operated
• Access to a computer if possible.
• Thin plastic sheeting, staple gun and duct tape to seal windows and doors
• Extra fuel in case you need to leave
• Dust masks and protective painters coveralls.
• Potassium Iodide or Potassium iodate tablets
• Homeopathic remedies stored in a lead lined film bag with information on how to use them.
• Personal documents in a handy place and organized
• A family plan that everyone knows – where to meet, who to call. etc.

Did you spot it?

The page then talks sensibly about some of the effects and symptoms of radiation sickness before plunging head first back into the woo, suggesting lots of homeopathic remedies for cancer. And fear of cancer.

• Cadmium Metallicum – For stomach cancer. Violent vomiting, loss of appetite and emaciation. Bright red bloody diarrhea. Blood changes, anemia, problems in the intestinal tract. Fatigue and lassitude like in influenza. Dull ache all over. Concentration difficult. Fear of Cancer. Indifference, does not want to see people anymore.  Irritability alternating with deep depression.
• Cadmium Sulphuricum –  Similar to Arsenicum Album. Cancer of the stomach. Persistent vomiting. Black vomit. Chief complaints are the stomach and breathing. Chilliness and cold even next to the fire. Restless. Gray complexion. Nause, retching with burning and cutting pains. Worse from motion.
• Cadmium Iodatum – Very similar to Cad Met but warmer. The Iodine component brings aggravation from heat or extreme cold. A distinctive mental trait is hatred and a high degree of self pity.
• Fluoric Acid – Affects the bones. Necrosis and bone decay. Deep acting in slow, progressive, destructive effects. Wants open air.
•  Phosphorus – Affects mucous membranes, destroys bone, disorganizes blood and inflames nerves. Hemorrhages. Desires cold drinks. Suddenness of symptoms. Excitable and impressionable. Wants sympathy. Great fear creeping out of every corner. The human barometer. Profundly effects the nutrition and function of every tissue. Chronic effects of radiation exposure.
•  Radium Bromatum – Effects nerves skin. Radiation burns. Destroys the nucleus of the cell. Severe aching all over. Pains suddenly shift, electric like pains. Joint pain and gout. Fear to be alone, wants company. Apprehensive, depressed. Cancer.
•  Strontium Carbonicum – Effects the bones. Shock after surgery or loss of blood. Pains fleeting, can hardly tell where they have come from, felt in the marrow of the bones. Pains appear and disappear gradually also. Violent involuntary starts. Burning, gnawing pains. Great prostration. Anguish as from guilt. Angry, tendency to fly into a rage. Depression.
• X-Ray – Low vitality, chonic fatigue and sick feeling. Cancer. Skin burns and lesions. Affects the blood, lymphatics and bone marrow. Anemia, leukemia. Sadness. Aversion to company.

It should go without saying that NONE of these remedies have any proven efficacy what-so-ever. The ‘potency’ is not mentioned, but it is worth repeating that there is no known mechanism of action for remedies that are diluted beyond 12C, i.e. those that do not contain any molecules of the original substance.

Another sickening example of people pushing unproven quack remedies on scared and vulnerable people, much like the ‘homeopaths without borders’ incursion into Haiti, following the earthquake there.

Related Articles

• ASA swamped with complaints re: Homeopathy. (xtaldave.wordpress.com)
• Diluting nuclear homepathy (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Everybody’s favorite homeopath is back, and I’m not… (scienceblogs.com)

ASA swamped with complaints re: Homeopathy.

Quickie about a letter from the ASA to all who have complained about website with homeopathic levels of honesty.

---

As you may or may not be aware, the Nightingale Collaboration has co-ordinated a campaign to highlight and complain about some of the ridiculous and unsupportable claims that alternative medicine practitioners make on their websites – the current project is targeting homeopathy websites within the UK.

As someone who has complained recently about a homeopathic website or two, I recently received this bulk mail-out from the ASA:

Dear Sir/Madam

ADVERTISING CLAIMS ON HOMEOPATHY WEBSITES

Thank you for your recent complaint.

As you may know, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received over a hundred and fifty complaints about over a hundred different websites for homeopathy.  Complaints cover a range of issues from specific claims made by individual advertisers to general concerns about the sector as a whole.  Because of the volume of complaints, we are sending this letter to everyone who contacted us on these issues to let you know what action we intend to take.

The ASA has an established position on claims that can be made, and those claims that are not likely to be acceptable for homeopathy, based on the requirements set out in the CAP Code and previous ASA adjudications.  Although we have not historically received many complaints about advertising for homeopathy, the Code has general requirements for substantiation of claims in the health sector and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) offers specific advice on marketing health-related products and services. Further information about the requirements of the advertising Code is available on our website www.asa.org.uk and from www.copyadvice.org.uk.

We are seeking to enforce compliance with the Code even-handedly across the sector by contacting all of the advertisers we have received complaints about as well as the bodies that represent homeopaths and homeopathy in the UK.  We will be explaining the Code’s requirements, giving advice on how to ensure advertising claims do not breach the Code, and asking advertisers to remove any claims which do not comply.  More information about what that means in practice is provided in the CAP Help Notes on Substantiation for Health, Beauty and Slimming claims and Health, Beauty and Slimming Marketing Communications that Refer to Medical Conditions.  You can find these documents on our Copy Advice website, as indicated above.  Because the ASA has only been regulating websites since 1 March many of the advertisers we contact will not be familiar with us or the work we do and will need help and assistance from us.  For that reason, we plan to monitor compliance 3 months after making our expectations of them clear. We feel that this will give advertisers, some of whom are very small and have limited resources, sufficient time to make the necessary changes.

The ASA will not be publishing individual adjudications on this occasion.  We will however publish specific, up-to-date advice to the industry and its representative bodies in due course and we will work with them to ensure that advertising for homeopathy is compliant with the Code.

Thank you for taking the trouble to contact us.  While you will not see immediate results please be assured that we are working hard in the background to resolve the issues that have been complained about.

Yours sincerely

What do I think about this?

First off  it shows that the Nightingale Collaboration (NC) has been successful in co-ordinating a fair few complaints within the 2-and-a-half weeks it has been running this campaign – whether this number of complaints matches the expectations of the NC, only they know.

It would appear that the ASA recognise that UK-based homeopaths are often making unsupportable claims about the efficacy of their sugar pills on their websites – to such an extent that they are going contact both the complained-about homeopaths and their ‘regulatory’ bodies (ARH, SoH, BHA etc) about these breaches, and make them aware of the rules that they should be adhering too. If after 3 months they have not complied with UK advertising regulations – the ASA may take further action.

