These questions were posted by Dr. André Saine to Dr. Joe Schwarcz as a follow-up on the Debate held at McGill University on November 27, 2012.

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?

You said in the debate, “I think I’m pretty up to date on science. I’m pretty up to date on the literature. I’ve read all of those papers about the nanoparticles. They have absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy. They have to do with some anomalous findings and some solutions. Virtually all of them have been explained, whether or not its particles dissolving from the glass, or whether it’s an overgrowth of bacteria that were inadvertently introduced. I mean, there are explanations there.” Can you be more precise on the problems encountered in the experiments published in Langmuir by Chikramane et al.¹⁾ in 2012 and their cause? In fact, I presented their evidence that there were nanoparticles of starting materials in ultra-molecular preparations (UMPs). How can the presence of these nanoparticles in these UMPs be irrelevant? Are you aware of studies showing the properties often unexpected of nanoparticles?^{2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)} Are you aware that the homeopathic preparation process of trituration followed by dilution and succussion is in fact an inexpensive, top down way of manufacturing highly reactive nanoparticles from the original bulk materials?

If you are really concerned about patients being injured and duped, then why don’t you place an equal energy into warning people about the dangers of allopathic medicine that by the most conservative estimates say are responsible for at least 10,000 deaths a year in Canada? You do not seem interested in warning the public against cough and cold medicines for children that resulted in many deaths with no proven efficacy? What about polypharmacy which results in many deaths but is extremely common in conventional medicine?

It is interesting to note that since the middle of the nineteenth century neither you nor any other skeptic have ever commented with an in-depth analysis on the extraordinary results obtained by homeopathy in epidemics, namely a consistent and extremely low mortality rate. For instance, it is very well documented that the mortality of cholera remained consistent at about 50% until rehydration was introduced in the 1960’s, and this was regardless of the type of treatment provided or even in the absence of treatment. In the debate, I reported one of many hundreds of similar occurrences, namely, the results obtained by two homeopaths in Cincinnati who had published their daily records in the local press during the 1849 cholera epidemic. In total, they treated 2,646 cases with 35 deaths, or a mortality rate of 1.32%, despite seeing 60-70 cases that were in a deep stage of collapse. After the epidemic, they were accused by a skeptic of having falsified their records. A public commission was set up to inquire the matter, which was chaired by Alphonso Taft who would later become Secretary of War under President Grant and whose son became the 27th President of the United States. In the end, the commission confirmed that the results reported by the two homeopathic physicians were absolutely correct down to every single case reported during the epidemic. In your dismissal of the efficacy of homeopathy, can you please explain your complete silence on the overall extraordinary, consistent and predictable results obtained by homeopathy in epidemics, which I briefly addressed in the debate and have been greatly authenticated by a number of reputable medical historians?

It is astonishing to note that a “man of science” would consider the Shang et al. 2005 meta-analysis published in the Lancet the “definitive meta-analysis⁸⁾” —notwithstanding the fact that major flaws have been underlined by a large number of scientists^{9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23)}) —if only for the fact that six of the eight large studies used in the final analysis were not following the rule of individualization, which is fundamental to homeopathy. Do you still think that this meta-study, which is composed of a majority of studies that violate this fundamental principle, can be used as proof against homeopathy? How do you explain that the accompanying editorial of the Lancet²⁴⁾ was able to come up to such radical conclusions, despite the fact that the study didn’t even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines for meta-analyses²⁵⁾, and that the body of scientific evidence on homeopathy extends much beyond the limitations of the Shang et al. meta-analysis?

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 scholars²⁶⁾ 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 Science²⁷⁾ in 2005 or the one of Chikramane in Langmuir²⁸⁾ in 2012?