Bad Medicine...Part 2

[TriangleMan]

So diluting potassium cyanide should cure you of the poisoning, were homeopathy correct.

Now there's a clinical trial I wouldn't want to be a part of.

It may even purport to make you immune to the possibility of poisoning.

So far, I'm with that earlier post that said that homeopathy gained followers in its early days because, unlike the drugs and therapies at that time, it at least didn't hurt you.

As for dilutive effects and water memory if such an effect existed we should be able to see it in nature as numerous species would have taken advantage of it in the course of their evolutionary development. An animal drinking from a stream that a poisonous snake swam through would become resistant to the snake's venom if homeopathic principles are correct yet that would be a severe evolutionary disadvantage to the snake - what's the point of having venom if things can become resistant to it drinking from a stream you once swam through?

[Charlie in Dayton]

my recently diagnosed diabetes

Preumably from a "regular" doctor---what, if anything, was prescribed?

Oh, absolutely...that particular medical family is now in its third generation if I recall right, and they've been my family practitioner literally since birth.

Prescribed? A couple of medications to increase the body's ability to metabolize sugar (Actos® and Glucontrol® - I'm hyperglycemic - that's the one where you go blind, your kidneys fall out, and your toes fall off), education to learn how to eat properly, regular exercise, daily checkiing of blood sugar levels. I walk at least 1 1/2 miles at least four times a week (and that's a bare minimum - it's usually more), and I poke a finger before breakfast daily. Things still need work, but sugar levels are improving. I want me and all my parts to make 80 concurrently...

On another matter...over on the JREF Board, I did a little mathematicality, and had the troops check my math. Starting with one drop (which is a legitimate scientific measure) of 'pure' whatever, and doing a 24x dilution (which is diluting 1:10, shaking, then taking the 1:10 and doing 1:10 of that, leaving 1:100 etc to a total of 24 times), you wind up with the equivalent of one drop diluted in 15,000,000 cubic MILES of water. And yet homeopaths claim that the more something is diluted, the more powerful it becomes.

??????????????????????

No way... [-(

[planethollywood]

the ultimate test for homeopathy just sprang to mind.

if plain water can retain the memory of any active ingredietent then why not a stain remover.

lets see them moved a day old red wine or grease stain with their 1:15000000 spot remover. HAH! how are them apples...

[captain swoop]

my recently diagnosed diabetes

Preumably from a "regular" doctor---what, if anything, was prescribed?

Oh, absolutely...that particular medical family is now in its third generation if I recall right, and they've been my family practitioner literally since birth.

Prescribed? A couple of medications to increase the body's ability to metabolize sugar (Actos® and Glucontrol® - I'm hyperglycemic - that's the one where you go blind, your kidneys fall out, and your toes fall off), education to learn how to eat properly, regular exercise, daily checkiing of blood sugar levels. I walk at least 1 1/2 miles at least four times a week (and that's a bare minimum - it's usually more), and I poke a finger before breakfast daily. Things still need work, but sugar levels are improving. I want me and all my parts to make 80 concurrently...

On another matter...over on the JREF Board, I did a little mathematicality, and had the troops check my math. Starting with one drop (which is a legitimate scientific measure) of 'pure' whatever, and doing a 24x dilution (which is diluting 1:10, shaking, then taking the 1:10 and doing 1:10 of that, leaving 1:100 etc to a total of 24 times), you wind up with the equivalent of one drop diluted in 15,000,000 cubic MILES of water. And yet homeopaths claim that the more something is diluted, the more powerful it becomes.

??????????????????????

No way... [-(

Check out Quackwatch and Homeowatch.

[sarongsong]

Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

[Sister Ray]

Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Is that the site run by that weird Hulda Clark supporter?

[Zamzara]

Just beacuse a court ruled homeopathy is not illegal, that doen't mean that it works or that quackwatch is wrong.