Whilst individual complainers may miss out on the satisfaction of seeing adjudications against the websites they have complained about – the end result should be the same – and in fact much more far reaching. This wholesale action against all UK-homeopaths (via their ‘professional’ bodies) by the ASA should ensure that they are no longer allowed to make outrageous claims about efficacy (or claim that they were unaware of the rules).

Provided the ASA take a suitably tough line with the homeopaths, and they ensure that the rules are adhered to, I think that this can be seen as a very effective first strike by the Nightingale Collaboration.

Related Articles

• The World Has Become Slightly Less Quacky (quackometer.net)
• Exploring the New Skepticism – the View from Woo (scepticalenquiry.wordpress.com)
• I finally got to explain homeopathy to my mother (opcdossier.wordpress.com)

Homeopathic guide to “conflict of interest”

Skeptics of alternative medicine are often accused of being in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry (the “big pharma shills” argument).
Here is a ‘handy-cut-out-and-keep’ guide to COI.

---

I could go on…

Homeopathic Suicide is Painless…

Ten²³ day!

---

Today, as this blog is posted, I will be taking a massive overdose of homeopathic ‘medicine’.

Unless the laws of chemistry, biology and physics momentarily lose their grip on our reality, the only thing that will happen is that the sugar in pills will enter my blood stream, via my digestive tract, and give me a mild sugar rush.

The fact that these sugar-pills-dressed-up-as-medicine continue to be offered by persons acting on behalf of the (cash strapped and under funded) National Health Service, and are available from supposedly reputable high street pharmacies like Boots the Chemist is an affront to reason.

The ten23 overdose is not (and was never) designed to be a scientific proof of the lack of efficacy of homeopathy – we rely on tried and tested methods like meta analyses to do that for us – rather ten23 is a public awareness exercise.

Please be aware. “There is nothing in it”

If you feel moved to do so, follow @xtaldave for updates through out the day.

Psorinum therapy – homeopathy for cancer?

A quick look at another paper doing the rounds

---

There is an update to this blog post that follows the original post

---

These papers ^{[1], [2](pdf)} have recently been pimped around twitter by various homeopaths, apparently as proof that a homeopathic remedy can cure cancers, including the very nasty pancreatic cancers. Paper 1 (published in a sensible-looking oncology journal) is just an abstract from a meeting, and paper 2 (published in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine) is the actual paper with all the juicy details – but they essentially detail the same study.

Taken on face value, the results are pretty amazing, with 5-year survival rats of around 40% for patients with stomach, gall bladder pancreatic and liver cancers (paper 2, table 3).

Compare these with current 5 year survival rates for stomach and pancreatic cancers of roughly 12% and 2% respectively.

So, if kosher – these results would be a fantastic addition to the arsenal in the war on cancer.

But…

… the studies were conducted without any controls whatsoever. The mind boggles. Why bother going to the effort of a 5 year study, and not including a control arm? Whether it be an ‘untreated’ arm, a placebo arm or a comparison against current best practices and therapies, a control arm would have increased the viability of this study no end. Even if they failed to recruit any more patients, and just split the patients into to two randomised groups with 20-odd patients in each arm, the power and impact of the study would be massively enhanced. To not control anything is just a massive fail.

This massive fail is then compounded by a failure of peer-review at eCAM. Did the reviewers not ask themselves where the controls in this study where? However, this was published in eCAM and this is clearly labelled as a prospective study – maybe I am being too harsh.

However, for those totting this paper as evidence for homeopathy curing cancer,  let’s make this absolutely clear: the only conclusions that can be drawn from this study are that the study is ultimately a waste of 5 years and is utterly meaningless in it’s current form. It should have been designed properly 5 years ago, and it should have contained some sort of control arm, and should have been properly randomised and blinded.

The authors are clearly aware of this and allude to it themselves in the final sentence of the paper:

“…randomized double-blind clinical trial, detailed molecular, pharmacokinetics,and pharmacodynamics studies should be conducted for further scientific exploration of this alternative cancer treatment to determine if it can be integrated into the mainstream oncology.”

However….

It is perhaps telling that in this final sentence in the paper, that the authors mention “detailed molecular, pharmacokinetics,and pharmacodynamics studies.” That use of the word ‘molecular’ is the only appearance of the word molecular or derivatives thereof in the entire paper, maybe unsurprising given that this is a homeopathic study.

The wonder remedy that the researchers are testing out is ‘Psnorium’ – a homeopathic remedy made from the fluid from scabies blisters (yuck) – that apparently has indications for a large number of symptoms, including, “generalities; sensitive; to pain” – well, that rules out the ~48 people on the planet that suffer from CIPA, then…

Of more note to people with an interest in molecular mechanisms (myself included), is the fact that the dilution factor used in the study is only 6x. So, 1 in 1,000,000.

Wait a minute! That’s cheating! There is an outside chance that Psnorium 6x actually has “something” in it!

Let’s assume for a minute that the results are genuine, and Psnorium 6x has had an effect on these cancers. The fluid from scabies blisters will likely contain serous fluid – but depending upon the exact contents of the blister it could contain all manner of biochemical goodies.

Given that scabies blisters are apparently intensely itchy, there may be some histamine around. The fact that the scabies mite (a foreign object) has penetrated the skin, means that some sort of immune response will have been mounted, and therefore it is inconceivable that scabies blisters would not contain some cytokines or chemokines. Was the remedy prepared from crusted or normal scabies? Because patients with crusted scabies secrete higher levels of cytokines IL-5 and IL-13, and lover levels of IFN-gamma than normal patients [3]. Other studies have shown that scabies mites, or extracts thereof alter secretion levels of a whole range of cytokines:

Active mites on the surface of the HSE induced secretion of cutaneous T cell-attracting chemokine, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, interleukin (IL)-1alpha, IL-1beta, IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra), IL-6, IL-8, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and macrophage colony-stimulating factor.

So, biochemically speaking, scabies blister fluid likely contains some very interesting molecules, some of which may have an effect on cancer cells. Oral administration of Interleukins has been shown to have physiological effects in some studies, and cytokine therapy is an avenue being explored in the fight against cancer.

