No announcement yet.

is homeopathy mere placebo?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dr manish agarwala
    james randi's sleep formula was a pseudo-homeopathic formulation (with many remedies) and it did not work because it was not specific to him and his symptom. a classical homeopath would have done a full case taking and prescribed a SINGLE remedy, specific to this case and that would have worked immediately. why randi's supermarket formula did not work has nothing to do with dose.

    as you are so clever, do the belladonna 200 test that I have mentioned in another post. take one dose every 12 hours and see whether you feel something or not. it is plain water-alcohol right? you as a very wise and learned person won't be fooled by a placebo, right? so take it and see. this is my challenge to ignorant people like you, ben goldacre, dr barrett, james randi etc. first test and then talk.
    You've just contradicted yourself. The belladonna couldn't work on me because you haven't done a "full case taking and prescription" on me.

    PS: first you write as "string theory" and then as "moopet". now, you may post again as someone else. like other famous sceptics, who publicly own their comments / mention their contact details on their websites etc., why don't you mention your real name? why use pseudonyms?

    Um. I'm well known as the name moopet. Have been for about a decade. Why change it? I've never posted as "string theory" and it shows your up a bit when you choose to make such accusations. Most people online use a handle. Mine is pretty unique - there are, to my knowledge, two other people in the world who use it habitually online, and they less than me. My real name, however, is used by many.

    Stop taking the fight to the man.


    • #17
      Just to clarify:

      Moopet is being truthful. We are 2 different individuals although I agree with what he says. The misconception may have arisen because I stopped posting on this board just before xmas because I was too busy with other stuff but Moopet responded to some of my threads after this date.


      • #18
        Dr Manish has made some challenges and sweeping statements in this thread that I would like to counter.

        He has asked skeptics to take a belladonna preparation every 12 hours to see what the effects are, as proof of homeopathy. If I accepted this challenge there are only 2 possible outcomes. Either I would feel the effect he predicts or I wouldn't. If I felt the effect this means absolutely nothing because it is a non-blinded test with a sample size of one - utterly meaningless to science. If I felt no effect, again the result would be meaningless for the same reason.
        The only meaningful test of the belladonna preparation would be a double-blinded, placebo-controlled test with a large sample size. Even then, the result would have to be repeatable by a different group to be taken seriously.

        Of course these tests have been done and homeopathy has already failed them. That's when the homeopaths decided that DBPC tests weren't applicable to homeopathy.

        Dr Manish has also indicated that he has a wealth of scientific papers that back homeopathy's claims. He provides links to these papers (mostly from homeopathy sites, no surprise there) and asks how skeptics can resist in the face of such overwhelming evidence.
        Simple - there is vastly more independent evidence that contradicts homeopathy than supports it. Science and medicine DO NOT accept homeopathic treatments as valid. Sure, there are a few doctors and scientists who support homeopathy but then again there are always a minority of cranks supporting the wildest notions.

        So as a last resort Dr Manish resorts to name-calling and arrogance, telling Moopet that he is naive and unscientific. But I ask, Who is the one ignoring the majority of the scientific eveidence - Moopet or Dr Manish?


        • #19
          Originally posted by String Theory
          The only meaningful test of the belladonna preparation would be a double-blinded, placebo-controlled test with a large sample size. Even then, the result would have to be repeatable by a different group to be taken seriously.
          That sounds like it should be rather easy to setup. And, as Dr Manish has already indicated, any effects should be pretty obvious.

          Originally posted by String Theory
          Of course these tests have been done and homeopathy has already failed them. That's when the homeopaths decided that DBPC tests weren't applicable to homeopathy.
          Is this true ? I don't see how the DBPC test should not apply to such a simple test. What speaks against this, given Dr Manish's statement about the Belladonna preparation.

          Confused ...


          • #20
            Originally posted by Michelle Cookson
            I don't see how the DBPC test should not apply to such a simple test. What speaks against this, given Dr Manish's statement about the Belladonna preparation.

            Confused ...
            Nothing, really. There's two sides to homeopathic arguments - one says that such-and-such a preparation will have an obvious effect (as above) and one says that it's the whole approach, including placebo effects caused by good bedside manner, etc, and has to be tailored to fit the individual - off the shelf remedies will have no effect.
            Reconciling these two is half the battle, since it seems from what I've been reading that the answer fits the need to defend homeopathy at the time.

            If it can be agreed that the belladonna test can be blinded and actually performed, we could be onto a conclusive proof, one way or the other.


            • #21
              Originally posted by moopet
              If it can be agreed that the belladonna test can be blinded and actually performed, we could be onto a conclusive proof, one way or the other.
              I can't see anything wrong with this idea. Given how adamantly Dr Manish proffered the idea that subjects testing the Belladonna 200C remedy should experience symptoms quite rapidly, what speaks against such a test ?

              Should be pretty simple. I have never had Belladonna 200C before (it's never been prescribed to me over the few years I've been treated), I'd even volunteer my services.


              • #22
                Originally posted by Michelle Cookson
                I can't see anything wrong with this idea. Given how adamantly Dr Manish proffered the idea that subjects testing the Belladonna 200C remedy should experience symptoms quite rapidly, what speaks against such a test ?

                Should be pretty simple. I have never had Belladonna 200C before (it's never been prescribed to me over the few years I've been treated), I'd even volunteer my services.
                I agree, it SHOULD be pretty simple but we've been here before with homeopaths and it is never simple!

                Truth is that many such tests have been performed already and the majority of those tests have indicated that homeopathy is roughly equal in effectiveness to placebo. Hence my reference to the argument that homeopathy cannot be analysed by 'normal' clinical testing.

