Homeopathy the "Gentle Science" Claims Linda Nelson c2012

here, I cite from a Grand Junction Free Press article falsely labeling homeopathy "science" [see 001., below]: then, I remind all of the humongous scientific consensus regarding this pseudotherapy [see 002., below]:

001. homeopath Linda Nelson writes in "Nelson: A Homeopathic Approach to Curing Epidemics" [vsc 2012-10-19; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"a complementary/alternative form of medicine  [CAM...] homeopathic remedies are a very gentle science [...]";

yes, a science subset homeopathy claim for this CAM.  So shall we say sCAM!  The 's' stands for supposed, here.

"[...] how does homeopathy fit into the epidemic picture? [...]";

yes, she is claiming that homeopathy CURES diseases that become epidemic.

"in 1918 there was an influenza [...] one of the few remedies that had a positive reaction to the flu is called 'crolatus horridus' and is rattlesnake venom [...]";

I cannot help myself so I have to ask: snake oil???

 "this specific remedy is also beneficial for strep A, the flesh-eating bacteria, yellow fever, the plague, cholera and scarlet fever. [...it] stop[s] internal bleeding [...] as well as vomiting [...]";

that's quite a list.  A specific remedy with panacea-like effect.

"these are only a few of the modern day epidemic threats and their homeopathic remedies [...]";

go on...

"hantavirus [use] Pyrogenium, Baptisia tinctoria, Rhus toxicodendron, Arsenicum album;

Lyme disease [use] Arsenicum album, Antipyrinum, Belladonna, Mercurius vivus, Rhus toxicodendron;

whooping cough [use] Drosera rotundifolia, Pertussis nosode, Antimonium tarticum, Hepar Sulphuris, Aconitum napellus, Belladonna atropa;

strep A [use...] Crolatus horridus, Lachesis muta, Aconitum napellus, Arsenicum album, Rhus toxicodendron, Pyrogenium, Sepsis-nosode;

measles and mumps [use] Abrotanum Artemisia, Aconitum napellus, Belladonna atropa, Bromium, Carbo vegetablis, Lachesis muta, Rhus toxicodendron;

West Nile virus [use] Belladonna atropa, Bryonia alba, Phosphorus, Sulphur;

small pox [use] Vaccininum, Variolinum, Antimonium tarticum, Baptisia tinctoria, Belladonna, Bryonia alba, Carbolicum acidum, Hepar Sulphuris, Kali bichromicum, Mercurius sulphuricus;

anthrax [use] Anthracinum nosode, Arsenicum album, Lachesis muta, Secale cornutum, Bryonia alba, Phosphorus, Carbo Vegetablis, Baptisia tinctoria, Pyrogenium, Nitric acidum, Ipecac;

plague [use] Pestinum-nosode, Arsenicum album, crolatus horridus, Lachesis muta, Naja tripudians, Phosphorus, Mercurius vivus, Nitricum acidum;

botulism and bioterrorism attack [use] Botulinum - nosode, Gelsemium sempervirens, Arsenicum album, Carbolicum acidum, Nux vomica , Phosphorus;

nerve and chemical agent attack [use...] Arsenicum album, Belladonna atropa, Gelsemium sempervirens, Mercurius vivus, Digitalis purpurea, Phosphorus, Pulsatilla nigricans;

nicotinic effects [use] Belladonna atropa, Cuprum metallicum, Phosphorus, Arsenicum album, Sulphur;

 behavioral and psychological changes [use] Belladonna atropa, Hyoscyamus niger, Stramonium datura, Opium, Mercurius vivus, Phosphorus; 

cardiovascular symptoms [use] Digitalis purpurea, Veratrum album, Phosphorus, Aconitum napellus, Cratageus oxyacantha; 

ocular (eye) symptoms [use] Belladonna atropa, Aconitum napellus, Pulsatilla nigricans, Arsenicum album, Rhus toxicodendron [...]";

yes, really, the homeopath claims that homeopathy is excellent for all these VERY serious things.

"if there is an epidemic, pandemic or influenza the facts are the stores will be wiped out of remedies within minutes [...]";

they work THAT GOOD!  According to this homeopaths supposed FACTS.