<Insert vaguely witty sub-heading here>

Let’s assume that the DBRCT has been done properly, and it shows a clear, statistically significant effect in cancer patients. What next? Would it be the killer blow that shows that skeptics have been wrong and homeopathy works? Sadly not – because of the likely presence of actual molecules of something. That being said, if there is an effect to be seen, it does at least give us the possibility of conducting an interesting experiment to test homeopathy:

• Take the scabies blister fluid.
• Give one-third of it to a homeopath, get them to make up their remedies as usual, with all the serial dilutions and succussion.
• Give another third to a competent postgraduate student. Get them to make a 1 in 10⁶ dilution of it, but without the homeopathic rituals like succussion.
• Give the final third to a well-equipped, well-staffed biochemistry lab. Get them to fractionate the fluid by HPLC or FPLC, and then test the fractions for biological activity in a suitable assay, and identify the molecules present are responsible for the effect, (assuming it’s not some arm-wavy, unsubstantiated guff about the vital force or EM fields) they will presumably isolate one or more fractions that contain the molecules responsible for the therapeutic effect. These molecules could then be purified for trial in patients.

If only the homeopathic remedy recapitulates the results of the DBRCT, then homeopathy works. Elseif, science works, and someone just got lucky feeding diluted extract of scabies blister to cancer patients.

Simples.

---

UPDATE

A blog post at Anaximperator that I was alerted to by a pingback is well worth a look as it contains a rather interesting graph from the conference presentation that was not included in the publications –

Sourced from http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/homeopathy-endorsed-by-asco-not-really/

“Psorinum+Allopathy+Homeopathy” does not look significantly different from “Psorinum+Allopathy”. “Psorinum+Homeopathy” comes a distant 3rd. The authors of the study apparently didn’t think to include an “Allopathy” or “Homeopathy” alone group. Looking at this, I would suggest that psorinum gives little, if any, benefit above and beyond the conventional treatment that patients were receiving. You will note that the only group without conventional/allopathic treatment fared significantly worse than those groups receiving it. As the anaximperator author wryly observes –  “It appears that conventional treatment is necessary for homeopathy to work.” 😉

Related Articles

• Homeopathy Pseudoscience at the HuffPo (theness.com)
• How homeopathy works (scienceblogs.com)

Canadian Homeopaths plan astroturf-war

A quick note about something that popped up on my radar…

---

Image via Wikipedia

This website (and just in case – a freezepage ) reveals that the Canadian Society of Homeopaths are planning a response to a forthcoming CBC show, Marketplace, which is running a documentary on Homeopathy. Without seeing the show (it aires on Friday, Jan 14, 2011),  it seems that the Canuck homeopaths are assuming that it puts homeopathy in a negative light (I wonder why?) and they want to get the message out so any interested parties can watch it. Fair enough.

However, their list of actions (sent out via e-mail to their members) reveals that they are also planning to bombard the Marketplace show’s blog with pro-homeopathy comments:

4. Be prepared to leave a comment on the CBC and Marketplace website immediately after the programme airs. Go to and check out the comment function right now. Sign up now to create a user’s account so that there will be no delay when you are ready to send your comments. Once the programme has aired, you can leave a comment by clicking on the title, which will take you to a summary page concluding with a link “Share your comment”. This leads to a comment box, which requires that you sign in. CBC monitors and reviews all messages so you may want to read the Submission Guidelines page before planning to send your comments.

5. Know what you are going to say so that you can post a response without delay. Choose to focus on a single point per comment, elaborate on it, and conclude with a strong, affirming statement. Often the most effective messages are short, concise, and to the point. Send as many of these as you can

They want to get their points in quickly (“leave a comment on the CBC and Marketplace website immediately after the programme airs”) but have perhaps failed to spot that unlike the Grauniad in the UK, the comments on the Marketplace blog are listed most recent first – so the early comments will soon be pushed off the bottom. They also request that their followers post as many short, concise comments as they can – essentially spamming up the comments board.

In point 7, the CSoH also warn members about falling into the same trap that UK homeopaths have fallen into regarding homeopathic for malaria vaccines.

In the second point 7, they go into full-bore, “la-la-la-I can’t hear you” mode.

How we all react to this criticism will determine how much traction this story maintains in the coming weeks and months. We urge you to be calm, be polite, be underwhelmed. Take the moral high ground. Convey that this Marketplace programme is no more than a mild irritant for homeopaths who are providing an important service in your community. It is disappointing that the CBC journalists chose to ignore the reality that is the basis of homeopathy, but that doesn’t affect what we know to be true.

The strength in homeopathy is that it works. We practitioners know it works because we see it every day in our patients and they obviously know it works because they refer their family and friends to homeopathy and they keep coming back when they get ill. Nay-sayers can say “it aint so” until they are blue in the face, but that doesn’t change the fact that homeopathy does work, even if we still don’t know how it works. Full stop. End of discussion. Let’s say what needs to be said to set the record straight and then get back to doing the important work that we do with homeopathy.

Any Canadian sceptics out there may want to keep an eye on how this astroturfing campaign proceeds 😉

Related Articles

• Homeopathy for Malaria (theness.com)
• Is homeopathy on the ropes after ban on prescription for pets? (guardian.co.uk)
• Homeopaths Find The Solution – Hire PR Consultants. (quackometer.net)

Scientific evidence for homeopathy?

Homeopathic repertory, by J.T. Kent. (Image via Wikipedia)

I had to do this in lots of small doses to prevent the stupid rubbing off…

---

People with bad-science style blogs, or on twitter may have noticed ‘Dr’ Nancy Malik and co pushing a google knol page in which said homeopathic astroturfer had dumped a whole bunch of links to homeopathy paper that she concludes has “confirmed the efficacy of homeopathic medicine.”

O RLY?

First thing to note is that she reckons there are 130+ studies… just under 100 by my reckoning, but then I didn’t count the 59 instances of multiple posting of the same paper, or indeed the many websites, news articles and blog posts which are not peer-reviewed.

I’ve gone through Malik’s knol page (fixing some of her wretched formatting quirks), and annotating each paper. My annotations appears as blockquotes. There are a few instances where I ‘ve not been able to access the full text of an article. If you can, e-mail me at xtaldaveblog_squiggle_gmail_dot_com. I have NOT drilled down into papers that might be mentioned on pages linked to, because, to be honest, I have a career and a family, and I can only read so many crappy clinical trials in a week.

Picking holes in the individual papers was not a particularly arduous task, but the sheer quantity of piffle to plough through meant that it took a while. At some point, I intend to create a searchable spreadsheet… watch this space…

The basic take home message is that the vast majority of these studies fail to impress as they have very small sample sizes. Mostly less than 100 patients per group, occasionally down to single figures. There are also plenty of instances where remedies are used at dilutions below 12C – thereby suggesting that active ingredients may actually remain – thus the ‘prior probability‘ of these remedies is non-zero. I have no real issue with the plausibility of such remedies – but let us be clear that in such cases the homeopathic bells and whistles (like succussion) have not been shown to have a demonstrable effect. This does not mean of course, that sub 12C remedies do not need to have their efficacy assessed in a correct and rigorous manner.

---

TRIPLE-BLIND STUDIES

1. Journal of Psychosomatic Research (Pergamon)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15016577 (2004) //Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Subjective, Patient questionnaires to measure outcome of 92 patients. p=0.09 – is not generally considered to be significant.

DBRPCT

World’s first DBRPCT was conducted in 1835 by a homeopath physician Johann Jacob Reuter,

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/19th_Century/lohner/lohner-commentary.html

Hardly relevant, as it is not peer reviewed. Worth mentionning only because it demonstrates the amazing ability of Malik to post things without actually reading them or critically assessing them. The DBRPCT concluded that “The vast majority of those who had received the homeopathic salt dilution had thus not experienced any ‘effect’. The investigators concluded that Reuter was wrong.”

1. Lancet

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (1997) //homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective and positive) to placebo

The 1997 Linde review was updated in 1999 and concludes “Our analyses provide clear evidence that in the study set investigated more rigorous trials tended to yield smaller effect sizes.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2886%2990410-1/abstract (1986) //hay fever

Only 52/56 patients in each group. Only subjective scores changed – objective measures like IgE no different.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2990407-3/abstract (1994) //homeopathy does more than placebo

15/13 patients in each group. Conventional meds taken alongside homeopathy. No difference in objective measures.

2. British Medical Journal

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/302/6772/316 (1991) //105 studies: 77% of studies show positive result of homeopathy

CONCLUSIONS–At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471 (2000) FULL TEXT //allergic rhinitis

51 patients. Flawed Statistics.
“Editor – Taylor et al came to the conclusion that “this study has failed to confirm our original hypothesis that homeopathy is a placebo” [1]. Unfortunately, the statistics do not prove that. The basis for the study was a prestudy power calculation [2] which required 120 patients to prove the hypothesis, with a 5% significance and an 80% power, infact only the study only recruited 51 patients, but analysed the results as if they had the required number. In fact their only conclusion was that they do not have enough data to make a conclusion. If we accept the availability of only 51 patients at the outset, what are the relevant calculations ? The power calculation is only 43%, and to maintain the power calculation at 80%, the “p-value” becomes 34% ! The only conclusion is that the trial is not able to prove anything.”

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/content/effect-of-homoeopathic-treatment-on-fibrositis (1989) //fibromyalgia (Inflammation in muscles)

Not beyond Avagadros constant. “We showed that the homoeopathic medicine R toxicodendron 6c was effective for a selected subgroup of patients with fibrositis.”

http://www.vithoulkas.com/images/stories/Articles/premenstrual_syndrome_orig_paper.pdf (2001) //Pre Mensuration Syndrome

8/11 patients participated in each arm of this trial. Pitiful.

3.Chest

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full (2005) FULL TEXT //Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

25 patients in each group – groups not properly matched.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php

4. European Journal of Paedretics (SpringerLink)

http://adhdinfocentre.com/homeopathy/Homeopathic%20treatment%20of%20children%20with%20attention%20deficit%20hyperactivity%20disorder.pdf (2005) FULL TEXT //ADHD

Cochrane review of Homeopathy for ADHD (which includes this study) concludes “Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005648/frame.html

5. Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerLink)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf (2009) FULL TEXT //electromagnetic properties of highly-diluted biological samples

Debunked here – http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081

6. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=03000&article=00005&type=abstract (2003) // diarrhea

Debunked here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=508

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=02000&article=00012&type=abstract (2001) //otitis media

Not statistically significant. “There were fewer treatment failures in the group receiving homeopathy after 5 days, 2 weeks and 6 weeks, with differences of 11.4, 18.4 and 19.9%, respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant.”

7. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (InterScience by Wiley)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03116.x/abstract (2009) //Psoriasis

No Placebo Control

8. Ear, Nose and Throat disorders (Bio Med Central)

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6815/9/7 (2009) FULL TEXT //chronic sinusitis

No Placebo Control

9. Toxicological Sciences (Oxford University Press)

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/368 (2006) //why small doses is better than large dose

Paper concerns HORMESIS and NOT HOMEOPATHY. Doesn’t even mention homeopathy.

10. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery (American Medical Association)

http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/8/1/54.long (2006) FULL TEXT //Arnica for bruising

14/15 patients in each group. This graph says it all.
http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/8/1/54/F3.large.gif

11. Sleep Medicine (Elseiver)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673648 (2010) //Nux Vomica 30 & Coffea Cruda 30 for insomnia

Patients with caffeine induced insomnia had to alter their caffeine intake to participate in the study.
Should be retitled “Altering caffeine intake in patients with caffeine induced insomnia alters their caffeine induced insomnia”

12. Cancer
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%2820010801%2992:3%3C684::AID-CNCR1371%3E3.0.CO;2-%23/full (2001) FULL TEXT //Traumeel S for stomatitis

15/15 patients in each group – Traumeel S is not diluted beyond 10^23…

13. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19799472 (2009) //Sinfrontal for ENT & respiratory tract infections

Can’t get full text – but it is clear that the remedy is not diluted beyond 10^23, Looks like their basis for Sinfrontal being superior is in part due to that that it is cheaper than genuine antibacterials. Also – it is not clear whether or not the cases of sinusitis studies were confirmed as being due to a bacterial infetion, rather than viral infection of allergen response.

14. Inflammation Research

http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/histamine.pdf (2004) FULL TEXT // homeopathy histamine modulates human basophil activation

Degrenulation studies discussed in depth here.
http://dannyb1022.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-faculty-of-homeopathy-%E2%80%9Canswers-the-critics%E2%80%9D-scientific-basis-of-homeopathy/

15. Rheumatic Diseases Clinics of North America

http://www.rheumatic.theclinics.com/article/S0889-857X%2805%2970125-3/ (2000) //rheumatic diseases

Can’t get full text…

16. Pediatrics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8165068 (1994) //diarrhea

Discussed here : http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=472

17. Journal of Hellenic Headache Association

http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/280/lang,en/ (2006) //migraine

36 patients. Not placebo controlled.

18. Rheumatology (Oxford University Press)

http://bit.ly/9cs6C2 (2004)FULL TEXT// LM potency for fibromyalgia

26/27 patients in the study groups.

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/7/714 (2000) FULL TEXT //osteo-arthritis of the knee

Not placebo controlled. Not clear if ingredients of gel are diluted beyond 10^23.

19. American Journal of Pain Management

http://www.homeopathic.org/content/osteoarthritic-pain-a-comparison-of-homeopathy-and-acetaminophen (1998) //pain due to osteo-arthritis

Not statistically significant, or placebo controlled.