                The problem for science is that if homeopathy can't be tested in the way that other therapies are tested then we are left with only the anecdotal evidence of the homeopaths and their patients. Science doesn't regard this as evidence but homeopaths generally do.

                I personally don't see why homeopathy should fail a standard clinical effectiveness test if it truly is effective but you'd have to ask a homeopath to explain why they think this is so.


                • #23
                  yes, I stand for the truth - nothing but the truth

                  Originally posted by Michelle Cookson
                  I can't see anything wrong with this idea. Given how adamantly Dr Manish proffered the idea that subjects testing the Belladonna 200C remedy should experience symptoms quite rapidly, what speaks against such a test ?

                  Should be pretty simple. I have never had Belladonna 200C before (it's never been prescribed to me over the few years I've been treated), I'd even volunteer my services.
                  dear michelle,

                  your profile says that you are a lawyer and so I assume that you are an intelligent person and one who understands the difference between truth and arguements just for arguements sake.

                  you see, as far as homeopathy is concerned, you will find that all the sceptics (whether medically trained or not) are generally either with ZERO knowledge about homeopathy or are ones with an agenda.

                  those with an agenda to prove their point (or just stubbornness / foolishness) with ignore proofs and evidences in support of homeopathy and imphasize on studies (even if flawed) that seem to support their view. there is no way you can convince one that sun shines in the sky, if he says he cannot see the mid-day sun -shining brightly! he will continue to argue and ask you to prove that sun shines in the sky and you can do just nothing to make him agree that he is actually seeing the sun above. whether it is due to stubborness or what I don't know - you have got to ignore these people.

                  the second group consists of people who have ZERO knowledge about homeopathy. they blah blah without knowing what they are saying. the arguements with be endless and it won't reach anywhere.
                  you see, you cannot test anything unless you know something about what you are testing.

                  mr string theory and mr moopet have qualities of both the group above! you will find several others like them.

                  I have, however, come across many people (both qualified doctors and laypersons) who are intelligent enough and graceful enough to look at facts with an open mind. they may not be trusting homeopathy beacuse they haven't seen the results and/or do not know about it. but, when clear proof is demonstrated to them - they do not foolishly/stubbornly argue. they accept.
                  some of these MD's later convert to homeopathy as well.

                  I am more interested in disseminating correct information for these wise people.

                  double blind placebo controlled trials and all other kinds of test can be done to confirm the efficacy of homeopathy - but, they cannot be done by a fool who does not know what to test! you cannot test for xyz property in a substance that has only abc property and they claim (after a great research study!) that the substance has NO property at all or no abc property! this is foolishness and not research.

                  for me the clinical evidence is the greatest evidence and I and many others have seen that evidence in the clinic for last 200 years. I and many other trained homeopaths are willing to demonstrate in person / on video the direct clinical results of CORRECT homeopathic treatment.

                  if you carefully study the so called scientific evidence that goes against homeopathy, you will find the following causes:

                  1) they have not seen or are not interested in seeing (for whatever reason) a properly trained classical homeopath's clinical cures. they will ognore everything as placebo!

                  2) they have no idea about potentisation and think the homeo remedies are only dilutions and continue to insist on this. the effect of dilution-potentisation is being studied by scientists and is one such international multidisciplinary group of scientists (there are homeopaths as well as non-homeopaths and scientists of many other disciplines). their research papers cannot be ignored. see one at:

                  3) they have no idea about what the homeopaths call remedy PROVING.
                  (this cannot be elaborated in this limited space)
                  they have zero knowledge about homeopathic posology and yet comment / argue on dose etc.

                  4) they have no idea at all that homeopathic treatment is a highly individualised treatment and the trained classical homeopath may prescribe only a single remedy specific to the individual. we do not have specifics for any named disease but have specific remedy for each individual, at that point of time, for the entire group of symptoms being exhibited by him.

                  now if any homeo remedy is given to 100 people suffering from a particular disease in a double blind placebo controlled test, the test is bound to fail because each individual has not received the remedy specific to him. again, an allopathic drug that is disease specific (and not individual specific) will show perfect postive results when give to these 100 patients. this is reason why studies like the recent lancet study shows homeopathy as not working.
                  their methodology is flawed.

                  this is also the reason why a supermarket homeo combination formula (this is NOT correct homeopathy at all - yes, this is bogus) will not work. these supermarket combo formulas claim to treat diseases whereas the correct homeopathy treats the individual. one size does not fit all!

                  5) if you want to ignore what I say, what all homeopaths say, what homeopaths who are MD's as well say, what 200 years of clinical evidence says, what all research papers prove and instead want to believe reports the the recent lancet report says or what people like these mooopets and striiing theories say, do simple tests:

                  - test ANY homeo remedy on yourself. I have already mentioned the belladonna 200 test. this is PROVING of the remedy on a healthy subject to study its effects. this is different from the individualistic remedy selection for a particular patient, at any point of time. the stubborn bird-brained sceptics do not know this difference. one is not be able to do a double blind placebo controlled test with homeo remedies due to its indvidualisic approach and the sceptic will ignore all the postive clinical evidence. but we can set up a double blind placebo controlled (DBPC) test as PROVINGS. if wish, those who doubt homeopathy knew this difference.

