ND Maloney on Homeopathy: Whereby the Anecdotal Trumps Profound Scientific Consensus

here, I cite from a recent video up at Youtube by ND Maloney claiming that homeopathy's results are "dramatic and astonishing" [see 001., below]; then from Wikipedia's definition of anecdotal evidence [see 002., below]; and finally from a profound scientific consensus regarding homeopathy bunk [see 003., below]:

001. Maloney, C.L. (ND NCNM) states in his Youtube video "Homeopathy.MOD" [vsc 2011-03-21]:

"[from the description] Dr. Christopher Maloney, N.D., discusses homeopathy. Category: Science and Technology [...from the video] I want to talk to you very very briefly about homeopathy [...] I'm a very aggressive, very acute prescriber [...] I've seen it do things that are only explainable as a result of the homeopathic remedy [working beyond placebo...] I've seen acute infections go away over a three to five hour period.  I've seen ears drain in real time, you know, remedy in [then] ears drain. I have people who get significantly better within an hour of taking a remedy [...] when I'm giving people remedies, I'm expecting a result within 30-60 seconds because it's either going to hit them or not.  I'm not going for placebo effect.  If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.  We'll just try this one, and this one, and this one, and this one [...] I'm giving five, six, seven remedies in a row.  If it's a placebo effect, why didn't the first one, the second one, the third, forth, fifth, why this sixth one suddenly works? [...] the results are variable but they're dramatic and astonishing [...] I've given as far as twenty-one remedies to someone and then the twenty-first remedy kicks over.  I've had a child I've gave remedies to for two weeks and then finally got the right one and the wheeze stops pretty-much within 3 minutes of taking a remedy.  And at that point anyone who is explaining that to me as anything other than effect, I've tried forty other remedies on this kid.  This remedy, somehow my placebo action was just going right on this one?  I don't think so [as in not placebo, he claims].  This is an active pharmacological result [...] it's basically life-altering [...] I think I'm keeping that around."

Note: homeopathy is not a science or technology category, folks.  But anyway, ND Maloney appears quite convinced that homeopathic remedies are 'active pharmacologically', causing "dramatic and astonishing" results.  This is, though, ALL ANECDOTAL, as his account has illustrated.  The repetitive attempts [fails] remind me of a psychic cold-reading their mark.  In so many attempts, that psychic eventually gets a hit and that is what is remembered.  ND Maloney may have some seriously gullible and patient patients if he's being allowed to try forty homeopathic remedies [as if they can be distinguished / are fundamentally different based on their empty contents!] on a child who is ill.

002. a definition of anecdotal evidence via Wikipedia [which is good enough]:

"in science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: 'information that is not based on facts or careful study, non-scientific observations or studies [...] reports or observations of usually unscientific observers, casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis, information [...] not documented scientifically' [...it's] considered the least credible [...it is never] validating evidence [...as it lacks a] reliability by objective independent assessment [...] the term is [obviously therein] often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts [...while] anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a 'typical' experience; statistical evidence [quite more formal] can more accurately determine how typical something is [...] in science and logic, the 'relative strength of an explanation' is based upon its ability to be tested, proven to be due to the stated cause, and verified under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves [...e.g.] in medicine [...] only double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials can confirm a hypothesis about the effectiveness of a treatment independently of expectations [...] anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence [...] misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy [...] a common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second [...or] inductive reasoning [...] a faulty or hasty generalization [...] selected individual cases prove nothing [...because] anecdotes often refer to the exception, rather than the rule [...] 'anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses [... ] 'the plural of anecdote is not data'."

Note: so, even a guy on Youtube wearing scrubs calling himself doctor, speaking about his own apparently successful clinical experience with a supposedly specifically active therapy such as homeopathy, is relying on THE WORST KIND of support regarding that intervention.

003. that consensus:

the United Kingdom's "Evidence Check" of homeopathy was HUGELY dismissive of the entire homeopathic endeavor.  It stated:

"there has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities."

Note: ouch.  I cannot imagine a greater disparity: ND Maloney says in his experience homeopathy works [anecdote], but the scientific consensus is that it is profoundly bunk [rigor].