002. and yet, when rigorously scientifically scrutinized, we know:

homeopathy doesn't work.  And that homeopathy is SO IMPLAUSIBLE that further research is not recommended.

Note: and yet, though totally scientifically refuted, we also know that the North American naturopathy racket is fused to homeopathy, to such an extent that homeopathy is on their board exams and like this homeopath, therein incorrectly labeled "science".

and today it has been reported that a UK woman who only used homeopathy on her German shepherds has been banned from having pets due to the extreme suffering she has caused them.  Now, if homeopathy can' t cure mange, can it really do anything for much more virulent things?  Amazing, too, that homeopaths who espouse pseudotherapeutic nonsense for people are NOT PROSECUTED but dogs have much more legal protection!

MD Aw Promotes Naturopathic Nonsense [how not sensible and Aw-ful!]

here, I excerpt and comment upon a recent article written by an MD about naturopathy in Canada's National Post [see 001., below]; then, I go to that doctor's practice page promoting naturopathy [see 002. below]; finally, I excerpt from the alma mater of the ND at that page to highlight the NATUROPATHILLOGICAL [see 003., below]:

001. in Canada's National Post, MD Aw writes in "Naturopathic Medicine: From the Margins to the Mainstream" (2012-10-09) [vsc 2012-10-09; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[he writes of] alternative medical techniques like Chinese, naturopathic or Ayurvedic medicine [...]";

I'd not call these techniques, they are more appropriately called "systems" or possibly even paradigms [but hey].

"[years ago] I would have told you it was fringe stuff [...] I’ve changed a lot from the way I handled things as a young doctor [...]";

but, have you changed for the better?  Are you wiser? I'll talk about the shenanigans of naturopathy in 003., below, but I'll ask here: is it NOT FRINGE STILL to promote a system of pseudomedicine that QUITE PATENTLY labels the hugely science-ejected falsely as science?  Good doctor, I question your expertise in terms of what naturopathy is all about, and why you'd think such an absurdity is mainstream.

 "I now believe some aspects of complimentary alternative medicine (CAM) can be an effective adjunct to the Western approach [...]";

well, since a portion of CAM is taken from conventional medicine anyway -- like relaxation techniques, exercise and the like -- it's not much of an adjunct at all, when effective.  It's conventional medicine borrowed and given a patina of the exotic.

"this year I participated in the development of an integrative medical department at the clinic where I’m medical director [$$$...] in my own practice, the proportion of people interested in alternative medicine seems to be growing [$$$...] 'integrative medicine' describes the combination of mainstream techniques with complimentary alternative medicine [ye old blending!]";

this I will talk about in 002., below.  Notice the equation that has occurred in just these first few sentences: naturopathic medicine = alternative medicine techniques = complimentary alternative medicine = integrative medicine = alternative medicine.  Now, also, to integrate is TO BLEND or COMBINE, which I think is at the heart of the nonsense going on with naturopathy that I'll highlight wherein 'the then blended' is falsely labeled unblended 'scientific' by naturopathy.

"what triggered my evolution? Part of it is simple experience. I’ve witnessed first-hand [...] I also believe patients deserve choice [...]";

well, when scientific knowledge and methods via studies are not the primary demarcator of what to do in medicine and instead subjective and anecdotal stuff is, I don't actually think medicine has EVOLVED.   If we've learned anything over the years it is that "simple experience" can be quite wrong.   Need I mention 1600 years of humoral theory?   Patient's do deserve choice, but that choice must be INFORMED and not at the cost of honesty.

"alternative medicine remains controversial because it’s really difficulty to subject it to randomized placebo-controlled trials that satisfy the rigorous standards of the scientific community [...]";

lame, bullshit.  This is a complete and total fabrication and cop-out.  Even acupuncture can be shammed.  And, surprise surprise, the higher the scientific rigor in studies for that parlor trick, the closer and closer acupuncture looks to be no better than placebo.

"many of the health benefits that come from naturopathic or alternative therapies seem to come from placebo effects or similar phenomena [...]";

this is quite an admission of something REPUGNANT: taking money from people at one's practice when actually engaging in, essentially, a manipulative placebo deception with them.

"conventional clinics and hospitals that open integrative departments are assisting patients by continuing to supervise care under an evidence-based umbrella [...]";

yeah, right -- but, you just said that the stuff is PLACEBO mostly, and now it's evidence-based, and being touted as 'like or conventional non-placebo stuff' that's science-supported.  This is quite a situation of cognitive dissonance.

002. MD Aw's practice has the pages:

002.a.  "Ben Klinck, ND: Program Manager, Integrative Medicine" [vsc 2012-10-12] which states:

"Ben Klinck received his naturopathic medical degree from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM) in Toronto [...] Ben is a board certified naturopathic doctor and holds a membership with the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors [...he'] an advocate for integrative medicine";

I will refer to these two entities in 003., below.

002.b. in "Integrative Medicine: Treating the Whole Person" [vsc 2012-10-12]:

"mind, body, and spirit [...] integrative medicine can offer a natural perspective on a wide spectrum of health concerns [...] through the program at Medcan, our naturopathic doctor (ND) will use vitamins and minerals (nutraceuticals), acupuncture, herbal medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine to help reduce pain and manage disease from a scientific and natural viewpoint [...]";

I'm loving the categorical bogosity of these sentences.  First, the scientific and natural view is claimed to contain the supernatural spiritual in general, second, systems which are at their foundation science-ejected and supernatural in context like TCM are claimed also to be scientific and natural.  Then, too, is the implied claim that there are pharmaceuticals and then just as effective there are nutraceuticals. Truly knowledge therein is quite blended bullshit: but isn't that where so much of medicine is at today, unable or unwilling to think about epistemic and ontological categorizations that are quite elementary.

002.c. in "Medcan’s Integrative Medicine Program – Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2012-10-12]:

"integrative medicine [...] for which there is evidence of safety and effectiveness [...] a well-rounded view of clients’ health [...] safe and effective ways";

when actually true medical ideas are combined with the bullshit of TCM and company, I'm not sure we're in the realm of efficacy and well-roundedness.  Affecting chi comes to mind: it's a supernatural fantasy, it doesn't exist, it doesn't therefore get changed by TCM to then change health.  Is combining astrology and astronomy of "evidence" and "well-rounded"? They guys need the Nobel Prize: they have evidence, apparently, that which is quite exterior to science like the supernatural is actually quite science-supported.

"naturopathic doctor (ND) is a regulated primary care health professional in the province of Ontario [...]";

ye old 'of the professional' claim.

"NDs undergo standardized board exams and are governed by a North American body [...]";

I'll mention the contents -- and the false labeling of knowledge -- of the NPLEX exam below in 003.

003. naturopathy: a irrational system of pseudomedicine that QUITE PATENTLY labels the hugely science-ejected falsely as science / the blended falsely claiming purity: 

003.a. via CCNM:

for instance, CCNM claims that naturopathy is science-based when the essentially naturopathic in context is science ejected;

003.b. via OAND: 

for instance, OAND claims that naturopathy is science-based when the essentially naturopathic in context is science ejected;

003.c. via NPLEX:

for instance, NPLEX falsely labels homeopathy a clinical science;

Note: that's ABSURD.  Yet, it is not just a marginal thing regarding naturopathy, naturopathy's false labeling of homeopathy is a microcosm of the naturopathillogical.

004. overall note:

when presented / investigated in a manner that's informed, clear, and honest, what I see in naturopathy is manipulation and falsehood.  A profession?  Oh dear me no.

naturopathy is instead quite a REVERSAL of values, wherein science is the science-ejected, what's effective is what's inert, the natural is the supernatural, the professional is the false.