                  (again, effects of homeo remedies on babies, plants, animals have been clearly documented. ainsworths pharmacy in UK sends out thoudands of prescriptions to animals. many recognised medically trained vets prescribe homeo remedies. are effects on plants, babies, animals also placebo? you jsut cannot argue with foolish sceptics. you have got to ignore them!)

                  anyways, homeopathy can prove itself even on humans in a DBPC study. I propose a DBPC PROVING study and this should prove, quite conclusively, that the remedy effects are not placebo and that a homeo remedy is not just plain water or water-alcohol.

                  the fools should have the courage to take several doses (say, 24 hours apart) of the CM potency (1,00,000 potency) of ANY homeopathic remedy. they may also share it with all their like minded friends in a group! the STRONG PROVING clearly exhibited by the whole group will stop them from talking non-sense again! can plain water or water-alcohol shown such strong effect? one can also do this is a DBPC way and those who receive the CM potency heavy doses will show strong proving i.e. will exhibit the remedy effects.
                  let the sceptics call the media, the homeopaths, the lawyers, the governemnt agencies and prove once and for all (in full public view) that the homeopathic remedies has no effect by doing the CM potency repeated dose proving. then they have ALL right to ask the UK government to close down the homeopathic hospitals in the UK like the royal london homeopathic hospitals etc. you as a lawyer, may also campaign against the govt., the homeopaths, the homeopathic pharmacies. of course, if the homeo remedy is just water or water-alcohol, the public is being taken for a ride and one must question the sanity of the goverment for tolerating this non-sense. do have the courage to do a media supervised public test - and then if the test fails, I PROMISE TO JOIN YOU (AND ALL SCEPTICS) IN YOUR PROTEST AGAINST HOMEOPATHY. yes, one cannot and should not tolerate pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I agree about that.

                  however, I do not recommend the CM proving test as it may become very uncomfortable and risky as a proving test. too much for the coward sceptics, who can blah blah but not believe in what they say! do they have the courage to accept the above challenge?

                  [btw - I forgot to clarify that generally the supermarket formulas (pseudo-homeopathic and NOT real homeopathy) generally contain a medley on many low / very low potency remedies and mother tinctures etc. they will not tend to clearly exhibit a proving on a not-so-sensitive person. they will however definitely exhibit the proving on a very sensitive person, even in a single dose.
                  one may need to understand a lot of homeopathic principles, to go into these
                  and other minute details and the sceptics know nothing about the subject they oppose!
                  it is like looking for the sun rising in the east at midnight and claiming that the sun does not exist at all! yes, this may be "research study" done by 100 fools at midnight, looking for the sun in the east! yes sir, yes ma'm, sun does not exist! only moon does! the fools are right!]

                  in my next post I will write about a relatively mild DBPC test / individual test that you can set up on your own or any sceptic can set up and it will confirm the homeopathic remedy effects. after that, the wise person will have the grace to humbly accept the facts and may be also go on to study (as well as research) homeopathy even more deeply.

                  the fools, however, will neither test on their own nor study the subject to know about it not test on others nor observe the clinical results and continue to say: "I do not agree ... blah blah blah". for them the mid-day sun will never shine - because the sun does not exist at all!

                  I hope you, as a lawyer, as an intelligent person, will be able to shift facts from fiction and will not only benefit from homeopathy yourself but, will also be able to show reality to yourself.

                  may be, you, as a lawyer, will one day realise the benefits of homeopathy and will stand up to fight against the mis-information that is going on - a false propaganda that may turn away a suffering patient. may be homeopathy (of the CORRECT kind and not the bogus supermarket stuff) would have cured him but, the foolish campaign by stubborn sceptics like dr barrett, goldacre, randi, moopet, string etc. may turn him away from homeopathy and leave him to suffer terribly for his whole life with an illness labelled "incurable" by allopaths.
                  I do have harsh unprintable words for these fools. why? no, I know my manners and have no intention in being rude. but, imagine the state of mind of a mother, a father or a brother or a wife - whose loved one is suffering and allopathy has no answer to his/her suffering. imagine such a person doing a google search and coming across the posts of these jokers - what if s/he is convinced by these foolish arguements and is not able to access the correct homeopath for treatment? what if the same person were to realise the vast benefit of homeopathy,later, years after his/her loved one died a terrible death suffering for many years from chronic 'incurable' (as per allopaths) illness? how will s/he feel? aren't jokers like moopet and string theory doing immense harm? can they realise the damage they can cause to someone's happiness? does james randi, ben goldacre, stephen barrett and other "famous" sceptics realise what damage they may have done to many a people? all to feed their ego -"I do not agree"?

                  I have nothing against allopathy (the conventional system of medicine). it has its own place, use and value. absolutely, no doubt about that. in fact, the best healthcare would be the coming together of homeopathy and allopathy.
                  the faculty of homeopathy, UK has taken the wonderful step to introduce homeopathy to licenced MD's all over the world and grants the FFHOM /MFHOM qualifications. I do wish the homeopathic training this organisation imparts become more intense and is of longer durations, but, nevertheless, the work by the faculty of homeopathy, UK deserves the highest praise. I have great respect for people like prof. george vithoulkas of greece who heads an international teaching centre in greece and imparts classical homeopathic training to MD's and as well as lay homeopaths.
                  George Vithoulkas, probably the world's most outstanding homeopath, has acquired numerous rewards and recognitions, the most prestigious being the "Right Livelihood Award", also known as the "Alternative Nobel Prize" awarded to him in 1996 for upgrading Classical Homeopathy to the standard of a science. In 2000, prof. vithoulkas was made a full professor in the Kiev Medical Academy and the university of the Basque countries.

