Prof. Vithoulkas’ response to an article in the International Journal of Clinical Practice that claimed that homeopathic treatment has side effects.

To the Editor: International Journal of Clinical Practice

Sir,

I wish to comment on the paper “Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series” by Posadzki et al.”

The efficacy of homeopathy has always being denied with the argument that the remedies were inactive and therefore the curative results were due to placebo effect. In this study becomes apparent that there is actually a strong biological effect upon the human organism, something that was maintained all along by homeopaths (initial aggravation in serious diseases, proving symptoms etc.).

The well researched article by Posadzki et al giving evidence of the adverse effects of homeopathic remedies upon the human organisms, proves clearly that this fact cannot be denied any more. This was previously denied by many sceptics and allied scientists between them Prof. Ernst who signs this study and who, for many years, has denied the efficacy of homeopathy.

I believe that this paper is a good starting point for discussions between the two approaches: homeopathy and conventional medicine in order to be discovered each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

The Journal denied to publish this response !!

Original PDF document

See also:
- Proof for Homeopathy
- Denial
- Homeopathy and Wikipedia Censorship
- Homeopathy reduce DNA damage

Tags: homeopathy

In due respect, the above article is totally lame, especially for a POPULAR SCIENCE article.

This article is totally theoretical and doesn’t choose to cite any of the many (hundreds!) of basic science or clinical trials, most of which have found biological activity and/or clinical effects of homeopathic medicines as distinct from placebo.

First of all, using market samples of metal-derived medicines from reputable manufacturers, scientists at the Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have demonstrated for the first time using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates.

The # of nanoparticles remaining in EACH of the 6 samples were considerably higher than the # of many hormones that circulate in our bodies (which are often in extremely low doses!).

I assume that your magazine will next assert that the atomic bomb was also a placebo because those exceedingly small particles could not “possibly” have significant effects. Well, so much for theory. Please refer to RESEARCH next time.

As for Avogadro’s number, such important concepts are not relevant when dealing with complex systems such as water and vigorous shaking in glass vials (do you understand that 6 parts per million of silica fragments fall off the glass walls from shaking?)(do you understand that the shaking creates bubbles and “nano-bubbles” that dramatically change the water pressure?)(is it possible that these factors influence what is being diluted?…the answer is CERTAINLY!).

Source: Is Homeopathy Really As Implausible As It Sounds?

See also:
- Intellectual Stupidity
- There Is Plenty of Scientific Evidence for Homeopathy – All Things Mothering
- Pharmaceutical lobby and Lobbying

Tags: homeopathy