[FP]

After reading the sites' comments, I find it very reassuring that our legal system is deciding what is good medical care and keeping the pesky scientists and research in their place. #-o

Notice that nowhere (at least that I saw) does the court say any of the treatments promoted by the plaintiffs repesented by these guys actually work. The decisions seem to be on legal and proceedural grounds instead.

Just the way I want my care delivered!

[tuffel999]

Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but quackwatch is on the up and up. The author, Dr. Stephen Barrett MD, wrote Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions which was the text used by a friend of mine who went to the University of Wisconsin (hack cough oshkosh hack cough). I actually have the fifth edition of the book in a stack somewhere around my desk at home.

[swansont]

Notice that nowhere (at least that I saw) does the court say any of the treatments promoted by the plaintiffs repesented by these guys actually work. The decisions seem to be on legal and proceedural grounds instead.

And further, the legal decision was based on false advertising law. In order to win the case, you'd have to prove the product didn't do what it claimed. As I understand it, the plaintiffs argued that the homeopaths should have to prove that the treatment works (as one might expect of a drug). So it looks like it's a case of one group saying "prove that it works" and the other saying " prove that it doesn't."

There's also a note that "The FDA guidelines permit a homeopathic remedy, meeting the standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, to be marketed. With the exception of certain labeling and registration requirements not at issue, the FDA does not require homeopathic remedies to satisfy other requirements of the Act."

I'm no lawyer, but this sounds like rules governing supplements, not drugs. Say what's in the bottle, bit you don't have to prove it does anything.

[TriangleMan]

So does anyone have any links to placebo-controlled blind (preferably double-blind) studies on homeopathy? I suppose it's time to see some data on this stuff.

(beskeptical, where are you?)

[Eta C]

There's also a note that "The FDA guidelines permit a homeopathic remedy, meeting the standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, to be marketed. With the exception of certain labeling and registration requirements not at issue, the FDA does not require homeopathic remedies to satisfy other requirements of the Act."

This goes way back to when the FDA was created in 1938. To quote Park's "Voodoo Science,"

Homeopathy, it seems, retains a special legal status. In 1938 US Senator Royal Copeland of New York, a homeopath before he became a senator, slipped a provision into the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act granting homeopathic remedies a special exemption from FDA oversight ... homeopathic remedies could be marketed without any proof of safety or effectiveness. This exemption ... remains the law more than sixty years later.

So the reason homeopathy got exemption was because a homeopath made sure it got written into the law. Think he knew what would happen to his livelihood if his nostrums were subject to the same restrictions as other drugs? [-X

[mike alexander]

Just a start, TriangleMan.

Copyright © 2001, Jonas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in any medium for any non-commercial purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. For commercial use, contact info@biomedcentral.com
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2001; 1 (1): 12


A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials
Wayne B. Jonas, ,1 Rachel L. Anderson, ,2 Cindy C. Crawford, ,1 and John S. Lyons, 2


1Samueli Institute for Information Biology and Department of Family Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA


Corresponding author.


Wayne B. Jonas, : wjonas@siib.org; Rachel L. Anderson, : randerson@mail.public-health.uiowa.edu; Cindy C. Crawford, : ccrawford@siib.org; John S. Lyons, : jsl329@nwu.edu


Received July 13, 2001; Accepted December 31, 2001; Published December 31, 2001.

Top
Abstract
Background
Methods
Results
Discussion
Competing interests
References
Abstract

Background
While a number of reviews of homeopathic clinical trials have been done, all have used methods dependent on allopathic diagnostic classifications foreign to homeopathic practice. In addition, no review has used established and validated quality criteria allowing direct comparison of the allopathic and homeopathic literature.

Methods
In a systematic review, we compared the quality of clinical-trial research in homeopathy to a sample of research on conventional therapies using a validated and system-neutral approach. All clinical trials on homeopathic treatments with parallel treatment groups published between 1945–1995 in English were selected. All were evaluated with an established set of 33 validity criteria previously validated on a broad range of health interventions across differing medical systems. Criteria covered statistical conclusion, internal, construct and external validity. Reliability of criteria application is greater than 0.95.

Results
59 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 79% were from peer-reviewed journals, 29% used a placebo control, 51% used random assignment, and 86% failed to consider potentially confounding variables. The main validity problems were in measurement where 96% did not report the proportion of subjects screened, and 64% did not report attrition rate. 17% of subjects dropped out in studies where this was reported. There was practically no replication of or overlap in the conditions studied and most studies were relatively small and done at a single-site. Compared to research on conventional therapies the overall quality of studies in homeopathy was worse and only slightly improved in more recent years.

Conclusions
Clinical homeopathic research is clearly in its infancy with most studies using poor sampling and measurement techniques, few subjects, single sites and no replication. Many of these problems are correctable even within a "holistic" paradigm given sufficient research expertise, support and methods.

The above is the article summary. The entire text can be referenced.

[captain swoop]

Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

That's what the Quacks always say.

[planethollywood]

if pharmaceuticals companies thought if they could sell water as a cure all they would be doing it

[mike alexander]

if pharmaceuticals companies thought if they could sell water as a cure all they would be doing it

No, they wouldn't. And under regulations, they couldn't. Allopathic drugs have to be shown as both safe AND effective.

Why do so many people hate pharmaceutical companies so much? Aside from the large amounts of money many of them make?

[tuffel999]

Could be medication cost.

[planethollywood]

i don't hate them, just expect very capitalistic companies to sell everything they can. Including water as medicine. the fact that they don't (a very cheap medicine to produce and good margin of profit to be made) tells me that they don't think they could get away with.

Why? because it wouldn't pass a double blind test. It would be no better than a placebo. Most people don't realise even when they take prescribed medication for a sniffle or viral infection its your bodies immune system that did the work.

I remember talking to the family doctor back in the 80's about it. He would just tell me to drink plenty of fluids and eat some fruit. he also said that the older patients would complain if they didn't get their prescription of a bottle of pink medicine.

I would like to see alot of these complimentary medicines have stricter laws to protect people from fraud. homeopathic medicine is so much like faith healing where any success is a miracle and promoted like crazy by the local quacks and you never hear of the terminal cancer patient at the end of their rope chasing a miracle who died anyway (and alot poorer).

their are so many quacks of different flavours now, it worries me. when i hear the stories patients tell of complimentary medicines, i can't help feeling that a session with a psycologist would have been much better for them. I would like to see health insurance companies remove complimentary medicine from their available claims.

[mike alexander]

I didn't see where you were coming from, PlanetH. In the general sense, I agree with you (avoiding the legal/business pickypickytalk).

If you take drugs for symptomatic relief while your body deals with a rhinovirus, I also agree; the decongestent may make you feel better, but it doesn't affect the outcome. I will note that there are some partially effective antiviral medications now available for certain limited uses.

There are certain times when antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for a viral infection. For example, I once had a pretty bad case of viral pneumonia and my physician put me on an anitbiotic regimen to prevent an opportunistic lung infection while the viral thing cleared up. Special case.

I would generally favor extension of the Kefauver Amendment to cover all 'pharmaceuticals'. I say this with some trepidation, as I really don't like government interference. But I don't like the Ayn Rand "If enough people die from taking it, the company will have to pull it." philosophy, either.

Does the current structure favor large companies? Yup. Is the drug approval process as currently implemented by the FDA the only way to do it? Nope. Is it foolproof? Definitely not. Is this a complex and potentially dangerous business where some professionals with government oversight can provide some safeguards to a populace that cannot be reasonably expected to understand the complex issues? In my opinion, yes.

(In the interests of disclosure, I have worked in the health/pharmaceutical area for my entire career:government, multinational, biotech startup, and independent contract lab, where I currently am. You can weigh my opinions in that light.)

[tuffel999]

I will note that there are some partially effective antiviral medications now available for certain limited uses.

There are certain times when antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for a viral infection. For example, I once had a pretty bad case of viral pneumonia and my physician put me on an anitbiotic regimen to prevent an opportunistic lung infection while the viral thing cleared up. Special case.

There are many antivirals in studies now and many more on the way that are very efficent. HIV/AIDS is the biggest target right now for many reasons. One of the reasons is it is a 'sloppy' replicatory and does not replicate its genome(RNA not DNA it is a retro virus) with very high fidelity which allows it to mutate very quickly and avoid drugs targeted at it.

One of the big reasons for antibiotics with viral pneumonia is Pseudomonas aeruginosa. it is an orpotunistic pathnogen that is very antibiotic resistant and is a ***** to get rid of. http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact330/lecturepseudomonas

[sarongsong]

i don't hate them, just expect very capitalistic companies to sell everything they can. Including water as medicine. the fact that they don't (a very cheap medicine to produce and good margin of profit to be made) tells me that they don't think they could get away with. Why? because it wouldn't pass a double blind test. ...planethollywood

Water is not patentable, therefore not profitable.
Same holds true for colloidal silver (Ag+), distilled water and pure silver ions, which costs pennies to produce and in which no bacteria can survive more than 6 minutes;
Scientific American, 1914:
http://nctimes.net/~jimbud/sa1of3.htm
http://nctimes.net/~jimbud/sa20f3.htm
http://nctimes.net/~jimbud/sa3of3.htm
Not to worry, tho. Other corporations are quietly securing water rights world-wide for guess-what-purposes.

and you never hear of the terminal cancer patient at the end of their rope chasing a miracle who died anyway (and alot poorer)

You've heard of Steve McQueen?
http://www.drkelley.com/CANLIVER55.html#_Toc434240031

[captain swoop]

[quote="sarongsong"]

Same holds true for colloidal silver (Ag+), distilled water and pure silver ions, which costs pennies to produce and in which no bacteria can survive more than 6 minutes;

Coloidal silver

'Risk Without benefit'
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery.../silverad.html

[sarongsong]

Consider the source:
"Long-term use of silver preparations can lead to argyria, a condition in which silver salts..."
Where'd the salt come from?
"Silver preparations" is not the same as colloidal silver.
Strike two...

[tuffel999]

Consider the source:
"Long-term use of silver preparations can lead to argyria, a condition in which silver salts..."
Where'd the salt come from?
"Silver preparations" is not the same as colloidal silver.
Strike two...

Sorry sarong you strike out here. Long term ingestion of silver can cause a condition called argyria. Silver slats are merely the most common form ingested but not the only. Silver from many sources can cause argyria.

An excert from anarticle written by Kamila K Padlewska, MD and Robert A Schwartz, MD, MPH (it is in one of the links). While silver salts are one of the main causes at the bottom you will notice that the are giving silver levels not silver salts as you can eventually die from heavy metal poisoning from silver. There are reasons why you shouldn't drink suspensions of heavy metals to kill bacteria, they can kill you too.

Universal argyria: This can develop after long-term systemic treatment with silver salts containing drugs. This used to occur in patients who had taken silver protein suspension for chronic gastritis or gastric ulcer, or as nose drops. Argyria also happens as an occupational disease in workers who prepare artificial pearls or who are employed in the cutting and polishing of silver (absorption of silver dust).

The normal human body contains about 1 mg silver; the smallest amount of silver reported to produce generalized argyria in humans ranges from 4-5 g to 20-40 g. Silver at 50-500 mg/kg body weight is the lethal toxic dose in humans.

These are summary info:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticlekey=9439
http://www.5mcc.com/Assets/SUMMARY/TP0851.html
http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic595.htm

So these two are primary literature:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...;dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...;dopt=Abstract

And this one is a personal story form a patient:

http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose1.html

[captain swoop]

Gosh 2 scary adverts for machines to make your own coloidal silver!