                  I have great respect for the UK government for allowing lay homeopathy to flourish in the UK. the society of homeopaths, UK deserves credit for organising lay homeopathic practitioners in the UK.

                  although I consider myself to be a human being first - a global citizen, I am deeply fortunate to be born in india, the land of buddha and mahatma gandhi. I am grateful that the indian government LEGALLY recognises homeopathy as a separate full fledged medical discipline under the ministry of health and that they are homeopathic medical colleges, homeopathic hospitals etc.
                  I feel fortunate to be in india. let the mooopets (whatever his real name is!)come to bombay or delhi in india and ask for proof. let james randi announce his million dollar prize in bombay. these bird-brained jokers do not stand a chance in india. we are better without them. I felt happy when I read that the indian goverment will provide postive proof to lancet.

                  my grandfather is a lawyer. I hope, you as a lawyer, understand that we as independent thinking adults in a democratic society have the full right to believe in truth - believe in facts and live as we want. we have full right to practice, teach and take homeopathic treatment, which is so effective.
                  we have full right to recommend and expect that homeopathy be included as a part of the primary health care in all countries. india, even though it is a developing country, has taken the lead in this. the developed countries can do even better and ensure a very high standard of correct homeopathy.

                  we need not fear the sceptics. this is not a taliban regime where the public will have to accept what a few fools say. we have full right to shun them and if necessary, take legal action against them for misleading the public by spreading false rumours.

                  why doesn't any scpetic come to india and challenge the indian government for recognizing quackery as medical science? they are most welcome to file a public interest litigation (PIL) in court and ask for proof.

                  they may also challenge the W.H.0. (the world health organisation) WHO does not label homeopathy as quackery. they may challenge WHO in court. this can be done sitting in UK as well. they may challenge the UK government, the british faculty of homeopathy - in court. ask for proof. run a full fledged media campaign. yes, declare war against quackery and pseudo science of all kinds.
                  what is this - hiding behind pseudonyms in webforums? why just write articles in newspapers (like mr ben goldacre did in the guardian on 31 dec 2005)? why moo and mew in websites? you are welcome to roar like a lion. have the courage to fight against homeopathy in full media view. let the public also come to know both sides of the story.

                  we homeopaths are prepared to meet the challenge. after all the truth is with us.

                  homeopathy has saved my life and that of my grandfather. my father would not have died miserbaly (despite the best allopathic treatment) had he received proper homeopathy in time. I and my life is dedicated to homeopathy. I have nothing against allopathy, it has its own place, need and great importance. I am against the stepmotherly treatment and insult that is heaped on homeopathy. I am against bogus, supermarket homeopathy as well.

                  I am in favour of correct infomation, without any bias, for one and all.
                  the individual has and should have full freedom to choose how s/he wants to live and get treated. the moopets and string theories also have the full right to remain a non-believing fool but need to confine their foolishness to themselves. the rights of the sceptics ends where my rights begin.

                  please, I am not interested in calling names. the sceptics call me and all my fellow brothers and sisters, who practice homeopathy - a quack. they call homeopathy - quackery. doesn't that mean that the sceptics are saying that the millions of people worldwide, who regularly take homeopathic treatment, are all complete fools? how can this insult be tolerated? the sceptics test my patience. I, most respectfully and politely provide lots of information and many weblinks - that lead to further hundreds of pages of information and proof. it is the sceptics who have abused me, my colleagues and a system of medicine. they are most welcome to take homeopathic treatment for their state of mind. I feel sorry for them.

                  truth and truth alone is and will be victorious.

                  dr manish agarwala


                  • #24
                    please believe in yourself

                    dear michelle,

                    I am sure you are not one who can be fooled easily. I welcome you to the truth about correct homeopathy. leave books, papers and documents, test yourself first!

                    I just remembered - years ago, I had read a story. a sceptic (a very educated and well-read fellow) came to a homeopath in england, in the victorian times and spoke for a long time... he did not believe that the remedies, prepared by serial dilution could have any effect. the homeopath heard his lecture patiently. finally, the fellow challenged the homeopath to prove that the homeo remedies work and having let out a lot of steam, was about to leave. the homeopath politely said that he could prove the power of the remedies, then and there. the fellow laughed at the homeopath and agreed, challenging him again. the homeopath got up quietly, took out just a poppy seed size pill of the homeopathic remedy GLONOINE in the 50 M potency (50,000th potency or let's say the 50,000th dilution). the fellow laughed again seeing the poppy seed size of the pill... the homeopath simply placed the minute pill on his tongue.... it took minutes for a throbbing headache to start... the fellow was speechless! I do not remember the rest of the story... perhaps, the fellow asked the homeopath to "do" something and probably the homeopath antidoted glonoine with another homeopathic remedy... I think the fellow had the grace and intelligence to accept homeopathy and its power...

                    I do not have the references of this story. there is no need to believe in stories! any sceptic can test on himself or try it on anyone else, without telling the other person what the remedy is or what to expect. he may also try a dose, every 5 minutes or 10 minutes, if he is in a great hurry to prove that the remedy is just water!

                    a poppy seed size sugar pill absorbs just the 500th part of a drop. and again the poppy seed size sugar pill has been moistened with "just water" that has been serially diluted 50,000 times! can that have any effect? well, the sceptics do laugh at this. they can test for themselves whether the story is true or not....

                    glonoine is nitroglycerine by the way and the learned sceptic can always send a sample
                    of the "poppy seed" or the whole bottle of the remedy itself to the laboratory. they will report back saying that they did not find even a single molecule of nitroglycerine in the whole bottle - but the sceptic lies writhing with a throbbing nitroglycerine like headache! does 500th of a drop of pure plain water cause headaches?

                    you and other intelligent people can use the following ideas to set up a double blind placebo controlled trial proving of homeo remedies, that can conclusively prove that the homeo remedies are not plain water/plain alcohol. this is relatively milder and safer test than what I wrote above.

                    take a common remedy like belladonna. (from a reputed pharmacy like helios they also have a mail-order) no need to go for 200c even. take a 30c. take a dose every 3 hours till you feel something.

                    now, if you are a non-believer, will placebo effect manifest on you? if you feel something after the first dose or after n number of doses - why are you feeling anything? ok, even if I assume that you were expecting to feel something and so you felt something, you can note down the symptoms that appear after taking belladonna and match it with the pharmacological texts books of conventional medicine as well as the homeopathic materia medicas texts (both). no need to trust the homeopaths and their books!

                    you will be surprised to find that your symptoms match with texts of homeopathy as well as conventional medicine! I chose belladonna, as it (or its derivatives) are widely used in many systems of medicine (herbal, allopathy, homeopathy) and you can check the texts of any system.

                    can placebo effects be what you do not know to expect? obviously, they cannot be.

                    note that you did not take belladonna to treat your illness, if you had done so, and your illness had subsided, a sceptic may have called it placebo effect. here, you take a remedy as a TEST, and not as a treatment and do not know what to expect and then get symptoms of the remedy.... this should be the best proof for you that the remedy is not just plain water and that it has an effect.

                    I have not mentioned the effect of belladonna - so the sceptics cannot say that I had told you to expect xyz and so now you are feeling xyz symptoms!

                    in case you or anyone else already knows about belladonna and its derivatives and/or their pharmacological effects in gross physical doses, you may take ANY other remedy prepared from a source, about which you have never heard before. here there will be no chance to know what to expect. right? now, the placebo effect is what you expect and not what you do not know to expect. right? you will be surprised to note the exact symptom proving. try and then believe. please, I beg, don't believe me blindly!
                    take 30c of ANY remedy from helios pharmacy in UK, every 3 hours and it will not be long before you start believing in the power of homeopathy!

                    I said 30c as higher potencies will have stronger proving .... just one single dose works, but, I said repeated doses every 3 hours to ensure that the symptoms become loud and clear even to one who does not want to accept the truth!even a single dose can cause a proving in a sensitive person. I said many doses so that even the least sensitive and gross-minded coarse person can test and feel the effect of homeopathy himself.

                    this can be done blindly as well. if you give a comman remedy to a homeopath, without telling him the name of the remedy, if the homeopath is a knowledgeable one, he may tell you the name of the remedy, by recognizing the symptoms that develop!

                    all placebo? ha ha ha

                    to test still more, you may give the same remedy to your friends or group of friends and do not tell them the name. the results will be the same.

                    you may also dose someone unknowingly, if that is possible and note the results.

                    and yes, michelle - if you find that the symptoms of the remedy have become too loud and uncomfortable - you can antidote them with homeopathy! you may need to tell a trained homeopath the name of the remedy and he will tell you the name of another homeo remedy to antidote the effect!

                    antidoting plain water with plain water? find out!

                    do a single blind or double blind test. with or without placebo control. on yourself or others. test as you want. test as much as you can.

                    recently the nobel prize in medicine was awarded to a scientist who himself took a broth of helicobacter pylori to prove that they cause stomach ulcer. I, as a homeopath, have my own views about ulcer and their causes but, I do salute the scientist and his spirit. I have nothing but great respect for a person who can do anything to discover the truth and has the courage to do so. the learned sceptics may show the same courage to find out whether homeopathy works or not. they can test themselves.

                    michelle, there are many many homeopaths who are busy working in their clinics, in slums, with poorest of the poor... they do not need any proof that it works and works very well. I owe my life to homeopathy - how, that is a long story. I, once did not believe about homeopathy because I did not know the real facts. I had the wrong information. however, I met a very old homeopath and he showed definite clinical and test reports of several cured cases of buerger's disease. (those who are medically trained will know what it is. you may do a yahoo search and learn.). I was surprised! I was not a fool to say: "I do not believe". I was a student of the conventional system of medicine then. this homeopath spent his own money to get colour doppler tests done and I saw those reports as well. I saw the hopsital papers. and I also saw the patients standing happily without needing their limbs to be amuptated! yes, in buerger's disease there are gangrenes in limbs and there is no cure (except amputation) in allopathic medicine.

                    this homeopath had his own way to prescribe homeo remedies. he used to put a poopy seed size pill of the remedy in 4 cups of water and ask the patient to take a spoonful and throw away the rest! and if he gave a 10M (10,000th potency) he would not repeat the nexy dose for many months! in this intervening period, the patient took only blank unmedicated pills! (yes, the homeopaths also need to give placebo!).
                    I almost, fell from my chair! here, I a student of the conventional system of medicine had gone to this person for my own treatment. allopathy had failed to treat (not even diagnose) my suffering and as a last resort I had gone to this homeopath.
                    I forgot all about myself and my suffering and was hooked!

                    a poppy seed size sugar pill that absorbs just 500th of a drop
                    the drop is made by serial dilution (in the ration 1:100) 10,000 times
                    this old fellow is still not satisfied?

                    the homeopath said in bengali: "are dose choto karte habe..." - which means; "the dose has to be made smaller.."
                    AND this old fellow puts that poppy seed size pill in a so much water and gives just a
                    tablespoon as dose?
                    placebo for months?

                    giving nothing first and then nothing for months and yet these people are getting well?

                    and that too a room full of people, from educated people to poor illeterate farmers, breathing down my neck!

                    I thought I will lose my sanity, if I do not test things myself....

                    michelle, I took several drops (not satisfied with a poppy seed size!) of many remedies, from time to time, and tested all that this old man had said.
                    yes, I tested from 30c to CM potency (the 1,00,000 dilution). I purchased sealed vials of remedies on my own (did not trust the old man!). I tested remedies from USA, UK.. this that pharmacy.

                    I tested on family...

                    I tested the poppy seed size also...

                    have no pets and so even put remedies in a plant. I had probably put a drop or two of a very high potency in a very small plant. the poor plant could not handle it and it died (and my mother, who loves plants as her children, scolded me for being so cruel!)!

                    michelle, I just had to accept homeopathy! it is not plain water or placebo. I had to accept it.

                    again, see the twist of fate - this old very experienced homeopath with 50 years of practice - failed to cure me!

                    but, I had found the path!

                    I read homeopathy books myself and found my own remedy - a relatively lesser known remedy that this professor of materia medica did not have in his remedy box!

                    I am sure you are not one who can be fooled easily. I welcome you and all intelligent people to the truth about correct homeopathy. leave books, papers and documents, test yourself first! just as I did.

                    don't be surprised if you discover homeopathy for yourself and family!
                    and who knows, you may even feel like studying it!

                    I write for intelligent people. if your tests convince you - you may be able to guide many other suffering people to their cure.

                    I welcome you to homeopathy - for yourself and for others.

                    feel free to test and experiment. let me know if you need assistance in your experiments. let me know if I can help you. I have my clinic work as well as other research works and do not have much time for these forums. you may send me a private email through the forum to attract my attention.

                    dr hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy said:
                    "aude sapere" (dare to be wise).
                    it appears that the james randis, ben goldacres, stephen barretts, moopets, string theories etc. neither have the knowledge nor the courage and also not the grace to study / experiment / observe and then accept the truth. they will continue to argue till infinity...the buddha said that the wise people should, for their own welfare, ignore the fools and avoid their company.

                    and by the way, you may be surprised to know that the entire homeopathic materia medica is a compilation of ACTUAL PROVINGS done on sensitive healthy subjects!

                    in thay way, allopathy is more anecdotal or belief oriented. the physician read the books, he reads and believes what the pharmaceutical companies want him to they may say that abc remedy is for xyz disease and is absolutely safe. yes, by double blind placebo controlled trials and lots and lots of scientific tests (that that win the approval of the moopets, barretts and the randis!) and then... after some time a lot of information about adverse effects starts coming in!
                    why, sir? your science failed? what about the double blind tests, sir? what about the "scientific" safety studies, sir?

                    on the other hand the same homeopathy remedies have been around for 200 years.
                    their effects are all predictable. they were predictable 200 years ago and they are predictable even today and so will be in the future. why? they have been PROVED on healthy, living human beings. there is no belief, theory, concept etc. that comes in the way. direct proving - not under a microscope or on guineapigs! direct proving on healthy and living human beings to study the remedy effects!

                    the homeopath uses this information to treat the sick. the collection of this info is called materia medica.

                    I salute the wise, learned and courageous homeopaths of the past, like dr constantine hering (1800 -1880) who proved many remedies on themselves. dr hering did a proving of the poison of the bushmaster snake on himself!

                    how can I even think of comparing the bird brained fools, who oppose homeopathy, with the likes of dr hahnemann, dr hering, dr mahendra lal sircar?
                    (all of them were M.Ds who converted to homeopathy!

                    I have remembered dr hering here. why? he had started writing a book AGAINST HOMEOPATHY! then how did he go on to become a great homeopath? and that too one who is respectfully called "the father of homeopathy in america"?

                    dr hering was also challenged by a writing of dr samuel hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. dr hering accpeted the challenge.what happed next... was history!
                    why believe me?
                    click the following link and read yourself!

                    it is ok if you do not believe me.
                    it is ok if you do not believe ANY homeopath or their work in the last 200 years.
                    it is ok if you do not believe this or that book.
                    it is ok if you do not believe in tradition or in history.
                    it is ok if you do not believe in anything!

                    but, please believe in yourself and your own experience!
                    please test things yourself.
                    this should be the most dependable evidence for you.

                    welcome to truth,welcome to homeopathy! welcome to a safe, non-toxic and effective system of holistic healing - the truth about which, you can verify on your own. no need to believe anything at all. you can test and experiment ALL the concepts of homeopathy.
                    yes, I said ALL.

                    test and experience yourself. correctly experiment on others (take small or large sample sizes. do the double blind placebo control PROVING on 1000 people, if possible.... ) check the results in clinic... and then believe in what you yourself see.


                    with warm regards,

                    dr manish agarwala

                    legal disclaimer: the decision to do the proving of homeopathic remdies on oneself or others is enitirely the person's own. he/she will be proceeding entirely at his/her own risk. I am in no way to be held responsible for any discomfort / effect / consequence arising due to or as a result of any such homeopathic proving or self-administeration of homeo remdies of any potency to anyone. the readers are advised to take my post as information only. they are also advised to consult a medically trained legally licenced homeopathic practitioner before doing any such proving / experiment with homeopathic remedies on themselves or others. they must follow the advise of the legally licenced homeopathic practitioner and/or other health care providers about these provings etc. such provings may only be done under the supervision and guidance of medically trained legally licenced homeopathic practitioner and/or other health care providers.


                    • #25
                      Dr. Constantine Hering, M.D

                      the sceptics are talking about homeopathy for the last 200 years!

                      Dr. Constantine Hering, M.D
                      (1800 - 1880)

                      a short life sketch from

                      Dr. Hering is aptly called the 'Father of Homoeopathy' in America. His conversion to Homoeopathy is very interesting. At the age of 17 Dr. Hering became interested in medicine and joined the University of Leipzig, where he was the favorite pupil of the eminent Surgeon, Dr. Henrich Robbi. At this time, Hahnemann was an eyesore to the stalwarts of orthodox medicine, because 'Organon' was a challenge to their system of medicine. Dr. Robbi was a critic of Hahnemann, and like other physicians ridiculed homoeopathy and Hahnemann.

                      In 1821, when the campaign against Hahnemann was at its worst, C. Baumgartner, the founder of a publishing house in Leipzig, wanted a book written against Homoeopathy, a book which would quite finish the system. Robbi was asked to write it, but he declined for want of time and recommended his young assistant Hering. Hering set about the work and nearly finished it in the winter of 1822. But going through Hahnemann's works for the sake of making quotations, he came across the famous 'nota bene for my reviewers' in the preface to the third volume of 'Materia Medica Pura', which said, among other things, "The doctrine appeals not only chiefly, but solely to the verdict of experience - 'repeat the experiments', it cries aloud, repeat them carefully and accurately and you will find the doctrine confirmed at every step' - and it does what no medical doctrine, no system of physic, no so-called therapeutics ever did or could do, it insists upon being judged by the result."

                      Hering decided to accept the challenge. The first step was to repeat the cinchona experiment. The result was what Hahnemann had predicted. Hering began to see the truth in homoeopathy. Further study of the homoeopathic 'Materia Medica' convinced him about Hahnemann's conclusions. The book against Homoeopathy thus never saw the light of day. In the winter of 1824, Hering's right forefinger was cut while making a dissection on a dead body. The wound rapidly became gangrenous. In those days such wounds were mostly fatal. The routine orthodox medicines had no effect. Luckily for Hering and for homoeopathy, a disciple of Hahnemann named Kummer persuaded him to take homoeopathic treatment and gave him Arsenicum album. After a few doses he felt better and the gangrene healed completely. Hering was surprised and his interest in homoeopathy knew no bounds. He contacted Hahnemann for further instruction.

                      Hering received the degree of M.D. from the University of Wuerzburg with highest honors. The theme of his thesis was "De Medicine Future" (The Medicine of Future). Hering arrived in Philadelphia in January 1833. He established a Homoeopathic School at Allentown, Pennsylvania (Allentown Academy). He became a member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, and presented to it his large and valuable zoological collections, including the original Lachesis mutus from South America, the snake with whose poison he had made the first provings of Lachesis.

                      Hering wrote many articles, monographs and books. He was the Chief Editor of the 'North American Homoeopathic Journal', 'The Homoeopathic News', 'The American Journal of Homoeopathic Materia Medica', and the Journal of the Allentown Academy. He wrote the 'Domestic Physician', and the 'Guiding Symptoms', a monumental work of 10 volumes.

                      It is in the sphere of drug provings, however, that Hering's effort shines at its best. It has been remarked by Nash and others that if Hering had done nothing else for medicine but the proving of the single drug Lachesis, the world would owe him an everlasting debt of gratitude; that alone would immortalize him. Dr. Hering proved 72 drugs, out of which the following are the most important: Cantharis, Colchicum, Iodum, Mezereum, Sabadilla, Sabina, Psorinum, Nux moschata, Lachesis, Crotalus, Apis, Hydrophobinum, Phytolacca, Platina, Glonoin, Gelsemium, Kalmia, Ferrum-met, Fluoric acid, and Phosphoric acid.


                      • #26
                        Hi Manish,

                        all the information on homeopathic trials, starting 1840's. until a few
                        years ago is written up in

                        The Trials of Homeopathy

                        by Michael Emmans Dean.

                        It is a very scholarly book, originally written as a thesis for PhD in
                        Medical History by a historian and practicing homeopath. It got a
                        prize from the Bosch Institute in Stuttgart and was subsequently
                        published by the "Carl and Veronica Carstens Foundation" - in English.
                        Carl Carstens was President of the Federal Republic of Germany, his
                        wife, Veronic. was a Medical Doctor, alternative Medicine.

                        So it is all very prestigious and cannot be put down as "just some
                        other crackpot publication"

                        It is availabe in Germany and also in the US - and not very expensive
                        as far as books in the West go.




                        Dean, Michael Emmans -- The Trials of Homeopathy
                        (a fabulous book on clinical research!)
                        "The Trials of Homeopathy" is the first systematic review of all clinical trials of homeopathy, predominantly in Europe and North America, from its beginnings to the 21st century. Dean shows that homeopathy has a long history of scientifically conducted trials that have not received the recognition they deserve. At a time when the place of homeopathy in a changing health landscape is under discussion, this work provides a valuable historical context.

                        This book includes a CD-ROM that includes several Appendices that provide details of all clinical trials that were excluded from this review of research (and the reason for their exclusion!), an outline of all controlled trials testing "classical homeopathy," all trials testing "complex homeopathy," all trials testing isopathic homeopathy, all trials that observed any "adverse reactions" to homeopathic medicines (or placeboes), and what the quality of each trial was determined to be (according to specific scoring). Needless to say, this CD-ROM alone is worth of price of this book!

                        What I personally found so fascinating about this book is its detailed information about the MANY high quality studies conducted on homeopathy during the 19th century. Also, there were numerous studies conducted by non-homeopaths who were clearly out to dis-prove homeopathy, and the author provides truly fascinating information and insights about these studies and how and why their results were negative to homeopathy.

                        The current debate about the merits of different therapies is informed increasingly by trial evidence. The rediscovery of homeopathyís clinical research tradition is, therefore, of particular importance.

                        In recognition of this valuable work Dean was awarded the first Hans Walz Prize of the Robert Bosch Foundation in October 2003. The aim of this prize is to promote research in the history of homeopathy outside the Robert Bosch Foundationís Institute for the History of Medicine.

                        The controversial discipline of homeopathy is examined from three original perspectives.

                        Conceptual Background: The structure and presentation of Hahnemann's research programme is contrasted with philosophical assumptions about medical science and emerging theoretical structures in German academic medicine circa 1800, and the subsequent rift between homeopathy and allopathy is explained at this level. The sources of homeopathic theory and method are located in mainstream eighteenth-century experimented. Alleged relationships to alchemical medicine are discounted, with the exception of certain pharmacy techniques introduced after 1816. Divergent schools and approaches within homeopathy are traced to their sources, and mapped onto a unified therapeutic field.

                        Historical Importance: A systematic review of prospective clinical evaluations of homeopathy, 1821-1953, contends that these played an important but neglected part in the evolution of the clinical trial. Placebo-controlled trials by skeptics most probably originated in prior Hahnemannian use of within-patient placebo controls. Pragmatic trials of homeopathy versus allopathy in the mid-nineteenth century show that judgments of homeopathic inefficacy made by influential nineteenth-century opponents, which have colored debate ever since, were not evidenced-based. Early twentieth-century clinical trials by homeopaths were methodologically in advance of biomedical trials in some respects.

                        Clinical relevance: A systematic review of 205 prospective controlled clinical trials published since 1940 found evidence of homeopathy's safety, and specific and global efficacy in trials of high internal validity. Implications for clinical research and practice are considered, founded on analysis of intra-homeopathic differences and trends. On the basis of trial evidence, the relative merits of placebo-controlled and pragmatic evaluations of homeopathy are discussed. Clinical relevance was found particularly in areas that pose problems for biomedicine, and proposals for pragmatic trials of homeopathy versus standard treatment are made in the following conditions: Unexplained female infertility; postviral fatigue syndrome; influenza; atopy (allergies).


                        this book may be purchased from:


                        • #27
                          the giriweb link

                          I am being repeatedly asked about the link of the giriweb report, I am referring to.

                          I have mentioned it many times, thanks to dr pattnaik, who provided the link.
                          mentioning here, again. it provides all the proof one may need.

                          giriweb is at:

                          if the .pdf file link does not open, send me a private email through this forum.
                          I will send the .pdf file as attachment.


                          • #28

                            Can Homeopathic Arsenic Remedy Combat Arsenic Poisoning in Humans Exposed to Groundwater Arsenic Contamination?:

                            A Preliminary Report on First Human Trial

                            Groundwater arsenic (As) has affected millions of people globally
                            distributed over 20 countries. In parts of West Bengal (India) and
                            Bangladesh alone, over 100 million people are at risk, but supply of
                            As-free water is grossly inadequate. Attempts to remove As by using
                            orthodox medicines have mostly been unsuccessful. A potentized homeopathic
                            remedy, Arsenicum Album-30, was administered to a group of As affected
                            people and thereafter the As contents in their urine and blood were
                            periodically determined. The activities of various toxicity marker enzymes
                            and compounds in the blood, namely aspartate amino transferase, alanine
                            amino transferase, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, lipid
                            peroxidation and reduced glutathione, were also periodically monitored up
                            to 3 months. The results are highly encouraging and suggest that the drug
                            can alleviate As poisoning in humans.


                            Evidence Based Complementary Medicine


                            eCAM Advance Access originally published online on October 19, 2005


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by dr manish agarwala
                              Can Homeopathic Arsenic Remedy Combat Arsenic Poisoning in Humans Exposed to Groundwater Arsenic Contamination?:

                              A Preliminary Report on First Human Trial

                              Groundwater arsenic (As) has affected millions of people globally
                              distributed over 20 countries. In parts of West Bengal (India) and
                              Bangladesh alone, over 100 million people are at risk, but supply of
                              As-free water is grossly inadequate. Attempts to remove As by using
                              orthodox medicines have mostly been unsuccessful. A potentized homeopathic
                              remedy, Arsenicum Album-30, was administered to a group of As affected
                              people and thereafter the As contents in their urine and blood were
                              periodically determined. The activities of various toxicity marker enzymes
                              and compounds in the blood, namely aspartate amino transferase, alanine
                              amino transferase, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, lipid
                              peroxidation and reduced glutathione, were also periodically monitored up
                              to 3 months. The results are highly encouraging and suggest that the drug
                              can alleviate As poisoning in humans.


                              Evidence Based Complementary Medicine


                              eCAM Advance Access originally published online on October 19, 2005
                              Having looked at this site, I believe it would, if not found to be lacking in rigor, if corroborated with a repetition with a much better sample-size and even if - as appears on one graph on that page, to first glace - the drug has the opposite effect of what you would expect,
                              go a long way to proving that homeopathy has an effect. That's my opinion, based on the assumption that the study was not flawed.

                              On the other hand, you claimed that an off-the shelf remedy will not have any effect. These participants had no proving. The cause of their sickness is known, but if that was sufficient, then off-the-shelf homeopathic cures would work for anyone with a known condition. But you claim that's not the case - in fact, you claim that this is the reason blinded clinical studies will not work.

                              How do you reconcile these opposites? Or am I misinterpreting again?


                              • #30
                                The Arsenic study referenced is not proof of anything for 2 reasons.

                                1. The second part of the study (Group II) was not placebo controlled, a fact admitted to by the authors. The second part is the one that references the therapeutic effect on arsenic poisoning.

                                2. The subjects drinking water was changed to a new arsenic-free source during the testing (see quote below). The reduced arsenic in the blood might be (and probably is) entirely due to the subjects looking after themselves better and being more aware of what they drink. I might be wrong but we'll never know because the experiment lacked a control group.

                                "The volunteers of both Groups I and II were advised to take As-free water (from a plant nearby, water from which measured <10 ppb of As at periodical surveys) to the maximum possible extent during the course of the experiment, although they had actually been drinking water mostly from this plant ever since its installation. This was necessary because these people occasionally drink water from shallow tube wells contaminated with As after they exhausted the As-free drinking water they carried with them to the fields."