Differences

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

--- en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/08 15:10]
legatum [QUESTION 9]
+++ en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/08 15:55]
legatum
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ===== QUESTION 1 =====
 **When you were asked during the debate a question from the public regarding the placebo effect, "If homeopathic substances are purely psychological placebos, do you think the evidence that they can work in animals and plants has any weight?," you discussed the case of pets. It is well known that the placebo effect in animals is negligible, but you explained that perception can be biased in a pet’s owner. Now, please explain the role of the placebo effect in the numerous, measurable results obtained experimentally and clinically with homeopathy on measurable aspects, in: in vitro experimentations, experimentations with plants, farm animals (where the owner’s perception does not play a role, such as infertility, stillbirth, weight gain or helmintiasis), infants (again regarding measurable changes in the infants as opposed to qualitative changes), the unconscious persons, and the insane persons?**
+[[talk-qa-saine-schwarcz#schwarcz_answers|Click here to go to Dr. Joe Schwarz’ answers.]]
 ===== QUESTION 2 =====
@@ Line 62: / Line 64: @@
 **You also said in the debate, "Well, actually, we ask for more than one properly controlled, randomized trial, because one trial doesn’t mean much, but if we have a selection of properly controlled, randomized trials, yes, I would buy it. You show me what you consider is a properly controlled, randomized trial for a specific condition, where a specific homeopathic remedy cures that condition." Jacobs et al. conducted three RCTs in children with diarrhea and their combined results showed a decrease in the duration of the diarrhea with a p=0.008 and their meta-analysis showed a consistent effect-size difference of p=0.008. These trials, as well as the trials referred to in question 12, should indeed fulfill all your requirements. Will you now buy homeopathy? If not, please explain yourself?**
+===== QUESTION 15 =====
+**You said in the debate, "But this was, of course, not known to Hahnemann, because Avogadro’s and Dalton’s theories were basically just formulated in the middle 1800s about atoms, and Hahnemann knew nothing about that." Can you please document these statements with primary source references in view of the facts that, first, Hahnemann was known to be an accomplished chemist and was very well read; second, Dalton presented his ideas of the atomic theory between 1804 and 1810; and third, Hahnemann referred to the doctrine of the divisibility of matter in 1810[(Hahnemann S. //Organon der rationellen Heilkunde//. Dresden: Arnoldischen Buchlandlung, 1810, 200. (English translation: Hahnemann S. //Organon of Medicine//. Translated by Robert E. Dudgeon. Fifth American Edition. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1912, 301.) )], said in 1829 that "there must be an end to the thing [divisibility of matter], it cannot go on to infinity[(Hahnemann S. Hahnemann’s correspondence. //British Journal of Homoeopathy// 1847; 5: 398.)]," and in 1843 questioned whether "the invisible medicinal force of highly potentized remedies depended on their material atoms[(Hahnemann S. //Organon of Medicine//. The first integral English translation of the definitive sixth edition of the original work on homoeopathic medicine. Translated by Jost Künzli, Alain Naudé and Peter Pendelton. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1982, 18.)]"?**
+André, as one might expect, is not familiar with chemical history. Avogadro's number was named after him, not by him. Hahnemann could not have had any idea about the number of atoms or molecules in a mole.
+===== QUESTION 16 =====
+You said in the debate, "So if you look at the meta-analysis and you look at the properly controlled studies, there is nothing there." Please demonstrate the irrelevance of the evidence in the two systematic reviews[(Dean ME. //The Trials of Homeopathy. Origins, Structure and Development.// Essen: KVC Verlag, 2004. )] [(Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P. //Homeopathy in Healthcare. Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety and Costs.// Herdecke: Springer, 2011.)] I presented in the debate?
+===== QUESTION 17 =====
+**You said in the debate, "And then Hahnemann came to the conclusion—somehow—nobody seems to be able to explain exactly how he came to this conclusion: That less is more, the theory of infinitesimals. That if you dilute your product—your original solution—you make it more potent. Well, one day he made a house call. And he answered this house call in a horse-drawn carriage. And his homeopathic remedy worked extremely well on the patient. And he developed a second aspect of homeopathy, succussion. He believed that the cobblestones had shaken the medication and that potentiated it. So, the two aspects." Can you please give primary source references to document your statements, as according to reliable historical sources your story is a complete fabrication from one end to the other?
+**
+===== QUESTION 18 =====
+**How different is the case of homeopathy from the many examples in the history of science where experimental results were denied plausibility prior to becoming well accepted?**
+===== QUESTION 19 =====