Changelog 2012-09-23 through 2012-10-07 and ND Video:

here, I summarize this week's additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ND Logan in ISBN 1118106741 978-1118106747;

ND Lipscomb & Nissen;

ND London; ND Lock;

to Appendix B.05.i.d.01.;

ND Lambert; ND Lavallee;

NMD Lee; ND Larrow;

to Appendix B.05.i.d.00.;

ND Dengler;

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

ND Francis;

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

ND Iverson; NDs Janel & Knutson;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.04.;

the science claims of:

ND Mundeir; ND Martlew;

to Appendix I.05.k.;

ND Parmer; ND Pun; 

ND Pendleton; 

to Appendix I.05.m.;

the State of Washington

to Appendix I.03.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

Brahmia, Lindenfeld

 in "Physics: The First Science" 

(2011; ISBN 081354937X 9780813549378) 

to Appendix C.06.a.;

Langley, Moore, J.T. 

in "Biochemistry for Dummies"

(2011; ISBN 1118021746 9781118021743)

to Appendix C.06.c.;

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:
.
National University of Health Sciences [the pseudoscience gift that keeps on giving?] states in "National University of Health Sciences - Defining the Future of Integrated Medicine" [uploaded 2012-09-24; vsc 2012-10-06; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
.

.

#nationaluniversityofhealthsciences #sciencesubsetnaturopathyclaim #truemedicalprofessionals

#uncompromisingrigor #scienceandfactbasedevidencebasedmedicine

.

"[from the description] National University of Health Sciences is the nation's premier institution for health science education, offering you unparalleled preparation in expanding health care professions such as chiropractic, naturopathic, and oriental medicine, acupuncture, massage therapy, biomedical science, and more. National University is a leader in the growing field of integrative medicine. We set the standard in training for careers in health care [...]";

so, we have the science subset naturopathy and integrative medicine claim.  Other-wheres, NUHS defines integrative medicine in "Our Philosophy"[vsc 2012-10-06]:

"at National University, we believe a superior education in health care starts with an evidence-based, broad-scope curriculum emphasizing integrative medicine. In addition, our university is committed to preparing health professionals dedicated to patient-centered care [...] integrative medicine: we believe in bringing together professionals from a broad range of medical specialties for the benefit of patients and the health care industry as a whole [...]";

so, the claim of superior educating, evidence, patient-centeredness, and this weird 'get many people on board so we all benefit' I'm guessing particularly FINANCIALLY.  Sounds like EXPENSIVE health care, wherein the patient is financially 'pecked to death by chickens'.  Or at least pecked to a bruised pulp.  Wikipedia has a rather more honest description of what integrative medicine is, speaking of being broad in our knowledge.

"evidence-based: the diagnostic and healing modalities taught at National are based in sound science and backed by clinical research [...]";

quite a promise.  I wonder if I can easily find anything at nuhs.edu that is a patently science-ejected practice but taught 'as if science' in their curriculum?   Well, there's the post "Miravone's Blog Experience as an Observer Tuesday, April 03, 2012" [vsc 2012-10-06] wherein we are told: "I spent this past week at an integrative medical practice observing a medical doctor provide 'natural' injection therapy for patients with anything from trigger points to osteoarthritis of the knee [...] he was injecting a homeopathic remedy called Serapin [actually Sarapin], which is similar to what we learn in school as Traumeel (contains mainly Arnica) as a potent anti-inflammatory [...a] 'homeopathic remedy' [...] he has admitted that he has 'converted' to a believer in non-invasive and gentle therapy such as homeopathy! What a huge accomplishment for us as naturopaths!"  Yet we know homeopathy is bunk, in terms of sound science and evidence.  And I am not surprised that the label science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy is happening at NUHS.  It's part of a sector of dyseducation that has been rapidly growing in North America.

"[...from the video, a science-y beginning] Dr. James Winterstein, NUHS President [says...our motto is] is to be, rather than to seem to be [...] National University of Health Sciences [...] rewarding professions [...] to produce true medical professionals [...] chiropractic medicine, Oriental medicine,  acupuncture and naturopathic medicine [...] uncompromising rigor [...] the curriculum here is rigorous [...] being on the forefront of research [...] science and fact-based evidence based medicine [...] I'm defining the future of integrated health care";

and absurdity marches on. 