004. musing:

I think this is an excellent example of why medicine benefits from EXCLUSION of practitioner and patient informal experience [anecdote] and replaces such with a more rigorous evidence- and science- basis [formal investigation].  Otherwise, crap therapeutics appear to work when if fact they don't. Now, ND Maloney has taken a licensing exam that presently labels homeopathy "science", and his alma mater claims that the science-ejected is indeed within science -- as an overall worldview.  So, in my opinion, ND Maloney's use of homeopathy and his faith in it is merely a symptom of naturopathy's knowledge-basis problems.

would you visit a physician who was trained NOT to distinguish what genuinely has effect from what is an empty pill / bunk, whose knowledge-basis laxly blends the rigorous scientific and the nonsensical science-ejected and then labels the whole thing "dramatic and astonishing" and rigorously scientifically supported [I think that's what is implicit at ND Maloney's alma mater's regulator in Oregon, OBNM]?

Some Homeopathic Miracles of ND Barker -- "The Wonders of Natural Treatment" and Its Actual Science-Ejectedness

here, I cite from a Youtube video by ND Barker that makes some huge claims of naturopathic efficacy, particularly by way of homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I remind that homeopathy is bunk [note for 001., below]; and show the science-ejected naturopathy-homeopathy context by way of the book this video promotes [see 002., below]:

001. Barker, S.J. (ND Bastyr 2000) states in "Reverse Chronic Health Problems with Natural Medicine - Dr. Simon Barker, ND" [vsc 2010-12-25]:

"[from the description] naturopathic doctor Simon Barker [...] explains how naturopathic medicine -- a subset of alternative medicine -- is able to reverse chronic health conditions [...from the video, the ND:] I went to a naturopathic medical school [...] Bastyr [...]  we're trained in a wide variety of alternative health care approaches [...] we study homeopathy [...] we run the gambit on alternative therapies [...] I will often give people supplements, homeopathics [...] I've successfully treated a number of patients with a wide variety of conditions [...] children with chronic ear infections, eczema, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches -- all of these conditions are reversible and I've had great success doing that by using the wonders of natural treatments [...] what I use is homeopathic remedies [...] in all of these cases the children are relieved of their present problem and the problems do not return [...and we're pointed to] 'The Beginner's Guide to Natural Living.'"

Note: so, using the wonders of homeopathy [and such], miracles happen!  They must be miracles, because homeopathic pills and liquids have no medicinal value.

002. the book, Cook's "The Beginner's Guide to Natural Living" (2005; ISBN 0975536184) is riddled with the science-ejected vitalistic-naturopathic-homeopathic:

"nearly five thousand years ago the ancient Chinese recognized a vital energy behind all life forms and processes [...an] animating force [that] controls the functioning of every organ and system in the body. The Chinese call this energy qi [...] chi is known as the 'life force' by shamans, as 'prana' by yogis, as 'bioelectric energy' [...] and the 'vis medicatrix naturae' ('healing power of nature') by modern naturopathic physicians [...] this life force energy must flow freely and in the correct strength and quality for the body to function correctly [p.152...] homeopathic remedies [...] Hahnemann believed that dilution and succussion released a power that affected the life force energy [p.085]."

Note: once you accept that there's a figmentation known as a life force and your alma mater calls it "science-based", I'm guessing it's pretty easy to accept that empty homeopathic nostrums have miraculous powers.

Canadian Naturopathic Homeopathy Nonsense - naturopathicfoundations.ca

here, I cite from the homeopathy pages of naturopathicfoundations.ca [see 002., below] after I mention the NDs at that practice [see 001., below].  Then, I remind the reader that homeopathy, per the recent UK evidence check, is utter nonsense [see 003., below]:

001. the NDs at naturopathicfoundations.ca include:

Lloyd, I.R. (ND CCNM 2002), Konstantinou, T.F. (ND CCNM?), Rouchotas, P. (ND CCNM 2004), Rozendaal,E. (ND CCNM 2009), Smrz, D. (ND CCNM) [as of 2010-06-28].

002. naturopathicfoundations.ca states, regarding homeopathy, by way of several web pages:

002.a. in "Homeopathy: Philosophy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"homeopathy.  Homeopathic Medicine is an 'energy' system of medicine that recognizes that our body is dense fields of energy [naturopathicfoundations.ca explains elsewhere that this is a vitalistic / "vital force" type explanation]. Symptoms or diseases will manifest when there is a disturbance to the body's energy field [...] the philosophy of homeopathy is: [#1] like cures like. The healing response is stimulated by giving sick people extremely diluted forms of natural substances that cause the same symptoms when given to healthy people in a larger dose [etc.]"

Note: so, we're told by the NDs at naturopathicfoundations.ca that naturopathy's homeopathy is premised on the science-ejected vitalistic, and "like cures like."

002.b. in "Homeopathy: Uses of Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"uses of homeopathy: [#1] acute conditions are aided by stimulating and speeding the healing process of the body; [#2] chronic conditions often affect the physical, mental and emotional aspect of a person. The ability of homeopathy to work on all these levels provides hope, support and valuable treatment options; [#3] psychological imbalances respond well to homeopathics even if they are due to intense trauma [etc.]."

Note: these are claims of efficacy.

002.c. in "Homeopathy: Deciding on a Remedy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"deciding on a remedy: [#1] homeopathic remedies are gentle and very effective [...#4] remedies may work very quickly, especially with acute conditions [etc.]."

Note: again, claims of efficacy.

002.d. in "Homeopathy: Homeopathic Remedies" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"homeopathic remedies [...#3] are highly dilute solutions that contain the energetic vibration of its source, not crude materials. For example, a 12X remedy has been diluted so that one part of the original substance is mixed with nine parts water or alcohol and then shaken vigorously (succussed). This solution then undergoes a series of 12 dilutions using the same 1:9 ratio; [#4] the effectiveness, potency and ability of the remedy to get deep within the body increases as the remedy becomes more dilute."

Note: again, the vitalistic science-ejected is called upon as the premise for homeopathy's action.  Efficacy is increased, they claim, by dilution of the "remedy."

002.e. in "Homeopathy: What You Can Expect" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"what you can expect: [#1] symptoms often disappear in reverse order to their original appearance; [#2] healing progresses from more important organs to less important ones; [#3] healing progresses from the top of the body downward; [#4] the body seeks to externalize disease, keeping it to more external locations; [#5] symptoms lessen in intensity, you feel better and your mood and energy improves; [#6] initially, the symptoms that you have may aggravate for 24 - 48 hours. If you have any questions about your reaction to your homeopathic remedy, please call your naturopathic doctor [Hering's Law or the Law of Cure]."

Note: the idea of ADIO, "above down, inside out" aka the two fake laws above, is bunk.

003. meanwhile, back in reality, the 2010-02-08 evidence check that was published by the UK's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded:

 "by providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine [when it ain't!].To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products [...] it is unacceptable for the MHRA to license placebo products—in this case [homeopathic] sugar pills—conferring upon them some of the status of medicines [...] for patient choice to be real choice, patients must be adequately informed to understand the implications of treatments. For homeopathy this would certainly require an explanation that homeopathy is a placebo. When this is not done, patient choice is meaningless [in other words, it is unethical because it cannot lead to informed consent...] we argue that the provision of homeopathy on the NHS, in effect, diminishes, not increases, informed patient choice [...] we conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science [...] we consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible [...] there has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious."

Note: so, in sum, naturopaths are unethical for use of homeopathy -- period.  Now, I left ND school in 2002 particularly because I refused to participate in naturopathic unethical sectarian pseudoscience, including homeopathy.  That school STILL labels naturopathy "science" and within that, there is huge amounts of homeopathy.  But, then again, what's to be expected from a school that labels the hugely science-ejected for decades "science"?  My current timer for all this is titled "15 Fraudulent Years On."  That is, 12 years ago I started at UBCNM, after a few years of science-prerequisites. 

004. meanwhile, naturopathy persists in labeling homeopathy a "science", particularly on their NPLEx licensure exam!