-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
Oh look, it's the fool shannon again, and he's found the U.S.'s foremost
drug-company owned and operated "quackbuster" (a quack meaning anyone who
fails to properly contribute to drug-company profits).
Someone point out to the poor numbskull that homeopathic remedies cost
fractions of a cent, and that worldwide, homeopathy is quite well respected
as a medical discipline.
Shannon naturally wouldn't have a clue, 'cuz his toob tells him no and he
hasn't a choice but to believe as he's told.
Poor guy..
Dave Hartley
http://www.asheville-computer.com/dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Conspiracy Theory Research List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of William Shannon
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 8:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [CTRL] TSD On Homeopathy
-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
In a message dated 2/29/00 9:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Enhancement of the natural immune system is by far our
best bet. >>
Yup, you might be right...but taking expensive water or sugar pills ain't
going to do diddly to your immune system.
Bill.
=====================================
Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Homeopathic "remedies" enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: They
are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs. This
situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a
homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances
included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the
FDA has not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs.
Today they are marketed in health-food stores, in pharmacies, in
practitioner
offices, by multilevel distributors [A], through the mail, and on the
Internet.
Basic Misbeliefs
Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician, began formulating
homeopathy's basic principles in the late 1700s. Hahnemann was justifiably
distressed about bloodletting, leeching, purging, and other medical
procedures of his day that did far more harm than good. Thinking that these
treatments were intended to "balance the body's 'humors' by opposite
effects," he developed his "law of similars" -- a notion that symptoms of
disease can be cured by extremely small amounts of substances that produce
similar symptoms in healthy people when administered in large amounts. The
word "homeopathy" is derived from the Greek words homoios (similar) and
pathos (suffering or disease).
Hahnemann and his early followers conducted "provings" in which they
administered herbs, minerals, and other substances to healthy people,
including themselves, and kept detailed records of what they observed. Later
these records were compiled into lengthy reference books called materia
medica, which are used to match a patient's symptoms with a "corresponding"
drug.
Hahnemann declared that diseases represent a disturbance in the body's
ability to heal itself and that only a small stimulus is needed to begin the
healing process. He also claimed that chronic diseases were manifestations
of
a suppressed itch (psora), a kind of miasma or evil sprit. At first he used
small doses of accepted medications. But later he used enormous dilutions
and
theorized that the smaller the dose, the more powerful the effect -- a
notion
commonly referred to as the "law of infinitesimals." That, of course, is
just
the opposite of the dose-response relationship that pharmacologists have
demonstrated.
The basis for inclusion in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia is not modern
scientific testing, but homeopathic "provings" conducted during the 1800s
and
early 1900s. The current (ninth) edition describes how more than a thousand
substances are prepared for homeopathic use. It does not identify the
symptoms or diseases for which homeopathic products should be used; that is
decided by the practitioner (or manufacturer). The fact that substances
listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia are legally recognized as "drugs"
does
not mean that either the law or the FDA recognizes them as effective.
Because homeopathic remedies were actually less dangerous than those of
nineteenth-century medical orthodoxy, many medical practitioners began using
them. At the turn of the twentieth century, homeopathy had about 14,000
practitioners and 22 schools in the United States. But as medical science
and
medical education advanced, homeopathy declined sharply in America, where
its
schools either closed or converted to modern methods. The last pure
homeopathic school in this country closed during the 1920s [1].
Many homeopaths maintain that certain people have a special affinity to a
particular remedy (their "constitutional remedy") and will respond to it for
a variety of ailments. Such remedies can be prescribed according to the
person's "constitutional type" -- named after the corresponding remedy in a
manner resembling astrologic typing. The "Ignatia Type," for example, is
said
to be nervous and often tearful, and to dislike tobacco smoke. The typical
"Pulsatilla" is a young woman, with blond or light-brown hair, blue eyes,
and
a delicate complexion, who is gentle, fearful, romantic, emotional, and
friendly but shy. The "Nux Vomica Type" is said to be aggressive, bellicose,
ambitious, and hyperactive. The "Sulfur Type" likes to be independent. And
so
on. Does this sound to you like a rational basis for diagnosis and
treatment?
The "Remedies" Are Placebos
Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and
several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is
diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or
alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground
and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar).
One
part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is
repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10
are
designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X =
1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman
numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today
range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.
A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic
centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the
number
of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of
the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that
it
disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of
saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will
possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist
who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that
since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C
solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance
dissolved in a minimum of
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,
000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30 billion
times the size of the Earth.
Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like
symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active
ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed
duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered,
freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar
granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive
the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number,
which
has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in
the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its
February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck
per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20
million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million
duck."
Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution
that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This
limit, called Avogadro's number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C
or 24X (1 part in 1024). Hahnemann himself realized that there is virtually
no chance that even one molecule of original substance would remain after
extreme dilutions. But he believed that the vigorous shaking or pulverizing
with each step of dilution leaves behind a "spirit-like" essence -- "no
longer perceptible to the senses" -- which cures by reviving the body's
"vital force." Modern proponents assert that even when the last molecule is
gone, a "memory" of the substance is retained. This notion is
unsubstantiated. Moreover, if it were true, every substance encountered by a
molecule of water might imprint an "essence" that could exert powerful (and
unpredictable) medicinal effects when ingested by a person.
Many proponents claim that homeopathic products resemble vaccines because
both provide a small stimulus that triggers an immune response. This
comparison is not valid. The amounts of active ingredients in vaccines are
much greater and can be measured. Moreover, immunizations produce antibodies
whose concentration in the blood can be measured, but high-dilution
homeopathic products produce no measurable response. In addition, vaccines
are used preventively, not for curing symptoms.
Stan Polanski, a physician assistant working in public health near
Asheville,
North Carolina, has provided additional insights:
Imagine how many compounds must be present, in quantities of a molecule or
more, in every dose of a homeopathic drug. Even under the most scrupulously
clean conditions, airborne dust in the manufacturing facility must carry
thousands of different molecules of biological origin derived from local
sources (bacteria, viruses, fungi, respiratory droplets, sloughed skin
cells,
insect feces) as well as distant ones (pollens, soil particles, products of
combustion), along with mineral particles of terrestrial and even
extraterrestrial origin (meteor dust). Similarly, the "inert" diluents used
in the process must have their own library of microcontaminants.
The dilution/potentiation process in homeopathy involves a stepwise dilution
carried to fantastic extremes, with "succussion" between each dilution .
Succussion involves shaking or rapping the container a certain way. During
the step-by-step dilution process, how is the emerging drug preparation
supposed to know which of the countless substances in the container is the
One that means business? How is it that thousands (millions?) of chemical
compounds know that they are required to lay low, to just stand around while
the Potent One is anointed to the status of Healer? That this scenario could
lead to distinct products uniquely suited to treat particular illnesses is
beyond implausible.
Thus, until homeopathy's apologists can supply a plausible (nonmagical)
mechanism for the "potentiation"-through-dilution of precisely one of the
many substances in each of their products, it is impossible to accept that
they have correctly identified the active ingredients in their products. Any
study claiming to demonstrate effectiveness of a homeopathic medication
should be rejected out-of-hand unless it includes a list of all the
substances present in concentrations equal to or greater than the purported
active ingredient at every stage of the dilution process, along with a
rationale for rejecting each of them as a suspect.
The process of "proving" through which homeopaths decided which medicine
matches which symptom is no more sensible. Provings involved taking various
substances recording every twitch, sneeze, ache or itch that occurred
afterward -- often for several days. Homeopathy's followers take for granted
that every sensation reported was caused by whatever substance was
administered, and that extremely dilute doses of that substance would then
be
just the right thing to treat anyone with those specific symptoms.
Dr. Park has noted that to expect to get even one molecule of the
"medicinal"
substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some
two billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus
whatever impurities the lactose contained.
"Electrodiagnosis"
Some physicians, dentists, and chiropractors use "electrodiagnostic" devices
to help select the homeopathic remedies they prescribe. These practitioners
claim they can determine the cause of any disease by detecting the "energy
imbalance" causing the problem. Some also claim that the devices can detect
whether someone is allergic or sensitive to foods, vitamins, and/or other
substances. The procedure, called electroacupuncture according to Voll
(EAV),
electrodiagnosis, or electrodermal screening, was begun during the late
1950s
by Reinhold Voll, M.D., a West German physician who developed the original
device. Subsequent models include the Vega, Dermatron, Accupath 1000, and
Interro.
Proponents claim these devices measure disturbances in the flow of
"electro-magnetic energy" along the body's "acupuncture meridians."
