View Guidelines for Authors. All rights reserved. The material contained in this website is for informational purposes only and no assumptions should be made regarding its accuracy. Any information provided here and any recommendations made should not be used to, nor are intended to, diagnose, treat cure or mitigate any specific health problem. Anybody with any health complaints should seek the care and consultation of an appropriately licensed health care practitioner. No attempt should be made to use any information provided here as a form of treatment for any specific condition without approval and guidance of a physician.
Homeopathy not effective for treating any condition, Australian report finds
The American Institute of Homeopathy, or any person involved in the production or management of this website, is not responsible for the use of, or the result of the use of, the information contained in this website. Join us on Facebook. The principles of homeopathy run contrary to modern science and have never been empirically established.
Many of the provings used to guide homeopathic treatment today were conducted by Samuel Hahneman himself. Subsequent efforts to demonstrate consistency or reproducibility of homeopathic provings have been unsuccessful. The so-called law of similars, for example, is little more than an ancient and common superstition known as sympathetic magic — that things have an essence or essential quality that can be transferred. There is no scientific knowledge about biology or chemistry to support the notion that a small dose of a drug or substance will necessarily cause the symptoms it treats at higher doses.
Modern homeopaths have tried to justify the law of similars by comparing it to the effectiveness of vaccines — which involve giving small doses of an infectious pathogen to prevent a later infection. However, this analogy is not apt. Vaccines involve measurable doses of attenuated or killed organisms or their proteins, and operate by a known mechanism — they trigger an immune response. There is no analogy to homeopathic treatments. Homeopaths today use dilutions of substances which essentially remove all traces of the substance from the final dilution.
There is not likely to be even a single molecule of the original drug in the final remedy which is given to the patient. Homeopaths conclude from this fact that the substance is transferring its essence to the water into which it is diluted. The more it is diluted, the more potent is the water. They offer, however, no possible explanation for how simple water molecules can contain the essence of far more complex substances. Modern homeopaths have also tried to rescue the notion of infinitessimals by invoking the concept of water memory.
They claim that water molecules can form a structure that contains the information of the homeopathic remedy. However, such claims are fanciful to the point of invoking magic and are devoid of any evidence. Water structure is very transient and ephemeral. They last moments and could not survive repeated dilution, let alone ingestion, absorption into the body, and transport to whatever their alleged site of action is.
Other theories for how ultradilute remedies could have biological effects include the effects of nanoparticles supposedly detected in homeopathic solutions. However, the experiments purporting to identify these particles have been poorly conducted and subject to contamination and other sources of error, and only proponents of homeopathy believe this theory to have any substance.
Similarly, homeopaths sometimes refer to the strange and counterintuitive theories of quantum mechanics as validating the implausible foundations of homeopathy. The fact that some strange ideas have turned out to be true does not validate the theories of homeopathy, which have failed to produce convincing experimental evidence for years.
- ap human geography past essays?
- buy law essays online uk.
- Homeopathy and asthma?
- A major Australian study debunks homeopathy—again;
- essay about the role of the youth in the society.
- database privacy essays!
Hahnemann developed his ideas before the disease theory of illness was fully developed. In other words, during his time physicians did not yet understand that illnesses were caused by specific diseases; that a given disease, such as diabetes, has a common underlying pathophysiology — a specific malfunction of a specific tissue, organ, or organ system leading to a specific disorder with recognizable signs and symptoms.
This modern theory of illness has lead, for instance, to the treatment of diabetes with insulin replacement, vastly improving the quality and duration of life of patients suffering from this disease. There is a difference, however, between not fully understanding a mechanism and, as with homeopathy, violating basic laws of physics. In such cases it is necessary to demonstrate using carefully controlled clinical trials that such treatments do in fact work. There has been mixed results from clinical studies of homeopathy, but a clear trend when all the evidence is reviewed — the better designed the study the less likely there is to be any effect, and the best designed studies are negative.
Homeopathy, it turns out, is no more effective than placebo an inactive treatment. Therefore, according to everything we currently understand about biology, chemistry, and physics homeopathy is highly implausible and should not work. And, when we carefully study homeopathic remedies they in fact do not work. Given that most homeopathic remedies contain little if any actual ingredients beyond water and sometimes sugar, it is unlikely that any direct harm could come from taking them.
Improper preparation of remedies made from toxic or infectious material could pose some risk, and there have been reports of toxic contamination of homeopathic products. However, the most significant risk of homeopathy is that it often delays the use of accurate scientific diagnosis and truly effective medical treatment. Unnecessary injury, disability, and even death can result from the delusion that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any medical condition.
Dantas F, Fisher P. A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published in the United Kingdom from to This study reviewed hundreds of proving trials from all over the world and found that these trials were poorly designed and conducted and were at such high risk of bias that it was not possible to trust the results. The basic idea that homeopathic preparations cause consistent symptoms in healthy volunteers could not be established. How do homeopaths make decisions? An exploratory study of inter-rater reliability and intuition in the decision making process.
This study evaluated the consistency and reliability of homeopaths conducting a replication of a proving. It found little agreement between the individual homeopaths and a heavy reliance on intuition in judgments about the effects of the substance tested.
Fisher P, Dantas F. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials of Acidum malicum and Acidum ascorbicum. British Journal of Homeopathy. In this proving, when investigators were properly blinded to whether subjects were given a homeopathic preparation or a placebo, the symptoms reported by volunteers occurred as often when taking he placebo as when taking the homeopathic remedy.
Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
Homeopathy Research Papers - kyouseriharddeg.cf
This study also controlled better than most provings for bias and found, again, that the homeopathy remedy had no apparent effects on healthy subjects. Other such studies have failed to demonstrate any effect of homeopathic substances on healthy volunteers, as would be expected if the Law of Similars were correct. Quite a few studies have attempted to show that ultradilute substances have meaningful biological effects.
These attempts have not been very successful. Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Even this friendly review of studies attempting to support the implausible premise of ultadilute remedies concluded the research was too poor in quality to actually draw any conclusions:. Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion.
Except for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.
Vickers AJ. Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homoeopathy: a systematic review. Forschende Komplementarmedezin. A critical element in establishing the truth of a hypothesis in science is being able to reproduce the results of an experiment.
- Allergic asthma.
- things fall apart essays religion.
- literary theory of new criticism essay!
- essays scarlet letter theme.
- 5 paragraph essay outline worksheets;
If only a believer in an idea can get it to work in a scientific study, that is a strong indication of bias. This review of the research intended to support the basic principles of homeopathy concluded that such replication has not been accomplished despite over a century of research in the field:.