Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/07 12:12]
legatum [DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR]
+++ en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/08 14:51]
legatum [QUESTION 6]
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 **In the debate, you said of Professor Rustum Roy of Penn State University, "Rustum Roy, who was referred to, is not highly regarded in the scientific community. He is one of those outliers. And there are many such." On what basis do you base your opinion that Professor Roy is not highly regarded in the scientific community? Are you aware that in 2003 the ISI (Phila) rated his lab the #1 in the world on the basis of highly cited scholars[(Roy R. Interdisciplinary materials research: the reluctant reformer of Western science. //Facets// 2005; 4: 18-21. )] and that he has published over 1,000 papers in peer-review journals? Which ones of his results are therefore not trustworthy? How do you decide whether a scientific article published in a peer-reviewed journal is trustworthy, such as the one of Roy in Materials Science[(Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell I, Hoover MR. The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. //Materials Research Innovations// 2005; 9: 577-608.)] in 2005 or the one of Chikramane in Langmuir[(Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: a nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation. //Langmuir// 2012; 28: 15864-15875.)] in 2012?**
+===== QUESTION 7 =====
+**You wrote, "Dr. Edzard Ernst, one of the world’s foremost experts on homeopathy ..."[(Schwarcz J. Answer to a homeopath’s criticism. //Chemically Speaking// June 5, 2012.)] Yet, Edzard Ernst, a known skeptic of alternative medicine, who has authored at least five systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathy, and who has been portraying himself professionally as a trained homeopath[(Ernst E: A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. //British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology// 2002; 54: 581. )] —which would be illegal in Germany for a practicing physician to falsely use this title—even to the point of stressing this point in November 2009 before the British House of Commons, "Many years ago, I have worked as a homeopath and therefore understand the concepts of homeopathy[(Ernst E. Memorandum submitted by Edzard Ernst HO 16.
+http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm1602.htm )]," has denied in an interview published in April 2010 ever having completed any course in homeopathy[(Kösters C. Interview mit Professor Edzard Ernst, Exeter. //Homöopathische Nachrichten des DZVhÄ// 2010 (April): 1-3. )]. Further, Richard Horton, the editor in chief of the Lancet, said, "Professor Ernst seems to have broken every professional code of scientific behaviour[(Horton R. Letters. //The Times//. Monday August 29, 2005.)]." How is it that, as a professional quackbuster[(Latimer J. Who you gonna call ? Quackbuster Joe Schwarcz exposes pseudoscience of all sorts. His next target ? Homeopathic Medicine. //Macleans Magazine//. March 26, 2012: 51)], you are unaware of this delusion and you were still claiming in June 2012 that Ernst has credibility in the scientific world as an expert on homeopathy?**
+To suggest that Edzard Ernst has no credibility is pure folly. His writings are all thoroughly documented. He never claimed to be a homeopath ( why would anyone who isn't one do that? Hardly a badge of honour). He just claimed to have worked in a homeopathic hospital where he was exposed to all the tenets of homeopathy. In any case what does whether he was a homeopath or not have to do with anything? Let the facts speak.
+===== QUESTION 8 =====
+**I am curious to know which research papers I presented in this debate on homeopathy represent "a plundering of science," and can you please explain on what basis they don’t abide by the strictest scientific method?**
+===== QUESTION 9 =====
+**You said in the debate, "And Hahnemann was aware of this and he experimented on himself. He wanted to know: What was the right dose to give to his patients? So, he kept taking bigger and bigger doses to see what would happen. And he took these doses and, eventually, he developed a fever, much like he saw in his malaria patients and then came to the conclusion that a substance that—in a healthy person—causes a certain disease can cure a sick person who has those symptoms. … Remember that Hahnemann started with the whole notion of taking cinchona in larger and larger doses to trigger the symptoms of malaria. That’s the foot upon which homeopathy stands originally. Has anyone ever tried to replicate that? Yes. In 1991, German Professor Wolfgang Hopff did the experiment, started to take cinchona bark in bigger and bigger doses and never got a fever; he never got the malaria symptoms. So we don’t know what happened in the case of Hahnemann. Maybe he was unlucky. He was taking the cinchona doses and he got the flu at the same time. And that’s what caused the fever." It is interesting to note, first, that Hahnemann never reported wanting "to know: What was the right dose to give to his patients?," but instead clearly stated that he wanted to know the principle underlying the effectiveness of cinchona bark in malaria; second, that he never reported having taken increasing doses, but instead took the same dose twice a day; third, that he never reported having had developed a fever or the "peculiar chilly shivering rigor" of malaria during his proving of cinchona bark tincture[(Hahnemann S. Annerhung Hahnemann zu seinem Seibstversuch mit Chinarinde. In: Cullen W. //Abhandlung über die Materia medica. Aus dem Englischen mit mit Anmerkungen von Samuel Hahnemann//. Band II. Leipzig: Schwickertschen Verlag,1790, 108-109. A translation of this passage can be found in: Bradford TL. //The Life and Letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann//. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1895, 36-37.)] ; and fourth, that fever is a very common symptom of acute cinchonism[(Goldberg AM, Wexler LF. Quinine overdose: review of toxicity and treatment. //Clinical Cardiology// 1988; 11: 716-718)] , quinine "also has a mild antipyretic effect[(Bateman DN, Dyson EH. Quinine toxicity. //Adverse Drug Reactions and Acute Poisoning Reviews// 1986; 5: 215-233.)]," and that every single one of the eight most recent cases of acute cinchonism that I could find in the scientific literature had developed a fever.[(Katz B, Weetch M, Chopra S. Quinine-induced granulomatous hepatitis. //British Medical Journal// 1983; 86: 264-265. )] [(Bateman DN, Dyson EH. Quinine toxicity. //Adverse Drug Reactions and Acute Poisoning Reviews// 1986; 5: 215-233.)] [(Mathur S, Dooley J, Scheuer PJ. Quinine induced granulomatous hepatitis and vasculitis. //British Medical Journal// 1990; 300: 613.)] [(Punukollu RC, Kumar S, Mullen KD. Quinine hepatotoxicity: an underrecognized or rare phenomenon? //Archives of Internal Medicine// 1990; 150: 1112-1113. )] [(Wolf LR, Otten EJ, Spadafora MP. Cinchonism: two case reports and review of acute quinine toxicity and treatment. //Journal of Emergency Medicine// 1992; 10: 295-301. )] [(Perez JA, Stryker J, Arsura EL, Hewitt JM. Probable quinine-induced hepatotoxicity. //Western Journal of Medicine// 1994; 160: 59-60.)] [(Farver D, Lavin MN. Quinine-induced hepatotoxicity. //Annals of Pharmacology// 1999; 33: 32-34. )] Can you please provide primary source references documenting your version of Hahnemann’s proving of cinchona bark and why are you referring to a Professor Hopff’s experimentation[(Perhaps it is not Hopff in 1991 but Habermann in 1997 that carried a two-hour (?) proving with 3.3 grams of cinchona bark without noticing any rise in temperature, see: Krämer HJ, Habermann E. Ein Vorlesungsversuch zur Homöopathie. //Deutsches Ärzteblatt// 1997; 94: A1851-1852.)] when the scientific literature is extremely clear on this point, namely, that fever is a very common occurrence of acute cinchonism?**
 {{anchor:schwarcz_answers}}

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools