Homeopathy 4 Health

The alternative medical modality of holistic, natural,

safe, individualised, side-effect-free and affordable health care

Hermes once separated two serpents entwined in mortal combat to bring about peace. These serpents were later included in the medical Caduceus as a sign of wellbeing.



















site stats

You are viewing: Criticisms & Replies - Level 1 

Criticisms & Replies

All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed;
then it is violently opposed;
finally it is accepted as self-evident.'
1788 - 1860 Arthur Schopenhaur
Metaphysical philanthropist

1. Its all Mumbo Jumbo

2. Homeopathy was better in the old days

3. The Placebo Effect

4. Lack of Consistency in results

5. The Dilution Effect

6. Homeopathy cannot solve everythig

7. Homeopathy kills people

8. It can delay real treatment

9. Seroius illness may be undiagnosed

10. Homeopathy can't work

11. Homeopathy contradicts science

12. Homeopathy is anti-Christian & God

13. Homeopathy is anti-Christian & the Holy Spirit

14. Homeopathy is anti-Christian & Voodoo

15. Homeopathy is anti-Christian & Black Magic

16. Homeopathy is anti-Christian & Morality

17. Is Modern Medicine anti-Christian?

18. The Lancet & "The Death of Homeopathy"

19. Critic of "Halloween Science" by Singh & Ernst

20. The James Randi Challenge

21. The H4H Skeptic Challenge

1. Criticism - It is all Mumbo Jumbo
With acknowledgements to H:MC21 Homeopathy worked for me
This criticism is rarely stated as baldly as this, perhaps because it is so easy to disprove. Virtually every argument against homeopathy which is used today was used within the first 50 years of the discovery of its principles.  For example, in a UK television programme on Channel 4 in 2007 Professor Dawkins compared the preparation of a remedy to adding a single drop to the ocean, an argument specifically countered by Hahnemann in 1827 (Samuel Hahnemann, 'How can small doses of such very attenuated medicine as homoeopathy employs still possess great power?' (Reine Arzeneimittellehre vi, 1827, reprinted in Lesser Writings (New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2002) p.729).

In fact, the only really new argument (that homeopathy is proved ineffective during scientific trials) is fundamentally flawed.  In the 1950s the dramatic failure of the methods of testing drugs (such as Thalidomide) led to the proposal that double blind randomised control trials (DBRCTs) should be used. These trials were proposed because the large number of unknown factors affecting such tests made it impossible to assess accurately the effects of a new medicine. Since then these factors have remained unknown, and drugs have still been withdrawn after being adopted on the basis of DBRCT results (such as Vioxx). In other words, this approach has shown itself to be inadequate, but there has still been no significant development in medical science which could allow it to be replaced with a more accurate method of testing.  This also means that there has been no significant development in medical science capable of disproving homeopathy, despite the claims of its opponents.

2. Criticism - Homeopathy was better in the old days
This myth is based on the idea that homeopathy was only successful in comparison with blood-letting and other violent treatments or because it provided a healthier environment for the sick. While these undoubtably made homeopathy a better alternative, they are unable to explain the success rates of homeopathic hospitals in epidemics throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
In the case of cholera, for example, the death rate in 1831 in Austria was over 50% when citizens used conventional treatment, but fell to between 2.4% and 21.1% under homeopathic treatment (1), the death rate in 1849 in Cincinnati was between 48% and 60% in conventional hospitals and only 3% for those having homeopathic treatment (2), while the average death rate from cholera in 1991 in parts of South America was 70% (3). In other words, conventional treatment in the nineteenth century was better than nothing at all, but neither conventional treatment nor doing nothing were anything like as good as homeopathic treatment.
(1) Dana Ullman, Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1991), pp. 39-40; (2) Dana Ullman, Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1991), pp. 42-43; (3)

3.Criticism Placebo Effect
The placebo criticism is the tendency of any medication or treatment to exhibit results simply because the recipient believes that it will work. A Homeopathic placebo refers to the possibility that the patients improvement is a function of their belief that they will benefit from treatment rather than any intrinsic property contained in the remedy itself.