003. overall note:

 and just to emphasize the 'science subset nonscience' nonsense that NUHS embodies, there's their page "What is AOM?" [vsc 2012-10-06] which tells us:

"in AOM, we believe everyone has 12 primary meridians that correlate with 12 organs. According to AOM teachings, by treating the meridians through acupuncture, dysfunctions with a patient's physical organs can also be treated [...] each meridian is a pathway for 'qi' to flow. Qi can be thought of as the energy or life force in one's body.  When the qi is flowing properly, there is balance between yin and yang, and the person is functioning in a state of well-being and harmony [...] when yin and yang become imbalanced, AOM works with the meridians and qi flow to balance yin and yang [...] each meridian has several acupuncture points [...] the acupuncture points serve as transmitters for moving, tonifying or sedating the body's qi. By using a combination of points based on an AOM diagnosis, the points are punctured and able to help qi return to natural state of well-being. This in turn helps restore the balance between yin and yang."

life force meridians and points, and a life force itself, scientifically speaking, are COMPLETELY WITHOUT FACTUAL SUPPORT.  This is disgusting, this is exploitative, and I honestly think it is a kind of unfair trade.

Homeopathy and Scotland's NHS: Eames vs. Liddle

here, I excerpt from a recent BBC article debating the NHS funding homeopathy in Scotland [see 001., below]; then, I link to North American naturopathy's claims about homeopathy, which I consider to be quite the falsehood and racket [see 002., below]:

001. in "Should the NHS Pay for Homeopathy?" (2012-10-05)[my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[Steven Brocklehurst reports] NHS Lothian is considering whether it should continue to pay for homeopathy [...there are] those against [who] complain that it has no scientific backing [...yet] homeopathy has ardent supporters [...]";

ah, ye ol' journalistic balance.  But, these juxtaposed perspectives aren't balanced.  Anecdotes, no matter how plural, do not amount to scientific vetting and often are quite WRONG.  Of course, they could also be right.  The issue is, what does science tell us?

"detractors such as Keir Liddle [...] chair of the Edinburgh Skeptics, a society which promotes 'science, reason and independent thinking' [hear, hear; homepage here...] say homeopathy is 'against all the laws of physics and chemistry' because the initial ingredients are so diluted that all that is left is a 'memory' in the water [...]";

actually, this is quite a skewed version of what may be called a skeptical point of view.  A skeptic is not a detractor.  A skeptic merely asks for proof of a claim by way of EVIDENCE.  'Detractors of homeopathy' is much akin to stating 'detractors of the Tooth Fairy', anyway.  Anyway, yes, homeopathy has quite the plausibility problem, but I doubt that the skeptic in question claims that water has a memory.

"Liddle says homeopathy is 'not effective and not efficient [...] a substance with nothing in it [...and] it is unethical for a health care service to prescribe something they know is nothing better than a placebo because that means GPs are put in a position where they end up lying to patients, which is a position which is untenable ethically and morally [...] 'the treatments offered to patients in the health service should be evidence-based' [...]";

agreed.

"the NHS Lothian Consultation Document [here...] says many clinical trials have been conducted to test whether homeopathic remedies are effective [...and] there was no evidence beyond a placebo effect [...] the British Medical Association [...] believes there should be no further NHS funding for homeopathy [...its] a treatment with 'no scientific evidence base to support its use' [...]";

hear, hear.  And that consultation document states specifically: "there is no substantial evidence to suggest that homeopathic treatments are clinically effective. Those studies cited by proponents are mostly poorly designed, based on small sample sizes and have unreliable outcome measures [...] clinical trials show that the response rate is similar to placebo i.e. these are people who would have got better anyway."  Aka 'regression to the mean'.

"the Faculty of Homeopathy says it is 'not accurate' to say there is no evidence for homeopathy. Sara Eames, president of the faculty, claims that the conclusions drawn from studies have been 'cherry-picked' by opponents and that there is evidence for the effectiveness of its treatments [...and] homeopathy is a safe, cost-effective alternative which can actually save the NHS money [...] Ms Eames [...] says the committee was 'not a scientific body [...] we didn't feel it was very fair or unbiased and it certainly has no scientific foundation' [...]";

wow, the 'cherry-picker Tooth-Fairy believer type' accusing others of cherry picking aka homeopathy's 'science at our convenience'.  I call 'bullshit'.

002. meanwhile, in North-America's naturopathy-land, we're told that homeopathy is quite the:

002.a. clinical science: 

like the great State of California [permanently archived here];

002.b. and powerful;

like the great State of Oregon.

Note: oh PLEASE somebody bring a class action suit against these clowns.