+**You said in the debate, "Well, this, I think, does not stand up to the rigor of what we call science-based medicine, which has four basic pillars. Of course we rely on peer-review. We do rely on plausibility because we have a large fountain of scientific knowledge upon which we can stand and gaze out at the world and judge to see what makes sense and what doesn’t. And, of course, experience plays a role, as does critical thinking. But, really, the cornerstones are peer review and plausibility." Yet, you state that "most" peer-review articles that come out every day are "mediocre." How do you reconcile these two statements?**
+===== QUESTION 20 =====
+**Your story of Hahnemann’s proving of arsenic is incorrect, as Hahnemann didn’t publish his proving of arsenic trioxide until 1816, which is 26 years after his first experiment with cinchona. The proving was conducted in potencies and not in "increasing doses." It would be interesting to know which "friends and relatives Hahnemann lost along the way" and what actual primary source reference you used, if any, to state that he concluded, "that therefore, in smaller doses this would be a remedy for food poisoning."**
+===== QUESTION 21 =====
+**If you really feel that homeopathic medicines are both placebo and good medicine, then what are your real motives behind the multi-million dollar lawsuit against a homeopathic manufacturer you are part of? Who is paying for your legal fees?**
+The motive behind the lawsuit is simple. Homeopathic medications are claimed to have active ingredients without any proof that they contain such. Therefore they are mislabeled. The lawsuit is being funded totally by a group of lawyers who initiated it. I had nothing to do with it but of course I do support it because I think all products that make medical claims should be held to the same standards of safety and efficacy. Homeopathic products are getting a free ride.
+===== QUESTION 22 =====
+**Can you provide any primary source reference that Napoleon was actually treated with homeopathy for pubic lice?**
+===== QUESTION 23 =====
+**When you referred to the paper Benveniste published in Nature in 1988, you omitted to explain the fact that his experiments have since been successfully replicated by four independent laboratories in Europe and that the issue is now closed?[(Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J, Robertfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. //Inflammation Research// 1999; 48: S17-S18.)] [(Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Robertfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. //Inflammation Research// 2004; 53: 181-188.)] Isn’t this, the proof—reproducible evidence that UMPs have biological effects—that you have been asking for? Please explain your criteria for rejecting this body of research?**
+===== QUESTION 24 =====
+**Please consider the following scenario recently related to me by a German colleague: As a young MD, she did an internship with a homeopathic pediatrician. Over the course of several weeks, she observed how one child after another recovered within days under homeopathic treatment from ailments like ear infections, UTI, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, impetigo and other acute diseases. No conventional medication was used, no side effects, no complications. If you were in a position of being a young doctor and watching these effects like she was, would you consider studying homeopathy more deeply?**
+Questions like #24 are so puerile and smack so strongly of the ignorance of scientific methodology that they don't merit further discussion.
+===== QUESTION 25 =====
+**On what philosophical or scientific basis, would you say skeptics consider their inexperience coupled with an immovable bias more reliable than the experience of many generations of homeopaths all over the world corroborated with loads of undeniable facts?**
+===== QUESTION 26 =====
+**Since our subject is the wellbeing of our fellow human beings, the outcome of this debate carries a certain amount of responsibility. In light of this responsibility, can you state that you have investigated homeopathy thoroughly and with an open mind, and have found out beyond reasonable doubt that it is nothing else than placebo, despite the many inaccuracies I have pointed out in your statements and the references I gave showing that they are contradicted by more reliable historical sources or recent scientific studies?**
+===== QUESTION 27 =====
+**You wrote, "Choice consumers make is based on scientifically informed opinion. In the case of homeopathy, misinformation can have consequences ranging from a needless waste of money to forgoing more effective treatments[(Schwarcz J. A whole lot of sugar helps this pill go down. //Montreal Gazette//. April 21, 2012.)] ." I agree with you on this very point, and I have pointed out many serious inaccuracies in your statements or writings about homeopathy and referred you to more relevant historical sources or recent scientific research. To what extent, do you and the McGill Office for Science and Society take responsibility for the information you disseminate to the public, when it is contradicted by reliable sources or recent scientific evidence?**
+As to the final question, we take full responsibility for whatever information we disseminate. The scientific community stands firmly behind the notion that homeopathy is nothing other than an example of the placebo effect. Data can be dredged up to attempt to counter the evidence the same way that Creationists publish all sorts of papers that sound scientific and appear to be so to the uninitiated. But of course Creationism is bogus. How many serious scientists think the Earth is 5700 years old? How many think that homeopathy is more than placebo?
 {{anchor:schwarcz_answers}}

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools