A Safe, Effective Alternative to the Flu Vaccine

Sonya mentions evidence and bias. Let's talk about evidence and bias. The bias in effect here is self-evident. Sonya recommends a product that, hey, she just happens to be selling herself. She cites a “study” (more on that later) conducted by whom? A respected, peer reviewed, scientific medial journal? Nope, the French Society of Homeopathy. Listen to the language she uses: flu vaccines are not recommended, suggested, or advertised – they are “hyped.” Then she waves off the mere 79 dead human beings as being insignificant. Does she realize that so few deaths occurred *because* the flu vaccine is so prevalent? How many deaths does she think would occur if she had her way and nobody received a vaccine? We can see the damage caused by this sort of anti-vaccination rhetoric happening in the world right now: http://goo.gl/LGpzp

How does that study rate in terms of reliability? Well for starters, it is in no way a scientific study. It is a survey, which means it used the self-selected, subjective answers given by those (very few) who chose to respond – not actual recorded data, just subjective responses. It does not have any controls whatsoever. What are they comparing the results to? If a group of people use no “preventative” treatment, how many will suffer the flu? If a group gets a flu vaccine, how many will suffer the flu? Far less than 10%, that's for sure. How were the people in the survey diagnosed? How on earth would the homeopaths know who got the flu and who didn't, given that the survey did not track patients or verify responses? This is not any kind of evidence. What about the evidence Sonya claims she gave several months ago? More of the same. Anecdotes. Testimonials. Precisely the kind of 'evidence' that we know to be unreliable. Look up 'Confirmation Bias' and 'Regression to the Mean' on Wikipedia for a satisfying explanation.

As for homeopathy itself, it is important to point out that there is literally nothing in homeopathic treatments. I don't just mean there is no good evidence (there isn't), I mean there is NOTHING in the pills! Homeopathy is not natural medicine, it is not herbalism, it is not traditional treatment. It is entirely based on magical thinking and the placebo effect. Terms like “9C” refer to the dilutions used in homeopathy. 9C means that a treatment is diluted to one part in 100, then the resulting solution is diluted again one part in 100, and again and again to a total of nine times. By the end there is one part of the original substance in 10^18 parts water. At this concentration, you would be lucky to find even a handfull of atoms of the original substance. 9C is considered a low dilution, most homeopathic preparations have not even a molecule of the advertised ingredient in them. Homeopathy is just water. Any perceived effect is explainable by the effect of expectation, the natural cycle of disease, or pure illusion.

For more on the lack of evidence for homeopathy, this episode of CBC's consumer protection show 'Marketplace' is a fantastic resource: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/…

[...] Fitness Goop [...]

The Spanish flu epidemic is reckoned to be the most deadly natural disaster in history. Flu is genuinely a killer. Homeopathy cannot prevent flu because homeopathy is just a placebo – sugar pills infused with a drop of water in which, thanks to improbable levels of dilution, nothing remains of a “mother tincture” selected on entirely arbitrary grounds.

Homeopathic “remedies” differ only in the label. We can write with single atoms on a substrate, we can see individual subatomic particles, we can produce and observe Bose-Einstein condensates, but no scientific test however sensitive can detect the supposed effects of homeopathic dilutions – and that's before you even start to think about how that effect could possibly be transferred to a human body. If you ate enough 30C homeopathic pills to equal a billion times the mass of Earth you'd still have only a 50/50 chance of eating a single molecule of the supposed active principle, and homeopaths say this effect gets stronger with more dilution so a more “potent” 200C remedy you'd need to consume many billions of times the mass of the entire observable universe. In other words, if homeopathy is right then everything else we know about the structure of matter is wrong. Those things that have so far allowed us to create everything from nuclear weapons to gene therapy to microprocessors to lasers – all of that theory would have to be completely wrong.

Homeopaths say “it works” but we can account for every observation with two well-known phenomena: placebo effect and observer bias. What do you think is more likely, placebo effect and observer bias (which have been known and testable for a century or more), or the whole of science being wrong about the structure of matter? It's the “dragon in my garage” situation. Someone tells you they have a water heater in the garage, it's plausible. Someone tells you they have a dragon in the garage, but by the way it can't be seen or tested, they just know because of the heat, then you'd call them a nut. Homeopaths are nuts.