) This is demonstrably not the case where comparisons are based on a comprehensive literature search; appropriate classification of primary studies; clear discrimination between clinical effectiveness and placebo questions together with the use of sound and transparent review methods as confirmed by the last six meta and systemic analysis which all demonstrated significantly in favour of Homeopathy.
For details & references of trials click MORE below

b) The latest World Health Organisation (WHO) report on Homeopathy concludes that the majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years have demonstrated that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials. Furthermore, it says that homoeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicines in the treatment of illnesses, both in humans and animals. 

c) A placebo effect is also dependent on the patient expecting a particular result.  So with the huge investment in marketing conventional drugs, one should logically expect an enhanced placebo effect from use of those drugs. The idea that an unconventional treatment, which is regularly ridiculed by conventional medical practitioners and experts, has a more powerful placebo effect than would happen with conventional drugs, is a denial of the principles of the effect.

d) In the conventional placebo effect the symptoms which the patient believes are being treated get better, but the reaction to a homeopathic remedy is much more complicated.  

For example, a homeopath can identify that:
i)   there is a serious problem of pathological change in the body's tissues
ii)  the patient is only being palliated by the remedy
iii)  the patient is being made worse by the remedy
iv)  the patient has not reacted
v)   the patient is getting better, but the potency is not the best one
vi)  the patient is getting better but the remedy is not the best one
vii) the patient is getting better and the choice of remedy and potency are exactly right
This range of reactions cannot be explained by the conventional placebo effect.

e) Millions of empirical results over 2 centuries from all over the world testify to the efficacy of Homeopathy. I know the term empirical is not fashionable in some circles. The word itself means originating in or based on observation or experience/ that which relies on experience or observation/ that which is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. A central concept in science is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. In this way science distinguishes itself from philosophy and the esoteric. Such a weight of evidence by so many over such a great length of time would in any court of law of accepted as beyond reasonable doubt.
For still more information about the relevance of empirical data click MORE below and read about the investigation into the effectiveness of the parachute.

f) Favourable results on infants (too young to appreciate what a placebo is) strongly confirm the efficacy of Homeopathy.
For details & references of trials click MORE below

g) Favourable results on end of life folk (too ill and old to remember what a placebo is) strongly confirm the efficacy of Homeopathy.
For details & references of trials click MORE below

h) Favourable results on animals from mice to race horses (all of which have never known what a placebo is) strongly confirm the efficacy of Homeopathy.
For details & references of trials click MORE below

i) Favourable results on plants and crops (all of which have no mind let alone know what a placebo is) strongly confirm the efficacy of Homeopathy.
For details & references of trials click MORE below

j) Finally why is all this excitement directed against the placebo effect by the medicos when in essence by all accounts it is a powerful source of self healing? If this could be understood and harnessed fully what infinite good it could bring to all of humanity. Would not a medical art designed to harness this effect to the full be worth its own place of right in the medical firmament.

4.Criticism Lack of Consistency in Results
This criticism states that although there may have been a few positive findings in favour of Homeopathy there are an equal number (or more) showing a nil or negative response. Collectively therefore, on the basis of consistency, the expectation of results from Homeopathy must be one of no benefit over placebo

The lack of consistent results from Homeopathic trials can be attributed to several reasons including.

a)  The fact that many trials are set up by non qualified Homeopaths and consequently have a flaw in their design and methodology. This may not have been intentional on the part of the experimenters but due rather to an inadequate understanding of Homeopathic laws, essentials and philosophy. One cannot expect to prove (or disprove) Homeopathy having violated, in the trial methodology, one or more of the basic tenants of the scientific art. Examples of this include:

- the use of only one homeopathic at a single potency and dosage.

- the employment of repeat dosing of Homeopathics over a fixed time scale regardless of result.

- Homeopathic treatment based on diagnosis rather symptomology

- terminating a trial too quickly and recording the first evidence of change as negative for Homeopathy when in reality the initial change (or worsening) was nothing other than Homeopathic aggravation

- difficulties in agreeing a treatment end point. For example in a skin problem a conventional drug has only to attenuate the skin condition (which it does through suppression) in order to arrive at the end point.However the objective of Homeopathy is not palliation but cure. This may take considerably longer (working through the individual's own natural immune system) yet no allowance in time is provided. The trial is simply terminated after signs of palliation in favour of the conventional drug.

- no account is taken as to the condition of the complaint after withdrawal of the conventional drug (ie did the condition reappear after withdrawal). In the case of Homeopathy working towards cure there should be no reoccurrence of the original condition at the end of treatment

b) more recently the randomised control trial (RTC) has been used as a trial method. This technique in some researchers eyes is the gold standard of testing. However it has several shortcomings including 

- failure to allow for individualisation of symptomology, treatment, potency and remedy. The RCT system is inflexible in its nature since it seeks to standardise all factors in an attempt to eliminate variability. There is no room for the infinitely flexible Homeopathic approach. If the treatment cannot lend itself to a common denominator then the RCT method is not suitable. Homeopathy does not fit the RCT mould.

