Sorry - that is what I meant. My mistake. See here for more on why homeopathy is no better than a placebo:It may be perhaps that the intended statement was
"it has not been clinically proven that homeopathy is any better than placebo" ?
Yeah but...The link posted by the last contributor seems very persuasive that something is going on in some homeopathic applications. Anyone come across anything similar? (by which I mean published studies showing an effect produced by homeopathic preparations, analysed by what appears\claims to be objectively measurable and repeatable means )
In 2003 a group of pharmacologists of the University of Leipzig claimed to have proven the efficacy of high-potency homeopathic Belladonna solutions (D32, D60 and D100). The authors, Franziska Schmidt, Prof. Karen Nieber and Prof. Wolfgang Suess had done in-vitro-experiments with tissue from the rat intestine. Even before the publication of their positive results… the homeopathic community was so enthusiastic about this new proof of homeopathy that in 2003 the three authors were awarded the "Heinrich-Reckeweg-Preis" (worth 10.000 Euros) of the International Society of Homotoxicology ([broken link removed]).
Skeptics soon pointed out that the study was seriously flawed ([broken link removed]) and complained with the dean of the faculty where the results were produced. Nothing happened for quite a while, but now the German Pharmacistś Journal (Deutsche Apothekerzeitung) reports in its latest issue (2005, vol. 145, no. 44, pp. 24f.) that the authors have now admitted that their study was flawed; and that, as a consequence, the publication has been withdrawn from the journal Biologische Medizin and the Reckeweg Prize has been returned. Indeed, the award notice was removed without comment from Niebeŕs homepage in the night from November 8 to 9, 2005.
The link posted by the last contributor seems very persuasive that something is going on in some homeopathic applications. Anyone come across anything similar? (by which I mean published studies showing an effect produced by homeopathic preparations, analysed by what appears\claims to be objectively measurable and repeatable means )
If not, why not try a more tried and tested "complimentary" therapy that has proven results?
I happen to believe it works in certain circumstances
The OP was very specific in asking for opinions from people who had either used the site or been on any of the courses NOT peoples opinions on Homeopathy
You're right. Let's be more specific.
The site peddles homeopathy remedies and is therefore suspect.
As mentioned earlier there are no generally accepted (i.e. peer reviewed and established as scientifically acceptable) trials/results that support the hypothesis that homeopathy is any better than a placebo.
Attempts at replication [of "water memory"] have produced mixed results. An international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed to have succeeded (see references), but a more recent study did not [1]
It seems from the New Scientist article that there is such a scientifically accepted study, although the article does not give the reference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?