Homeopathy cannot prevent flu just as it cannot prevent malaria or any other organic disease. That doesn't stop homeopaths from pretending it will, but if you live in the US, Canada, most of the EU or Australia and you find a homeopath making these claims then you can report them for breaking truth in advertising laws and usually also for breaking the law on therapeutic claims for homeopathy.

People can spend their money where they want to spend their money, but cavaet emptor does not protect you from the ethical implications of your deadly attitudes.

Personally, I rarely engage directly with individuals who promote this quackery or the gullible, however well intentioned, who buy the products. I prefer to deal with governmental policy ensuring that such unsubstantiated, unsound, and pseudo-scientific claims never see the light of day in the public sphere.

However, when people like Sonya make such egregious and unsubstantiated claims as these; claims that are aimed more at disseminating ignorance and fear–and doing so for personal gain–it is difficult to 'let slide'.

This is, as a matter of fact, an ethical issue. And, make no mistake about it, although Sonya bears the brunt of acting in an unethical manner by promoting such claims, you, dear consumer, are not off the hook either. As the saying goes: “You can run, but you can't hide.”

The anti-vaccine industry has been thoroughly and soundly dismantled. Their single messiah, Andrew Wakefield, thoroughly discredited. The British General Medicine Council found him guilty of unethical conduct including 'reporting fraud', acting in an unethical manner with patients (consent), and failure to report clear bias–which lead to every other co-author rescinding their support for the article in question. His license was suspended, yet he continues to promote this deceit without a license.

Furthermore, his actions–and, by extension, the actions of all those who supported his position and his approaches–were found to have direct deleterious effects (fatalities) upon otherwise innocent people; that is, people who were infected from diseases that harboured in those individuals who had forgone immunization in their erroneous belief that vaccines were dangerous.

For example, in England, in regards to MMR, in the 90's (the peak of this deadly chicanery), immunization dropped from 90% to 73% leaving not just the folks who 'decided' not to be vaccinated open to infection and, thus, allowing the virus to become both resistant and more virulent, but this, in turn, lead to others being infected with strains that mutated in their anti-vaccine hosts (an effect of ''herd immunization').

The result has been outbreaks of diseases that have been effectively contained and, in the case of some diseases, had been on the verge of eradication. In fact, in many third world countries where the stresses upon people are much higher than the so-called 'developed world', and where this pseudo-science was not as present, the success rate has been increased.

Like it or not, your ignorance in an approach can have not only significant negative consequences to your fellow humans, but you–yes you–share the ethical condemnation.

Ignorance is no excuse; willful ignorance even less so.

Think of this the next time you try and excuse away not only approaches that are unsubstantiated, but methods that have been so clearly dismantle as has homeopathy and the anti-vaccine movement.

This is an ethical issues, and like it or not, you're not on the ethically sound side–yes, even if all you do is buy the products and see a western doctor.

There's plenty of scientific and medical science reports out there illustrating, substantiating, and supporting this, but seeing as many of the reader's of such columns as this are woefully ignorant of the language required to understand this, you can simply try the wikipedia page first to inform yourselves properly. It's well documented for a wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…

Why was Jesse Brydle's response removed?

Is this how you deal with criticism? Delete position that disagree with your own?

Nice, very professional….

They had me with echinacea junk in the 90's. No more homeopathic for me, because it is more easy to fight the flu then you think. Well maybe you have to use your imagination. If not, my idea is for sale.

Why are you deleting comments?

Nicely said, Sylvain.

The reality is that most flu's (like colds) are self-limiting…even with a flu shot

If people want to take homeopathic remedies for non-infectious diseases, that's their choice. But to recommend relying on 19th century, pre-germ theory, serially disproven claptrap like homeopathy for infectious diseases should result in a suspension of your license, Sonya. Only it won't, because there's no standards body in your field to suspend it — no standards at all. Meanwhile, those most susceptible to dying of the flu — infants and the elderly — will be at greater risk because you choose to believe — against everything we know about chemistry — that putting 1 part virus in one quintillion parts water (9C = 1: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000) is actually different than a placebo

And some aren't, and can kill. The flu shot is offered in the UK to those at risk, mainly the elderly and those with chronic respiratory complaints such as asthma.

What? BA? … Oh!

BA after your name stands for a Bachelor of Arts!
I mistakenly thought you had medical training of some sort.

Sorry, my mistake. Clearly, I was confused.
Perhaps you may want to consider becoming a qualified doctor if you want to help people.

