Back

Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy

The infinitesimally low concentration of homeopathic preparations, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance,[1] has been the basis of questions about the effects of the preparations since the 19th century. Modern advocates of homeopathy have proposed a concept of "water memory", according to which water "remembers" the substances mixed in it, and transmits the effect of those substances when consumed. This concept is inconsistent with the current understanding of matter, and water memory has never been demonstrated to exist, in terms of any detectable effect, biological or otherwise.[2][3]

James Randi and the 10:23 campaign groups have highlighted the lack of active ingredients in most homeopathic products by taking large 'overdoses'.[4] None of the hundreds of demonstrators in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US were injured and "no one was cured of anything, either".[4][5]

Outside of the alternative medicine community, scientists have long considered homeopathy a sham[6] or a pseudoscience,[7][8][9][10] and the mainstream medical community regards it as quackery.[9] There is an overall absence of sound statistical evidence of therapeutic efficacy, which is consistent with the lack of any biologically plausible pharmacological agent or mechanism.[11]

Abstract concepts within theoretical physics have been invoked to suggest explanations of how or why preparations might work, including quantum entanglement,[12] quantum nonlocality,[13] the theory of relativity and chaos theory. Contrariwise, quantum superposition has been invoked to explain why homeopathy does not work in double-blind trials.[14] However, the explanations are offered by nonspecialists within the field, and often include speculations that are incorrect in their application of the concepts and not supported by actual experiments.[15]: 255–6  Several of the key concepts of homeopathy conflict with fundamental concepts of physics and chemistry.[16] The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state that rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second.[17] While entanglement may result in certain aspects of individual subatomic particles acquiring linked quantum states, this does not mean the particles will mirror or duplicate each other, nor cause health-improving transformations.[17]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ernst2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Maddox J (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature (editorial). 333 (6176): 1349–56. Bibcode:1988Natur.333Q.787.. doi:10.1038/333787a0. S2CID 4369459.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference delusion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Sam Jones, "Homeopathy protesters to take 'mass overdose' outside Boots", The Guardian, January 29, 2010
  5. ^ Coghlan A (February 1, 2010). "Mass drug overdose – none dead". New Scientist. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  6. ^ Caulfield, Timothy; Rachul, Christen (2011). "Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public". Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. 7 (1): 14. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-14. PMC 3182944. PMID 21920039. Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham
  7. ^ Tuomela, R (1987). "Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P (eds.). Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 98. Springer. pp. 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4. ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
  8. ^ Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics. 26 (9): 508–12. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x. S2CID 143067523.
  9. ^ a b Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). "Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How do They Differ?". Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century. Springer. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2. ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery
  10. ^ Ladyman J (2013). "Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience". In Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3. Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely).
  11. ^ Ernst, E. (2002). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 54 (6): 577–82. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x. PMC 1874503. PMID 12492603.
  12. ^ "Issues surrounding homeopathy". National Health Service. Archived from the original on May 13, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
  13. ^ Rose Shapiro (September 30, 2010). Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All. Random House. pp. 97–. ISBN 978-1-4090-5916-5.
  14. ^ Milgrom, Lionel R. (2007). "Journeys in the Country of the Blind: Entanglement Theory and the Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings". Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 4 (1): 7–16. doi:10.1093/ecam/nel062. PMC 1810362. PMID 17342236.
  15. ^ Shelton, JW (2004). Homeopathy: How it really works. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-109-4.
  16. ^ "Homeopathy: An Introduction". NCCAM. April 30, 2012. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
  17. ^ a b Orzel, Chad (2009). How to Teach Physics to Your Dog. Simon & Schuster. pp. 221–23. ISBN 978-1416579014.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search