Actually,
they are fancy galvanometers that measure electrical resistance of the
patient's skin when touched by a probe. Each device contains a low-voltage
source. One wire from the device goes to a brass cylinder covered by moist
gauze, which the patient holds in one hand. A second wire is connected to a
probe, which the operator touches to "acupuncture points" on the patient's
foot or other hand. This completes a circuit, and the device registers the
flow of current. The information is then relayed to a gauge that provides a
numerical readout. The size of the number depends on how hard the probe is
pressed against the patient's skin. Recent versions, such as the Interro
make
sounds and provide the readout on a computer screen. The treatment selected
depends on the scope of the practitioner's practice and may include
acupuncture, dietary change, and/or vitamin supplements, as well as
homeopathic products. Regulatory agencies have seized several types of
electroacupuncture devices but have not made a systematic effort to drive
them from the marketplace.
For more information about these devices and pictures of some of them, click
here. If you encounter such a device, please read this article and report
the
device to the practitioner's state licensing board, the state attorney
general, the Federal Trade Commission, the FBI, the National Fraud
Information Center, and any insurance company to which the practitioner
submits claims that involve use of the device. For the addresses of these
agencies, click here.
Unimpressive "Research"
Since many homeopathic remedies contain no detectable amount of active
ingredient, it is impossible to test whether they contain what their label
says. Unlike most potent drugs, they have not been proven effective against
disease by double-blind clinical testing. In fact, the vast majority of
homeopathic products have never even been tested.
In 1990, an article in Review of Epidemiology analyzed 40 randomized trials
that had compared homeopathic treatment with standard treatment, a placebo,
or no treatment. The authors concluded that all but three of the trials had
major flaws in their design and that only one of those three had reported a
positive result. The authors concluded that there is no evidence that
homeopathic treatment has any more value than a placebo [2].
In 1994, the journal Pediatrics published an article claiming that
homeopathic treatment had been demonstrated to be effective against mild
cases of diarrhea among Nicaraguan children [3]. The claim was based on
findings that, on certain days, the "treated" group had fewer loose stools
than the placebo group. However, Sampson and London noted: (1) the study
used
an unreliable and unproved diagnostic and therapeutic scheme, (2) there was
no safeguard against product adulteration, (3) treatment selection was
arbitrary, (4) the data were oddly grouped and contained errors and
inconsistencies, (5) the results had questionable clinical significance, and
(6) there was no public health significance because the only remedy needed
for mild childhood diarrhea is adequate fluid intake to prevent or correct
dehydration [4].
In 1995, Prescrire International, a French journal that evaluates
pharmaceutical products, published a literature review that concluded:
As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable
outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their
placebo-responsiveness),
these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients.
However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date
there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo
therapy given in identical conditions.
In December 1996, a lengthy report was published by the the Homoeopathic
Medicine Research Group (HMRG), an expert panel convened by the Commission
of
the European Communities. The HMRG included homeopathic
physician-researchers
and experts in clinical research, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics, and
clinical epidemiology. Its aim was to evaluate published and unpublished
reports of controlled trials of homeopathic treatment. After examining 184
reports, the panelists concluded: (1) only 17 were designed and reported
well
enough to be worth considering; (2) in some of these trials, homeopathic
approaches may have exerted a greater effect than a placebo or no treatment;
and (3) the number of participants in these 17 trials was too small to draw
any conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for any
specific condition [5]. Simply put: Most homeopathic research is worthless,
and no homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic
purpose. The National Council Against Health Fraud has warned that "the
sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the
trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers." [6]
In 1997, a London health authority decided to stop paying for homeopathic
treatment after concluding that there was not enough evidence to support its
use. The Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham Health Authority had been
referring
more than 500 patients per year to the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in
London.
Public health doctors at the authority reviewed the published scientific
literature as part of a general move toward purchasing only evidence-based
treatments. The group concluded that many of the studies were
methodologically flawed and that recent research produced by the Royal
Homoeopathic Hospital contained no convincing evidence that homeopathy
offered clinical benefit [7].
Proponents trumpet the few "positive" studies as proof that "homeopathy
works." Even if their results can be consistently reproduced (which seems
unlikely), the most that the study of a single remedy for a single disease
could prove is that the remedy is effective against that disease. It would
not validate homeopathy's basic theories or prove that homeopathic treatment
is useful for other diseases.
Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential benefit of
relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed against the harm that can
result from relying upon -- and wasting money on -- ineffective products.
Spontaneous remission is also a factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe
that most people who credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would
have fared equally well without it.
Homeopaths are working hard to have their services covered under national
health insurance. They claim to provide care that is safer, gentler,
"natural," and less expensive than conventional care -- and more concerned
with prevention. The fact is, however, that homeopathic treatments prevent
nothing and many homeopathic leaders preach against immunization. Equally
bad, a report on the the National Center for Homeopathy's 1997 Conference
described how a homeopathic physician had suggested using homeopathic
products to help prevent and treat coronary artery disease. According to the
article, the speaker recommended various 30C and 200C products as
alternatives to aspirin or cholesterol-lowering drugs [8].
Illegal Marketing
In a survey conducted in 1982, the FDA found some over-the-counter products
being marketed for serious illnesses, including heart disease, kidney
disorders, and cancer. An extract of tarantula was being purveyed for
multiple sclerosis; an extract of cobra venom for cancer.
During 1988, the FDA took action against companies marketing "diet patches"
with false claims that they could suppress appetite. The largest such
company, Meditrend International, of San Diego, instructed users to place 1
or 2 drops of a "homeopathic appetite control solution" on a patch and wear
it all day affixed to an "acupuncture point" on the wrist to
"bioelectrically" suppress the appetite control center of the brain.
America's most blatant homeopathic marketer appears to be Biological
Homeopathic Industries (BHI) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, which, in 1983,
sent
a 123-page catalog to 200,000 physicians nationwide. Its products included
BHI Anticancer Stimulating, BHI Antivirus, BHI Stroke, and 50 other types of
tablets claimed to be effective against serious diseases. In 1984, the FDA
forced BHI to stop distributing several of the products and to tone down its
claims for others. However, BHI has continued to make illegal claims. Its
1991 Physicians' Reference ("for use only by health care professionals")
inappropriately recommended products for heart failure, syphilis, kidney
failure, blurred vision, and many other serious conditions. The company's
publishing arm issues the quarterly Biological Therapy: Journal of Natural
Medicine, which regularly contains articles whose authors make questionable
claims. An article in the April 1992 issue, for example, listed
"indications"
for using BHI and Heel products (distributed by BHI) for more than fifty
conditions-including cancer, angina pectoris, and paralysis. And the October
1993 issue, devoted to the homeopathic treatment of children, includes an
article recommending products for acute bacterial infections of the ear and
tonsils. The article is described as selections from Heel seminars given in
several cities by a Nevada homeopath who also served as medical editor of
Biological Therapy. In 1993, Heel published a 500-page hardcover book
describing how to use its products to treat about 450 conditions [9]. Twelve
pages of the book cover "Neoplasia and neoplastic phases of disease."
(Neoplasm is a medical term for tumor.) In March 1998, during an osteopathic
convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, a Heel exhibitor distributed copies of the
book when asked for detailed information on how to use Heel products.
Greater Regulation Is Needed
If the FDA required homeopathic remedies to be proven effective in order to
remain marketable -- the standard it applies to other categories of drugs --
homeopathy would face extinction in the United States. However, there is no
indication that the agency is considering this. FDA officials regard
homeopathy as relatively benign (compared, for example, to unsubstantiated
products marketed for cancer and AIDS) and believe that other problems
should
get enforcement priority. If the FDA attacks homeopathy too vigorously, its
proponents might even persuade a lobby-susceptible Congress to rescue them.
Regardless of this risk, the FDA should not permit worthless products to be
marketed with claims that they are effective. Nor should it continue to
tolerate the presence of quack "electrodiagnostic" devices in the
marketplace.
In August 1994, forty-two prominent critics of quackery and pseudoscience
asked the agency to curb the sale of homeopathic products. The petition
urges
the FDA to initiate a rulemaking procedure to require that all
over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic drugs meet the same standards of safety
and effectiveness as nonhomeopathic OTC drugs. It also asks for a public
warning that although the FDA has permitted homeopathic remedies to be sold,
it does not recognize them as effective. The FDA has not yet responded to
the
petition. However, on March 3, 1998, at a symposium sponsored by Good
Housekeeping magazine, former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler, M.D., J.D.,
acknowledged that homeopathic remedies do not work but that he did not
attempt to ban them because he felt that Congress would not support a ban
[10].
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing
propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and
outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to
readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