20. Physica A

http://bit.ly/d7e0Oq (2003) //distinguishing one homeopathy medicine from another

Interesting, but largely irrelevant wrt homeopathy. Discussed here
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/a-homeopathic-refutation-%E2%80%93-part-two/

21. Journal of Clinical Gastro-enterology

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9451677 (1997) //post-operative ileus

Concludes “However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue.”

22. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation

http://journals.lww.com/headtraumarehab/Abstract/1999/12000/Homeopathic_Treatment_of_Mild_Traumatic_Brain.2.aspx (1999) //Mild traumatic brain injury

Total of 50 patients. “Our findings require large-scale, independent replication.”

23. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

http://flusolution.net/bjcp.pdf (1989) FULL TEXT //influenza

Cochrane review of homeopathy for influenza: “Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like
syndromes.”http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=Br%20J%20Clin%20Pharmacol[object 3]+AND+9[Volume]+AND+453[page] (1980) //rheumatoid arthritis

Only 26 patients in each group

24. Phlebology

“Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised,
Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial” E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, 1990, 157-163.Over a period of 24 days, the effects of a homeopathic complex preparation and placebo on varicose veins were tested in a double-blind trial of 61 people suffering from this condition. The homeopathic complex produced an averaged 44%
improvement in the condition while those given the placebo experienced an averaged worsening of the disorder.

Can’t get full text.

25. Human and Experimental Toxicology

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917505 (1994) //80% homeopathy medicines shows positive effects

Points out that many studies are of poor quality and lack replication – as the paper doesn’t make any specific claims of cure of efficacy ,hardly relevant.

26. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247843 (1997) //otitis media

Otitis media is a self-limiting condition with multiple causes. This paper compare Homeopathy with conventional meds – however, as no attempts appears to be made to determine what caused the OM, the conventional meds may be ineffective themselves, given that OM can be caused by viral infection, etc. No placebo control.

27.Journal of Dermatological Treatment

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09546639709160282 (1997) //Sulphur 6, Siliciea 6 & Carbo Veg 6 for ulcer

7 patients in each group. Not diluted beyond 10^23.

28 Archives of Otolaryngology – head and Neck Surgery

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713 (1998) //vertigo

Can’t get full text – but abstract reveals no placebo control – “+ve control” is against conventional meds which may or may not be effective depending on cause of vertigo.

29. Biological Therapy

http://www.heelusa.com/practitioners/clinicalresearch/Docs/Euphorbium/Homeopathic_Sinusitis_Medication.pdf (1995) FULL TEXT //sinus

HomeoNasal Spray not diluted beyond 10^23 – may contain active ingredients!

30. International Journal of High Dilution Research

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/369 (2010) //Nux-Vomica, Merc, Belladonna for acute rhinitis

No Placebo control, and Rhinitis is another self-limiting condition which is often caused by viral infection, allergic reactions, seasonal responses to change in climate, etc etc.

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 (2008) FULL TEXT // Quality of life, Cost effectiveness

Not a clinical trial.

31. The Science of the total Environment (Elseiver)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628642 (2007) //Arsenicum Album 30 for arsenic toxicity

Discussed here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=556#comment-12704

“a trial with no real inclusion criteria, poor randomisation, enormous drop out rate, that changes its protocol halfway to include meaningless controls, then utilises incorrect statistical techniques to analyse the wrong parameters.”

32. International Journal of Oncology

http://bit.ly/cM9faz (2003) //Ruta 6 for brain cancer

A cell culture-based paper with actual amounts of active ingredient – not homeopathy.

33. Nonlinear Biomedical Physics (Bio Med Central)

http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/3/1/10 (2009) //Dilution beyond avogadro number

Noisy data. Cell culture based assay of a fungal enzyme.

34. Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (German)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725 (1997) //homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever

Not got full text. Outcome measured by the patient. “As not all of the single studies were analyzed by intention to treat analysis the results may be biased.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16425109 (2005)
//emergency/critically ill/ICU patients

Not got full text.

35. Der Kassenarzt (German)

http://www.vasezdravlje.com/izdanje/clanak/1874/ FULL TEXT // tonsillitis

Croatian, not german. Not sure where this is published, or if it is even peer reviewed. Treatments used not beyond 10^23.

36. Arzneimittel-Forschung (German) meaning Medicines Research (English)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15727161 (2005) //vertigo

No full text – but no placebo control.

HOMEOPATHY-ONLY JOURNALS:

1. Homeopathy (Elseiver)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725250 (2003)

This journal is hardly an unbiased observer in this case, and has been seen taking liberties with published data to provide support for homeopathy where support is not justified – including this paper – see https://xtaldave.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/diluting-the-truth/ (paper 2)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15892486 (2005) //severe sepsis

Only 35 patients per trial arm. This is in addition to conventional meds.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19135953 (2009) //treatment of respiratory infections by homeopathy is cheaper by 50% compared to conventional medicine

So apparently sugar is cheaper than real meds. Who knew?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15751328 (2005) //Inflammation of the mucous membranes of nose & throat

Concludes that homeopathy is better than antibiotics at treating acute rhinopharyngitis – but then given that most pharyngitis is viral – is that really a well designed trial? No. No placebo arm either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine

“RESULTS: In 13 matched sets the placebo effect in the homeopathic trials was larger than the average placebo effect of the conventional trials, in 12 matched sets it was lower (P=0.39). Additionally, no subgroup analysis yielded any significant difference.” – Yeah, and?

http://bit.ly/9kWmuV (2010) //Leptospirosis (fever+jaundice+ inflammation in kidney+enlargement of spleen)

Debunked here –
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/much-ado-about-nothing/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647206 (2009) //oral ulcer

Not diluted beyond 10^23. Only single (patient) blinded.

http://bit.ly/bpXyQX (2010) FULL TEXT //chronic insomnia

Only 30 patients in total. Sleep quality questionnaire were only outcome measure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19358959 (2009) //homeopathy as an adjunct to usual care for fibromyalgia

47 patients. No placebo arm.

http://bit.ly/9R3TVG (2006) FULL TEXT //patho-genetic trials

About provings. Not particularly relevant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371566 (2008) //osteo-arthritis

The paper is so badly written, it’s difficult to see quite what they intended to show. No placebo arm, doesn’t mention blinding, 47 patients in total.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371568 (2008) // 3C differs from 4C

The fact that Malik thinks that the fact that a 100^3 dilution differs from a 100^4 dilution is significant suggests an astonishing lack of chemistry knowledge.
All I have to say is “well-duh”

2. British Homoeopathic Journal

http://bit.ly/aojfhY (1986) //Arnica, Bryonia & Rhus Tox for fibromyalgia

24 Patients. “homœopathy produced a statistically significant improvement, but only when the prescribed remedy was well indicated.” – “well indicated” is a subjective assessment by the homeopath…

http://bit.ly/ar8PhX (1993) //Caulophyllum 7C reduces duration of labour by 90 minutes

7C may contain active ingredient. No Placebo arm. Control group may not be well matched, and have some spuriously long labour times, which skewed average.

3. Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/research_and_homeopathy.htm

Not peer-reviewed as far as I can tell

4. American Journal of Homoeopathic Medicine

(http://www.homeopathyusa.org/journal)Acute Diarrhoeal Diseases in Children, 2009, 102 (3): 122-129

Not listed in Pubmed.

5. Asian Journal of Homeopathy (homoeomag@yahoo.com)

To investigate the effectiveness of homeopathy in medical primary care in upper and lower respiratory tract complaints, 01 Feb 2008, pp. 3-19

Not listed in Pubmed

6. Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, Govt of India

http://ccrhindia.org/cumulative/clinicalresearch.htm(1985-1998)

Link broken – not peer-reviewed

http://ccrhindia.org/collaborative.asp (1988-2007)

Link broken – not peer-reviewed

CAM JOURNALS

1.Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine(Liebert)

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2007.0560 (2008) //Arnica Montana for wounds

No placebo arm. No diluted beyond 10^23. Only 88 patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914 (2005) //distinguishing homeopathy medicine from solvent

Can’t get full text. Doesn’t distinguish remedy from remedy though? Are all high dilution homeopathic remedies identical? (Yes).

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/is-a-unified-theory-of-homeopathy-and-conventional-medicine-possible/ (2007)

Not peer-reviewed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914 (2005) //distinguishing homeopathy medicine from solvent

A repeated citation from above.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555303321222928 (2003) //distinguishing homeopathy medicine from solvent

Can’t get full text.

2.Evidence-based Complimentary & Alternative Medicine (Oxford University Press)

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7 (2007) FULL TEXT

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/your_friday_dose_of_woo_when_a_mad_mathe.php

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep114v1 (2009) FULL TEXT //LM potency for Depression

Homeopathy no worse that Fluoxitine, which is itself only indicated for severe depression

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/441 (2005) FULL TEXT //immunology

Historical review paper. Irrelevant.

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/257 (2007) FULL TEXT //in-vitro, tumour

Heh – I “did” this one – Failure to control for ethanol concentration is epic. https://xtaldave.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/dynamised-preparations-in-cell-culture/

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/129 (2007) FULL TEXT //thallasemia

Some remedies beyond 10^23, some not. Small, variable N numbers – largest group 24 patients.

3.Complementary Therapy in Medicine (Elseiver)

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2806%2900041-0/abstract (2006) //arnica for inflammation

Review of 3 trials. Arnica NOT beyond 10^23 (“. In arnica 30×, arnica is diluted 30 times with water, each dilution in the proportion 1:1”) Only one (with 57 patients made significance).

http://smhcv.org.mialias.net/wp-content/uploads/articulo_lancet3.pdf (2005) FULL TEXT //chronic diseases

Not Placebo controlled. Poorly matched groups (look at education, which is correlated with social class & prosperity & thus general health). No objective clinical outcome measures.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2807%2900013-1 (2007) //in vitro evidence of serial agitated ultra-molecular dilutions

Review of in-vitro experiments, eg. Basophile degranulation assays. Many of these studies not blinded. Notes that “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036165 (2005) //Arnica Montana & Bellis Perennis for bleeding after delivery

Bizarre. Trail conducted on ~210 patients. But this is a preliminary report of just 40. Which manages to just about crawl into
significance. Despite 5 years waiting, the full study not published yet… Also – some treatment groups not beyond 10^23 – and treatment groups look to be combined in analysis.

http://www.naturalnews.com/023697_homeopathy_medicine_steroids.html //homeopathy for eczema

Natural News. Lolzors..

4. Forsch Komplementarmed(German) meaning Research in Complimentary Medicine (English)

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=10.1159/000093586 (2006) //homeopathy is safe & effective

Tries to be a meta-review. Fails to examine or judge methodology. Multiple diseases and treatments and outcome measures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19295225 (2009) //Antimony 6X for pro-coagulatory effect in bleding disorder

Not beyond 10^23. Only 30 patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420956 (2009) //homeopathy differs from placebo

Proving. Bonkers.

DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES

1. Public Health (Bio Med Central)

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/115 (2005) FULL TEXT // (Chronic) Disease severity and quality of life demonstrated marked and sustained improvements following homeopathic treatment

Not placebo controlled, or indeed controlled or blinded at all. A study of regression to mean.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/413 (2008) FULL TEXT //Disease severity & quality of life increases following homeopathy treatment

Not placebo controlled, or indeed controlled or blinded at all. A study of regression to mean.

2. Homeopathy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194760 (2008) //hot flushes in menopausal women

Not a controlled trial. No placebo arm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960096 (2004) //improved physical condition & high satisfaction, allopathy drug discontinued

No controls. No objective clinic outcomes measures.

3. Journal of Alternative & Complimentary Medicine

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.793 (2005) //chronic diseases

Not placebo controlled, or indeed controlled or blinded at all. “Patients who want sugar pills, like sugar pills”

4. Complimentary & Alternative Medicine (Bio Med Central)

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/52 (2008) FULL TEXT //higher paptient satisfaction compared to allopathy

Patients satisfactory survey. Not relevant for efficacy.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/7 (2007) FULL TEXT
//respiratory& ear complaints

Not controlled. Many respiratory & ear complaints are viral in nature, and so comparison to conventional meds is not justified.

5. Homoeopathic Links

https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI10.1055/s-0029-1240889 (2010) //Hepar sulphuris, Antimonium crudum, Sulphur and Calcarea carbonica for boils

Not beyond 10^23. Not controlled.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS & META ANALYSIS

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/about-homeopathy/clinical-research/experimental-studies

Website

http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/systematic_reviews/index.html

Website

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (1997) //89 studies: homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective) to placebo

Linde Test Fail (REPOST) – see above for conclusions of 1999 re-analysis.