- The RCT seeks to separate therapy from the context in which it is used. For Homeopaths the consultancy interview is an intrinsic part of the complete experience. Furthermore in daily practice the patient does not receive treatment in isolation. In the case of conventional medicine there is the experience of going to the doctor or of attending hospital both experiences of which can be therapeutic in themselves. In the case of Homeopathy there is the consultancy interview. In seeking to eliminate the effect of therapy and context in which it is used the RCT places itself in an artificial position which is never experienced in daily life.

- an over reliance on RCT methodology as the only way of obtaining evidence based results. This approach blinds one to the possibilities of equally valid alternative possibilities more suitable to the exploration of therapies like Homeopathy. Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), agrees, as do I. The notion that evidence can reliably be placed in hierarchies is illusory, he says. Hierarchies place RCTs on an undeserved pedestal for, although the technique has advantages, it also has significant disadvantages. To understand us humans, you have to look at the whole picture, which is what individualisation is all about.
Clinical research in complementary therapies, principles, problems and solutions. Lewith,G., Jonas W.B., and Walach,h. 2003 Churchill-Livingston, London.

- RCTs are inordinately expensive with the result that trials are shortened as much as possible thus mitigating against the Homeopathic objective of long term cure.
Click MORE below for further information on the Limitations of RCT trials.

5.Criticism Dilution Effect
This criticism stems from the potentisation of Homeopathic remedies in which the remedys active ingredient is diluted beyond Avogadros Limit and therefore cannot contain any residual molecule of the original remedy. Since Avogadros Limit corresponds to 24X or over any Homeopathic remedy at or over 24 X or 12 C cannot contain any molecule of the original remedy. The so called Homeopathic remedy is therefore only water/alcohol or sugar.

a) Firstly it must be pointed out that the bulk of Homeopathic remedies sold to the general public are below 24X and therefore fall within Avogadros Limit
and of a consequence must contain some molecules of the original remedy. This is so because most of the remedies sold to the public are from chemist shops (or similar) which by and large only stock low potency Homeopathics.

b) At the same time I must concede that the bulk of Homeopathics prescribed by physicians are above 24 X and therefore contain no molecule of the original remedy. Furthermore I concede that remedies above 24 X in molecular chemistry terms reveal a presence of only water/alcohol and sugar. I do not concede however that the water/alcohol and sugar in the molecular chemistry of a Homeopathic remedy is the sum total of what the patient receives. The remedy contains a powerful source of energy for rebalancing an unbalanced and disturbed state through the bodys own natural immune system. Can this energy be quantified by say the use of mathematics or quantum physics rather than chemistry? The answer is partially but not completely at this time. Here is some information however which goes some way to providing the complete answer.

i) Benveniste and Water Memory
The most significant work to be published was in the 1988 June edition of Nature by Benveniste and co-workers in which they carried out an experiment with white blood cells of the human immune system and an ultra dilute solution of serum. The solution diluted well above the Avogadro limit was shown to have a biological effect. Benveniste claimed the water retained a memory of the original thus maintaining its effect.

Although Benvenistes work suffered fierce criticism both at the time and subsequently more recent work has tended to confirm his original findings. It can be said with certitude that homeopathic dilution differs from that of water and that the various dilutions give the remedy different characteristics.

Science is slowly but surely finding answers to the challenge of potentisation. Whether there is enough evidence at present to convince the skeptics is doubtful but there is sufficient evidence to show the probability of Homeopathic philosophy to be factually based. At this stage I suppose the jury is still out and were all waiting a definitive verdict. However the momentum is with the Homeopaths. Slowly and surely the balance will tipple in Homeopathys favour. Until that day we will have to be patient.
Click MORE for much much more on Benvenistes life & work

ii) Looking beyond Avogadro  
Quantum physics basically looks beyond Avogadro and the molecule (which inself is based on the Newtonian philosophy of material matter) with its own fundamental law and principle that matter is both uncreatable and indestructible. Taken to its logical conclusion this means that matter cannot be diluted out. Some part of it will always exist. What can exist if there is no molecule left? The answer is surely energy in the form of the equation E = mc (where E = energy in Joules, M = mass in g and c= the speed of light in m/sec). But that is Homeopathy is it not?