[sarongsong]

Sorry sarong you strike out here

Your statements may be true EXCEPT for the above.
Like Dr. Barrett, you've lapsed into "salts", "silver from many sources", "suspensions of heavy metals", "silver salts containing drug[s]", " silver protein suspension", "workers who prepare artificial pearls" [?], "absorption of silver dust" and "Silver at 50-500 mg/kg body weight is the lethal toxic dose in humans".
None of which are applicable to colloidal silver, which is comprised of pure silver and distilled water, to which electric current is introduced, stripping positive-charged silver ions into suspension. You would drown before drinking enough to even give you a headache.
"...By establishing 100 parts of silver in a billion parts of water as hygienic for drinking in the Shuttle, NASA eliminates the need for the 1,000 to 1.500 ppb of chlorine generally used for purification..."
http://www.doulton.ca/vol6-3mar76.html
And the US Army just ordered 3 million gallons from Clifton Mining:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m64823.html
http://www.cliftonmining.com/ann0.htm
Rosemary Jacobs, by the way was not ingesting true colloidal silver.

[tuffel999]

Sarong some how you keep avoiding what is being pointed out here very simply. Silver is a HEAVY METAL. Excess heavy metal in the body can and does lead to various forms of HEAVY METAL poisoning. Plain and simple. I have emailed a biochemist friend of mine to answer a particular question but until I hear back I can't be 100% positive but I believe the way this works in silver is similar to Mercury. Mercury is extremely toxic but not too readily absorbed but don't go breaking thermometers to find out. On the other hand methyl mercury is VERY readily absorbed by the body making lower doses of this form more dangerous since lower doses are required. Silver salts MAY(I say MAY until I get this email back) work the smae way. Lead is another heavy metal that can be absorbed pure but is more readily absorbed in compound forms. SMALL and I mean SMALL amounts of all three of these will not kill you I have fillings to prove it but these are heavy metals which means they build up over time so repeated exposures cause increasing levels in the body. The federal standards for these metals in drinking water is WAY below the dangerous level. Please read the links for once here are more. These deal directly with silver levels and your coloidal stuff. Much still isn't known about the end impact of silver on humans but htere is enough preliminary data to warrant caution.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00971.html
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs146.html

[TriangleMan]

How did this thread go from homeopathy to colloidal silver anyway? :-?

Well in case it continues, does anyone have links to blind, placebo-controlled studies on colloidal silver? Rosemary didn't appear to have any links to any.

Meanwhile, I recalled that a US politician had problems with colloidal silver and turned blue.

[tuffel999]

Studies, course of action, and the full toxicology reports on all forms of silver where what I emailed out about. Being Thanksgiving here in the states I doubt I will hear back until monday unfortunately. Besides if it is bad medicine it belongs here there are all forms of bad medicine not just hoemopathy. I will add one other thing there are good medicine uses for silver in treating CERTAIN bacteria but wholesale ingestion of said product isn't one of them. Also most often the appearance of silver in water is either a natural or b leak through from certain filter types employed to kill bacteria.

Also for Sarong, before you beat this one up read the links carefully the FDA did say this:

"Colloidal silver ingredients and silver salts include silver proteins, mild silver protein, strong silver protein, silver chloride, and silver iodide. The dosage form of these colloidal silver products is usually oral, but product labeling also contains directions for topical and, occasionally, intravenous use."

Note the and that means both colloidal silver and silver slats NOT just silver salts.

[sarongsong]

Excess heavy metal in the body can and does lead to various forms of HEAVY METAL poisoning

No kidding.
"Excess" CS is eliminated thru the urinary tract, much as Vitamin C is.
What is your obsession with salt all about. There is no salt in CS unless you put it there.

"Colloidal silver ingredients and silver salts...

does anyone have links to blind, placebo-controlled studies on colloidal silver?

There aren't any---no one's about to put out the $2 million to do it.

a US politician had problems with colloidal silver and turned blue

That's because he made his own CS with TAP water instead of distilled.