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=03000&article=00005&type=abstract (2003) // diarrhea

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9451677 (1997) //post-operative ileus

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725 (1997) //homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine

REPOST

http://smhcv.org.mialias.net/wp-content/uploads/articulo_lancet3.pdf (2005) FULL TEXT //chronic diseases

REPOST

ONLINE DATABASE

1. PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pmc.Pmc_LimitsTab.LimitsOff=true&db=pmc&cmd=search&term=homeopathy (1906-till date)

Websearch link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843608 //hypericum for depression

St John’s Wort for depression. Not homeopathy.

2.InterScience (Wiley)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000448/frame.html (2009) //hypericum for depression

REPOST

3. Cochrane
http://www.library.nhs.uk/cam/ViewResource.aspx?resID=295205 (2008) //hypericum for depression

REPOST

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/rel0001/CD001957/frame.html (2003) // Oscillococcinum for influenza

See above – apparently shortened flu by 7 hours. How would you know? Noise.

4. HomBRex

http://www.carstens-stiftung.org/

WEBSITE

Evidence for Specific Disease Conditions

http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/Conditions_where_positive_evidence.html

WEBSITE

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/evid/clinical-trials.aspx

WEBSITE

http://www.nutrition-matters.co.uk/misc/homeopathy.htm

WEBSITE

http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy/index.html

WEBSITE

http://bit.ly/aojfhY (1986) //Arnica, Bryonia & Rhus Tox for fibromyalgia

Methodology paper. Maximum Patient number 24.

http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/8/1/54.long (2006) FULL TEXT //Arnica for bruising

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673648 (2010) //Nux Vomica 30 & Coffea Cruda 30 for insomnia

REPOST

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%2820010801%2992:3%3C684::AID-CNCR1371%3E3.0.CO;2-%23/full (2001) FULL TEXT //Traumeel S for stomatitis

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19799472 (2009) //Sinfrontal for ENT & respiratory tract infections

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725 (1997) //homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever

REPOST

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2007.0560 (2008) //Arnica Montana for wounds

REPOST

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2806%2900041-0/abstract (2006) //arnica for inflammation

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036165 (2005) //Arnica Montana & Bellis Perennis for bleeding after delivery

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19295225 (2009) //Antimony 6X for pro-coagulatory effect in bleeding disorder

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843608 //hypericum for depression

REPOST

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/rel0001/CD001957/frame.html (2003) // Oscillococcinum for influenza

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371566 (2008) //osteo-arthritis

REPOST

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/content/effect-of-homoeopathic-treatment-on-fibrositis (1989) //fibromyalgia (Inflammation in muscles)

REPOST

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09546639709160282 (1997) //Sulphur 6, Siliciea 6 & Carbo Veg 6 for ulcer

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713 (1998) //vertigo

REPOST

http://www.heelusa.com/practitioners/clinicalresearch/Docs/Euphorbium/Homeopathic_Sinusitis_Medication.pdf (1995) FULL TEXT //sinus

Not beyond 10^23. Not significant.

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/369 (2010) //Nux-Vomica, Merc, Belladonna for acute rhinitis

REPOST

https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI10.1055/s-0029-1240889 (2010) //Hepar sulphuris, Antimonium crudum, Sulphur and Calcarea carbonica for boils

REPOST

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/129 (2007) FULL TEXT //thallasemia

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628642 (2007) //Arsenicum Album 30 for arsenic toxicity

REPOST

http://bit.ly/cM9faz (2003) //Ruta 6 for brain cancer

REPOST

Homeopathy Research Resource

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/

WEBSITE

http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7796

WEBSITE

http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles-research // USA

WEBSITE

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/research/default.aspx //EU

WEBSITE

http://www.positivehealth.com/research-list.php?subjectid=134

WEBSITE

http://avilian.co.uk/category/homeopathy/research/

WEBSITE

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-research-models/

WEBSITE

http://www.studytemple.com/forum/homoeopath-ayurveda/48051-scientific-testing-homeopathy-special-section-2.html

WEBSITE

Homeopathy superior to Allopathy

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/368 (2006) //why small doses is better than large dose

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19358959 (2009) //homeopathy as an adjunct to usual care for fibromyalgia

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960096 (2004) //improved physical condition & high satisfaction, allopathy drug discontinued

REPOST

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/52 (2008) FULL TEXT //higher patient satisfaction compared to allopathy

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247843 (1997) //otitis media

REPOST

A pilot study in Ghana showing homoeopathic treatment equal to and slightly more effective than chloroquine in the treatment of acute malaria (Br Homoeopath J 1996 Apr;85(2):66-70).

Homeopathy cost-effective than allopathy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19135953 (2009) //treatment of respiratory infections by homeopathy is cheaper by 50% compared to conventional medicine

REPOST

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 (2008) FULL TEXT

REPOST

Homeopathy equals Allopathy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine

REPOST

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/7 (2007) FULL TEXT //respiratory& ear complaints

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713(1998) //vertigo

REPOST

Homeopathy superior to placebo

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601 (1997) //homeopathy is statistically significantly superior (2.45 times more effective) to placebo

REPOST

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2990407-3/abstract (1994) //homeopathy does more than placebo

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420956 (2009) //homeopathy differs from placebo

REPOST

http://bit.ly/9R3TVG (2006) FULL TEXT //patho-genetic trials

REPOST

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yctim/article/S0965-2299%2806%2900041-0/abstract (2006) //arnica for inflammation

REPOST

http://www.vasezdravlje.com/izdanje/clanak/1874/ FULL TEXT // tonsillitis

REPOST

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=03000&article=00005&type=abstract (2003) // diarrhea

REPOST

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/research_and_homeopathy.htm // Migraine, Berlin Journal for research in homeopathy

WEBSITE

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471 (2000) FULL TEXT //allergic rhinitis

REPOST

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full (2005) FULL TEXT //Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

REPOST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15892486 (2005) //severe sepsis

REPOST

http://www.library.nhs.uk/cam/ViewResource.aspx?resID=295205 (2008) //hypericum for depression

REPOST

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=02000&article=00012&type=abstract (2001) //otitis media

REPOST

Homeopathy improving Quality of life

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/115 (2005) FULL TEXT // (Chronic) Disease severity and quality of life (QoL) demonstrated marked and sustained improvements following homeopathic treatment

REPOST

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/413 (2008) FULL TEXT //Disease severity & QoL of life increases following homeopathy treatment

REPOST

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354 (2008) FULL TEXT

REPOST

More Research Studies

http://excalibur.110mb.com/experiments.htm //fish kill / laser reflection experiments

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/documents/Positivehomeopathy.pdf

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/proof.html

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.healinginealing.com/homeopathyresearch.php

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/homeopathy.html

Not peer reviewed.