General relativity is a universal principle applying to everything in the universe. Albert Einstein in 1905 enunciated the general Law of Relativity which stated Every system of co-ordinates is a reference body with equal rights in the formulation of the general laws in nature.  Einstein did not claim that systems are equal, no they have equal rights or they are similar in certain aspects. In fact what it said was if homeopathic dilutions are nothing or zero this would be a violation of this principle.

A century earlier Hahnemann expressed the same thoughts thus It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence. In its crude state therefore, it may be considered to consist really only of this underdeveloped conceptual essence. Organon 270

Surely Hahnemann and Einstein were expressing the same phenomena in different ways. Thus Homeopathy may owe more by way of explanation to the laws of Einsteins, quantum physics and relativity than to Newtons and Avogadros concept of molecular matter.
For further information click the hyperlink below

6. Criticism - It cannot solve everything
With acknowledgements to H:MC21 Homeopathy worked for me
No homeopath would claim to be able to cure everything, or even to help in every case.   For unknown reasons some people with chronic illnesses do not respond well to the homeopathy, just as some people fail to respond to other therapies. In addition there are circumstances which require a different sort of intervention.   For example, while homeopathy may speed up the healing of broken bones, if they are not set properly, they will not heal correctly. There are also cases in which rapid intervention is needed to save life, such as severe injury, a severe asthmatic attack, or a severe allergic reaction. In such cases conventional medicine can save the life, but homeopathy can still have a role in speeding up recovery and working to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

7. Criticism - Homeopathy kills people
With acknowledgements to H:MC21 Homeopathy worked for me
"This is a very new myth, and is literally impossible to amnswer. What is actually meant - is that homeopaths prevent or delay the use of "real" medicine, leading to the possibility of a patient dying sooner than they might have done.  In other words it is simply the argument that homeopathy is ineffective, dressed up in a more dramatic and particularly aggressive form 

Since Homeopathics stimulate the body's own healing processes, their action is precisely opposed to that of fatal illness. Only hypothetical evidence is ever produced to support this myth, since the truth is that generally patients come to homeopaths AFTER conventional treatment has failed, rather than before conventional treatment. The truth is that even in the teeth of death, when nothing can be done to stop what is happening or to extend life, homeopathy can still give relief and dignity to a person's last moments.

8. Criticism - It can delay 'real' treatment
With acknowledgements to H:MC21 Homeopathy worked for me
This is a popular objection at present and is based on the assumption that homeopathy does not work, and only deludes the patient rather than helps them. 

This is a purely hypothetical objection, and is an attempt to scare people rather than inform them.
The reverse case is far more common, since many patients come to a homeopath because conventional medicine has failed to help them.   Given that the best time for homeopathic treatment is in the earliest stages of illness (whether acute or chronic), the success of homeopathy in such cases is evidence of its power as a therapy, and the reality of its effects.

9. Criticism - Serious illnesses may not be diagnosed in time
IF this is a problem, it is certainly not unique to homeopathy, since "Studies of autopsies have shown that doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time." (New York Times,  accessed 29 December 2007). Homeopaths who are not fully trained in medical diagnosis have been taught to refer patients back to their GP for tests, if they suspect a serious illness that has not been diagnosed. But it is in the nature of homeopathy that it can offer a well trained practitioner much greater knowledge of the health of the patient than can be obtained through a conventional medical consultation.

10.Criticism Homeopathy doesnt work because it cant work
The basis for this is that Homeopathy defies the known and established laws of nature (both in term of the Law of Similars as well as the Law of Potentisation) and of a consequence cannot work. It is thus illogical and unscientific and can only exist in the machinations of a metaphysical mind.

My reply is in terms of science itself. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines science as Any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. Therefore the hypothesis that Homeopathy does not work because it cannot work is unscientific because it is not grounded in observation.

Unless my worthy opponents can scientifically prove a negative (ie that Homeopathy cant work) one must keep an open mind to the possibility that it can work. Im told by many that to prove a negative is impossible therefore in the name of science one must always keep an open mind as to the possibility that eventually unequivocal proof will be found.

11. Criticisism - Homeopathy Contradicts the Laws of Science
With acknowledgements to H:MC21 Homeopathy worked for me
This is another myth which depends on believing that the only scientific laws which matter are those of chemistry.   In fact it is modern conventional medicine (based on the idea that everything about us can be explained by chemistry and biology), which attempts to contradict the known laws of science.
Our knowledge of biology has revealed that living organisms (like us) are homeostatic.   This means that they make sure that their internal environment is maintained within a range of "normal" limits, controlling the pressure of blood in different parts of the body, the temperature of the body, and the rate of different processes in the body.   Any change which takes the body outside these limits is met by balancing changes to bring it back to normal.   Obvious examples include sweating in order to cool down, shivering to get warm, increasing the heart rate to supply more oxygen to muscles when running, increasing acid production in the stomach in order to digest food, and so on.
In illness the same process takes place: the fever in 'flu kills the virus infecting the body; white blood cells are delivered to cuts to deal with infection; and vomiting and diarrhea expel poisoned food.   Sometimes it is not possible for the body to return to a normal state, and symptoms persist as a chronic illness.   The laws of homeostasis indicate that the correct way to treat such an illness is to stimulate the body's reactions against the symptoms, which is what homeopathy does.   Conventional medicine, however, attempts to stop the symptoms directly, and the result is that the body reacts against the drug, producing side effects and sometimes rebound effects.   The nature of natural laws is that you ignore them at your peril.

12. Criticism Homeopathy is anti-Christian
It claims to act in areas which are Gods prerogative.
This criticism originates from a misunderstanding of what the precise areas of Homeopathic activity are in an individual. Homeopathics are considered to act in a tripartite spiritual manner which conflict with divine ordination in that they seek to influence the spirit in man a domain solely the preserve of the divine.

At the risk of over simplification a summary of the nature of man is set out below from the two stand points.
The Christian believes in a tripartite spiritual man namely
The Spirit which is that part of man that is God aware. This is the part which communicates from man to God and from God to man. It is also the element of spiritual man which survives death. The origins of Spirit (Holy Spirit) stem from creation when God breathed into Adam the breath of life. It represents one part of the triune deity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
The Mind in spiritual man is that part in him which knows right from wrong and represents the conscience and rational side.
The Soul (heart) in spiritual man corresponds to the emotional side and is represented by actions such as worship, prayer, humility, philanthropy etc

Homeopaths also believe in tripartite man but on a purely physical non spiritual level namely
The Body as represented by the five senses of sight, hearing, feeling, touch and smell which all cease to exist at death. There is no equivalent to the Spirit which in terms of spiritual man survives death.
The Brain (mind) as represented by rational thought, will, perception, reason, imagination, memory etc These cerebral attributes run complimentary to those attributes of the mind in spiritual man.
Emotions (heart) as represented by action, demeanor, deportment, behaviour, manners, proprietary, control, reactions, temper, anger, depression, despondency, hatred etc These emotional attributes run complimentary to those attributes of the soul or heart in spiritual man. 

Thus the two concepts are entirely discrete and separate from each other the one acting on a spiritual level the other on a physical level. Homeopathy only acts on physical non spiritual man and consequently there can be no conflict.

13. Criticism Homeopathy is anti-Christian
The Concept of Vital Force Replaces the Holy Spirit
This criticism is based on the supposition that Homeopathys Vital Force is equivalent in origin and function to the Holy Spirit.

There are many differences between Homeopathys Vital Force and the Holy Spirit including
- The Vital Force is a biological physical force whereas that of the Holy Spirit is a spiritual divine force.
- The Vital Force acts on physical man the Holy Spirit acts on spiritual man
- The Vital Force acts through the PNEI Axis (Psycho, Neuoro, Endocrino and Immuno) whereas the action of the Holy Spirit is as a result of faith.
- The Vital Force requires no faith to be effective. Homeopathy will work regardless of whether or not the patient believes in its effectiveness. The power of the Holy Spirit is predicated solely by faith on the part of the individual towards God.
- The Vital Force is present in all living things (man, animals and plants). The Holy Spirit is not. It is only present in humans and is one of the distinguishing characteristics between man and animals/ plants.
- The Vital Force has no spiritual role whatever and cannot represent man to God or vice versa.
- The Vital Force ceases on death whereas the Holy Spirit continues into the after life.
- The origin of the Vital Force lies in the living organisms DNA whereas the origin of the Holy Spirit lies in the divine Trinity.
- The function of the Vital Force is the maintenance of physical health and wellbeing. The function of the Holy Spirit is the maintenance of spiritual health and wellbeing.

14. Criticism Homeopathy is anti-Christian
It is Like Voodoo
This criticism stems from a misunderstanding of the similimum which is equated by some Christians to be similar to sticking pins into a doll effigy to bring pain and suffering upon its likeness.

The objective of voodoo is to bring pain and suffering. The objective of a homeopathic is the reverse (ie to restore balance and wellbeing). Acupuncture deals with pins and needles which are inserted into an individual. This practice however does not seem to raise as many objections in the Christians mind. Why are such criticisms constantly reserved for Homeopathy?
Furthermore the similimum at the time of Homeopathic administration is not similar to the illness it seeks to relieve. Rather it is the reverse of the illness and consequently its action will be counter to the illness and in the direction of cure. This is because Homeopathics are potentised remedies (ie they are diluted). This potentisation has the effect of reversing polarity so that its former action or activity is reversed as per Arndt & Schultzs Law. Thus the original similar polarity between the illness and remedy upon which the remedy was first selected (ie Law of Similars) has been reversed due to potentisation (ie Law of  Potenisation) so that the remedy will act in a reverse manner to that of the illness and in harmony with the natural vital force of the body along the
PENI (Psyco, Endocrino, Neuro & Immunological) Axis.
For further information on the Laws of Arndt & Shultz, and Potentisation click MORE below

15. Criticism Homeopathy is anti-Christian
Its like Black Magic
It is claimed that the pill contains nothing (ie no remedial content) and hence believing in its action is like believing in Black Magic.

This criticism is a variation of the dilution effect objection.
Please refer to Criticism 5 Dilution Effect by way of reply 

16. Criticism Homeopathy is anti-Christian
Its Amoral

This criticism originates from the fact that Homeopathics cannot be chemically analysed and hence their sale is amoral since the medicinal content is incapable of being defined, quantified, measured or even proven to be present.

Assume that you have two CDs for sale. The one is a classical recording of Handels Messiah whilst the second contains a rendition of Joshua Tree by Bono and U2. Upon chemical analysis the two CDs are found to be identical. Would you be amoral to sell the CDs as different items? If not why not? The answer is of course no. The reason is simply because the application of a chemical test is an inappropriate way of measuring the difference between the two CDs. There is a difference in resonance between the two CDs. This fact separates between them. The same is true with Homeopathy. A chemical assay is not the appropriate way to determine the efficacy of a Homeopthic. There is a difference in resonance between Homeopathics. 

17. Criticism - Is Modern Medicine anti- Christian?
In my experience there is a general acceptance on the part of Christians to accept modern medical ethics and practices without demur. (There are a few notable exceptions in specific areas such as stem cell research, abortion, birth control, euthanasia etc). However in the main conventional medicine is generally accepted as a given. I raise the following issues in an attempt to stimulate discussion beyond Homeopathy and into the broader area of medicine in general.

-Is a standard conventional medical system which focuses entirely on the five senses of the body without regard to the whole individual (body, brain and emotions) Christian?
- Is a medical system that will not acknowledge the existence of a Vital Force in an individual Christian? Did not Jesus address issues of mind, emotions and feeling when curing the sick?
- Is a medical system that depends on synthetic drugs (rather than natural remedies) Christian?
- Is a medical system that is driven by profit oriented pharmaceutical companies rather then the plight of the suffering poor Christian?
- Is a medical system that alters through surgery the natural body created in Gods image under the guise of beauty enhancement Christian?
- Is the attitude of the medical profession of non involvement, separateness and isolation from the patient Christian? Did Jesus act in such a way on earth when he went about his healing ministry?
- Is the promotion of marital activities outside of marriage through the use of medical interventions Christian?
- Is a profession which basis its research by inflicting pain and suffering on animals Christian?
- Is a profession that seeks to deny the exercise of free will for patients to select the health system of their own choice Christian?

I wonder why the religious fail to speak up boldly against issues such as those enumerated above which assault the brain and emotions (ie the whole individual) through the liberal use of harsh and questionable allopathic drugs and interventionist procedures. They seem to have lost their collective voice in the face of so called science. Surely its high time for the moralists to speak out boldly against such abuse from the drugs and practices of a profession that is destroying the very brains and emotions of patients they profess to help. 

18. Criticism The Lancet & the Death of Homeopathy
In August 2005, the weekly journal The Lancet published a new study on the effectiveness of homeopathy. In its editorial the journal drew some surprisingly controversial and unfavourable conclusions on homeopathy. It concerns a meta analysis which like previous meta-analyses concludes that homeopathic medicine is effective. In order arrive at the opposite conclusion however, the authors implicitly removed trials favourable to homeopathy on the grounds of quality.

a) The originally selected meta trial with a data base
of 220 (110Homeopathic,110 conventional medicine trials) which showed a positive difference over placebo in favour of Homeoapthy was whittled down to 14 (8 Homeopathic and 6 conventional) on the grounds of size and quality.

b) It is well documented that the higher the quality of any trial the less likely is there to be a positive result whether it be on Homeopathic, conventional or any other form of medicine. Was this a cynical exercise to neuter the previously positive meta trial results? Was this a means of data manipulation to obtain a predetermined required result?

c) There was a complete lack of transparency in the selection of the 16 trials.  The literature references are not given, nor any information on the diagnoses, numbers of patients, etc., nor can these be deduced from the article. Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials. This is not even a matter of scientific method, but of natural justice: the accused has the right to know the evidence against him.

d) Meta-analysis should incorporate sensitivity analysis. In this case the obvious sensitivity analysis is to look at the higher quality trials, particularly since it appears that the criterion larger appears to have been added retrospectively to higher quality. But the result of this analysis was not published.

e) The meta-analysis as redesigned in the Lancet would appear to assess quality purely in abstract terms of statistical validity without regard to the relevance of the statistical measures in the real world.

f) The revised trial in the Lancet failed, on multiple counts, to meet the generally accepted standards for meta-analysisthe QUOROM statement (Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials), published in The Lancet itself in 1999.

h) The lack of transparency, selective manipulative bias and false interpretations leads one to inevitably conclude that the trial set out with a predetermined objective. In short a prime example of Herbert Spensers Bar.
For further information on the Herbrt Spenser Bar click MORE.

i) To paraphrase Mark Twain reports of the death of homeopathy are much exaggerated The facts simply are incompatible with The Lancet's claim of the death of Homeopathy. . The way forward must be through open, transparent science, not opaque, biased analysis and rhetoric.
For a detail commentary by Peter Fisher Director of Research, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3HR, UK as published in the eCAM Journal of the Oxford University Press click the hyperlink below

Click the hyperlink below for a video of the full BBC debate between Dr. Peter Fisher and Ben Goildacre

19. Criticism - Its only Halloween Science 
With acknowledgements to H:MC21 Homeopathy worked for me
Trick or Treatment? by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst claims to examine the various alternative therapies in a scrupulous manner (p.3). H:MC21 assessed the validity of this claim, both in general and specifically in respect of homeopathy, by analysing the authors own arguments and evidence for accuracy, consistency and reliability. Where information is lacking in Trick or Treatment?, the critique incorporates evidence from other primary sources (where possible) or reputable secondary sources. Some conclusions reached on the basis of Ernst and Singhs own statements are also supported by reference to other sources. All sources are referenced.

We have identified nineteen major faults in the case presented by this book:

(1) The authors frequently rely on figures, trials, events, quotations, statements, opinions and explanations which are unsupported by reference to sources.
(2) This evidence is frequently misleading as a result of being presented out of context.
(3) The authors use different criteria when assessing the validity of evidence, depending on whether the evidence supports their views or not.

(4) The authors commit the common fallacy of confusing absence of proof with proof of absence.
(5) The importance of theory is minimized or even ignored, when discussing both science in general and individual alternative therapies.
(6) The authors assume that orthodox medicine is scientific, but offer no justification for this position.
(7) There is evidence that the authors do not understand the principles and practice of orthodox medicine.

(8) Alternative medicine is defined in four different ways in the course of the book.
(9) Other significant terms, such as science, disease, cure, effectiveness and orthodox medicine are undefined.
(10) This allows arguments to be built on vague preconceptions rather than on clearly defined principles.
(11) The differences between orthodox medical and alternative medical definitions is not taken into account, despite their impact on the design of trials.
(12) The authors fail to present the ideas of evidence-based medicine accurately.
(13) The authors fail to present the nature and development of homeopathy accurately, raising doubts about their presentation of the other therapies.
(14) They also call into question the principles of orthodox drug therapy, despite the fact that the tests used by this therapy underpin much of their argument.

(15) The authors fail to prove that their main tool, the randomised controlled trial (RCT), is valid for testing curative interventions, while presenting evidence that there are serious problems with using it for this purpose.
(16) They show that a tool derived from these trials, the meta-analysis, is prone to lack of objectivity, yet they rely on this for some of their conclusions.
(17) Their conclusions are also dependent on the concept of the placebo effect, but they make it clear that this effect has no scientific basis and is so unpredictable as to have questionable scientific validity in this context.
(18) They acknowledge the importance of individuality in the curative process, but deny its significance for the design of analytical tools.
(19) They fail to take into account the need for analysis of evidence from clinical practice.

What is clear is that Ernst & Singh have failed to provide a secure theoretical or evidential base for their arguments. They have not defined their basic terms and have not presented a theoretical relationship between evidence and practice and they have arbitrarily rejected evidence. They have either used analysis tools which are inherently inadequate for obtaining objective and reliable conclusions or which have been rendered inadequate for such a purpose by the limitations the authors set on their use. Furthermore they rely on unsupported statements, preconceptions, pejorative language, hyperbole, double standards and misrepresented facts which are interspersed, juxtapositioned and removed from context in order to support their argument. Such a bias and wholly inadequate examination of alternative medicine by two trained scientists is damaging to the credibility of orthodox medicinal researchers and science in general.
Trick or Tretament? Also encourages a hazardous therapeutic environment for patients. By exploiting prejudice whilst claiming to offer an unparalleled level of rigour authority and independence the authors help to alienate doctors and alternative therapists from each other. As a result patients are faced with the increased likelihood of orthodox and alternative practitioners being unable to communicate with each other or learn from the outcomes of different therapeutic approaches. They may even be faced with contradictory treatments which cannot be reconciled or discussed with the relevant practitioners.
As a result, Trick or Treatment? has no validity as a scientific examination of alternative medicine.
For a more detailed 11 page Summary or a full 142 page detailed rebuttal click

20. Criticism - The James Randi Challenge
The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.  To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize money is held in a special account which cannot be accessed for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize. Homeopathy is included under this heading.

Really James to keep saying that no one so far has got beyond the preliminary trial stages is not reality. You must be in an elevated state yourself to think that. Now I know youre a magician by profession but theres no way that sort of constantly repeated mantra can go unchallenged. Remember George Vithoulkas, the Greek Homeopath who you ditched as soon as the trial looked as though it was going to empty your bank account? Perhaps youd like not to which is not surprising especially as I dont see him even listed under Challenge Applications on your web page. Well Ive made it simple for you and embedded the story into this web site just in case the hyperlink to the original page becomes corrupted. It sets out all the gory details of broken promises, agreements, back tracking, subterfuge and final withdrawal on your part.

Of course Homeopathic efficacy can be demonstrated. Its being so demonstrated in the lives of millions around the world every day.
Click MORE below for details of the trial James Randi never went through with.

21.  The H4H Skeptic Challenge
Well Ive come up with a challenge of my own. Its specifically targeted it at Homeopathic skeptics. No theres no million Euros deposited in a nominated bank account for taking part. In fact theres no money reward at all. You will have however, if you succeed, the personal satisfaction of proving your skepticism correct.
Ive debated with skeptics the virtues of Homeopathy many times and issued my challenge many times but so far no one has even accepted it. Yes thats right theyve not had the courage to put their skepticism to the test. Well James (Randi) if youre still reading this far maybe I can invite you to a role change by partaking in my challenge. If you do youd be the first person with enough conviction to accept.

The H4H Challenge
Under agreed trial conditions to take 8 doses/day of the Homeopathic China 30C for
10 consecutive days.
If by then you havent gone down with symptoms of acute
(fever, sweats, muscle ache with diarrhoea) YOUVE WON.

Historical Note: China (Cinchona) was the first proving by Hahnemann which started him on his Homeopathic trail.


Photo Belladonna
Kingdom: Plant
Latin Name: Atropa belladonna
Common Name: Deadly Nightshade
: Belladonna
click for

Photo Sponge
Kingdom: Animal
Latin Name: Spongilla fluviatilis
Common Name: Sponge
: Spongia
click for

Photo Sulphur
Kingdom: Mineral
Latin Name: Sulphurus
Common Name: Brimstone
: Sulphur
click for

Home | History & Basis | Homeopathics | Worldwide | Your Benefits | Your Consultation | Testimonials & Research |
Criticisms & Replies | News & Views | H4H Monographs | F.A.Q. | Links | Site Map | Who I Am | Code of Ethics | Acknowledgements | Contact