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-research-forums-and-discussion-groups/

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.earthsremedy.com/researchinhomeopathy.htm

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/researchlinks/4526687502

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/60/23628.html

Not peer reviewed.

http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.heel.ca/pub/library/studies.jsp

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/future%20homoeopathy.htm

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/advanceshomoeopathy.htm

Not peer reviewed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm

Not peer reviewed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/4454856.stm

Not peer reviewed.

Physics behind homeopathy

http://excalibur.110mb.com/physics.htm

Not peer reviewed.

http://lewfh.tripod.com/electromagneticinfectioninhomeopathy/id4.html

Not peer reviewed.

Memory of Water

http://hubpages.com/hub/Homeopathy-and-The-Memory-of-Water-with-Benveniste

Not peer reviewed.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/memory-of-water/

Not peer reviewed.

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-water-memory/

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/chaplin.html

Not peer reviewed.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/hydrobiotronics/

Not peer reviewed.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/lionel-milgrom/

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/The%20Work%20of%20Dr.%20Masaru%20Emoto.html

Not peer reviewed.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817

Not peer reviewed.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/transmission-of-energetic-information-in-the-body-its-relevance-to-homeopathic-remedies-and-to-other-energetic-healing-approaches/

Not peer reviewed.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8578

Not peer reviewed.

http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/instrumental.htm

Tries very hard to look like a peer-reviewed paper, but I can’t find it in pubmed…. hmm.

http://www.physorg.com/news105191502.html

Not peer reviewed.

Dilutions beyond Avogadro Number

http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/3/1/10

REPOST

http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/instrumental.htm

REPOST

http://www.high-dilutions.net/VersionAn/

WEBSITE

http://www.homeorizon.com/homeopathic-articles/homeopathic-researches/homeopathic-dilution-and-potency

WEBSITE

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/127/3/936.full

REPOST

http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/6082-homeopathy-mere-placebo-5.html#post81542

WEBSITE

Evidence-based Medicine

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/uk-house-of-commons-science

WEBSITE

http://www.the-cma.org.uk/cma_images/Jayney‘s%20Presentation.pdf //Pandemics & epidemics 1813-1918

IRRELEVANT

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/illustrating/articles/dean-me-2003-the-homeopathic-mustard-gas-trials-of-1941%E2%80%9342

Not Peer reviewed

To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another

(6 methods) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrum

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/lionel-milgrom/

Not Peer reviewed

Nuclear Spectroscopy

http://hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8879

Not Peer reviewed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371568 (2008)

REPOST

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6908&PN=4

Protected Forum

Electromagnetic Signatures

http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=10498

Not Peer reviewed

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/nobel-laureate-explains-the

Not Peer reviewed

http://bit.ly/bTYpdX

Not Peer reviewed

Thermo-luminescence

http://bit.ly/d7e0Oq

REPOST

Physiological variability in human body

http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com/

Not peer reviewed

http://www.jr.ietejournals.org/downloadpdf.asp?issn=0377-2063;year=2008;volume=54;issue=3;spage=223;epage=230;aulast=Jain;type=2

Can’t get full text

http://www.jr.ietejournals.org/temp/IETEJRes543223-2643883_072038.pdf

Duff Link

Medical Analyser

http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2530

Not peer reviewed

http://h-wave.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

Not peer reviewed

http://gentlecare.blogspot.com/2009/08/research-into-how-homoeopathic-remedies.html

Not peer reviewed

Raman Laser SpectroscopyIn 1976, Boiron and Vinh used Raman Laser Spectroscopy, showing that for the 1C potency of Kali bichromicum the spectrum of alcohol disap-pears completely, while that for potassium bichromate appears. In Kali bich 1C the ratio of the number of potassium bichromate molecules is 1 to 500. In such a case the light meets 500 more alcohol molecules as those of bichromate, yet the alcohol spectrum does not appear.

Eh?

To distinguish homeopathy medicine from solvent

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296914 // Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrum

Can’t get full text

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555303321222928 //Bio-Electrography

Can’t get full text – “the present findings also highlight the need for additional research to evaluate factors that may affect
reproducibility of results.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657201 (2009) //Aconitum 30C differs from placebo

27 patients – non-objective outcome measures.

Placebo Effect

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 (2010) //placebo effect size same in allopathy & homeopathy medicine

REPOST

http://homoeopathyclinic.com/articles/homeopathy.pdf

DUFF LINK

Anecdotal Evidence [PSHAW!]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1040950/The-alternative-Holby-City-treats-30-000-patients-year.html

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://www.electriceditor.com/impossiblecure/showstories.php

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-760.html#p286797

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-760.html#p288037

NOT PEER REVIEWED

Potency Selection

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-philosophy/removing-the-guesswork-from-potency-selection/

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-philosophy/homeopathic-potency-selection/

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://www.homeoint.org/site/ahmad/potency.htm

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://excalibur.110mb.com/myspc-lm.htm

NOT PEER REVIEWED

Vital Force

http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9047

NOT PEER REVIEWED

Animal Studies

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

Discussed here http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/dr-nancy-malik-is-spamming-my-blog.html

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

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-animal-studies/

NOT PEER REVIEWED

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/7/1/abstract

Concludes: “The discrepancies between single-blind and double-blind methods in animal pharmacological research are noteworthy and should be better investigated, also in non-homeopathic research.”

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/171FULL TEXT

Lit review.

http://ict.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/362

Another cell culture based paper which fails to control for alcohol.

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/65

Actually controls for alcohol, but with 6 mice in each group….

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/2/4 FULL TEXT

Doesn’t control for alcohol

http://www.mri.psu.edu/faculty/rroy/media/Publications/DefiningStructure.pdf FULL TEXT

The authors note that this is not reproducible, even on the same make of Raman spec – only the spec used in this study. Oh dear.

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep139 FULLTEXT

Small sample sizes. Both sub and beyond 10^23 remedies used. Big variation in data.

http://drprabhattandon.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/dynamized-homeopathic-preparations-in-cell-culture-a-study-report-in-amala-cancer-research-centre-kerala/

Review of a study which fails to control for ethanol content – again

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657773

Not beyond 10^23. Mice behavioural studies are difficult to assess and quantify.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10484832 (1999) //Alternative Therapies in Health & Management

“To confirm whether antibiotic metaphylaxis may be replaced by homeopathic metaphylaxis, this study should be repeated
independently.”

http://www.similima.com/thesis39.html

Not peer reviewed

Plant Studies

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-plant-studies/

Another list. Another day.

Related Articles

• Can Homeopathy Cure Mastitis in Cows? (quackometer.net)
• When homeopaths fight back [Respectful Insolence] (scienceblogs.com)