It is shocking that such pathological misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of science persists and, perhaps more importantly, that it is then presented as though it were useful information.

The kind of unashamed scare-mongering seen in this article represent the crux of the argument against homeopathy – there is *no* robust, repeatible evidence to suggest that it can protect against infectious illness (there is, however, a great deal of evidence to show that vaccination can). And yet, it is being pedalled as a viable alternative to medicine.

“I've heard this product actually does boost the immune system…” seems to be a perfect example of what constitutes research in homeopathy. And on this basis readers are encouraged to ignore medical advice.

I thought the 'homeopathy for radiation sickness' was the nadir… it seems that I was wrong.

This is the letter I just sent to the website folks. They have deleted–without cause and in contravention of their own stated purposes (see below)–opinions that differ from their own.

As I state below this is both unethical and intellectually dishonest.

———————————————————————————————————————–

You have deleted comments that reasonably address the assertions made in an article you posted on your site.

You have also banned me from posting. Yet, when I looked through your website I could find no criteria for banning people whose opinion differs from what is posted. In fact, by censoring the comments and then the posters without due cause you are in contradiction to your own stated position: “At Fitness Goop, we also believe that fitness is not just static content; rather an ongoing dialogue between experts and our community.”

You further state that you want to create “the most comprehensive and informed network of contributors in the Fitness and Wellness space, and that means we value your contribution to our community.,” yet you arbitrarily and capriciously censor and deny oppositional views.

If you wish to “make every effort to provide accurate information and a consistent, secure experience” then you need to practice what you preach and let the reader's decide what information they'll accept and what they will not.

It is unethical and intellectually dishonest to host a website stating an open policy and yet deny it.

Are you this unsure of your beliefs that they must be censured..?

So, why was my comment to Sylvain removed? Please state specific infractions.

[...] deadly H1N1 virus. There have been seven reported cases of narcolepsy in the UK linked to …A Safe, Effective Alternative to the Flu VaccineFitness Goopall 3 news [...]

This is the letter I just sent to the website owner and editor Suzanne Zilkowsky.

————————————————————————————-

Subject: RE: Inappropriate censuring posts/comments on Fitness Goop

Suzanne,

Several people have posted comments that take one of the articles of a contributor of your (listed as an ‘expert’ when she is not), Sonya McLeod.

Now I realize that this is a private website, but it seems to me that if you are going to make statements purporting to being open to ideas, holding that people should have information to make up their minds, and that your site is there for the community that it is being disingenuous—bordering on duplicitous—to censure, then ban, people who have committed no infraction as stated on your website, have not been appropriately informed of any infractions (specifically), then capriciously banned from posting with neither reason nor warning.

I’ve read some of your articles and your bio and, although I do not agree with some of your comments, you seem to be reasonable, yet these actions are anything but reasonable.

I’d appreciate either an explanation, and/or the comments by myself, Jesse Brydle, among others being re-posted.

If you really believe that people should be informed and should make their own informed decisions, you really have no alternative. You can, of course, ignore this or refuse to do so, but doing so merely highlights that you’re being disingenuous in your claims which would allow myself and others to publish their own articles stating just that free from concern of libel.

Thanks for taking the time to read and consider this.

Sincerely,

Will Cullen

Hi folks, please keep the comments focused on the information and data provided. Any comments that are directed personally towards any of the Fitness Goop writers will be removed. The comments listed below are good examples of opinions being expressed in a fair manner. Thanks!

None of the comments by myself or by Jesse attacked individuals personally, they merely held them to account for what they have said, and said publicly here (above).

Secondly, if an author personally makes claim about a thing then the author is, then, and reasonably, open to criticism. This is because the author has made an explicit claim, and the information provided is not making the claim. Therefore, the ONLY reasonable thing to address is the author's comments.

Thirdly, both of the responses you deleted almost exclusively addressed homeopathy's public claims, the articles claims, and the 'information' provided. I will only speak for my own response in saying that holding Sonya to account (and, by extension, those who purchase such products) is, by ANY definition, an ethical issue.

You do not get to avoid an ethical issue by erroneously calling it a 'personal attack'–that is disingenuous, or tragically naive and ill-informed on your part (again, this is an extension of your position, not a personal attack).

Most importantly, you're suggesting–by your own words here–that an author should be relieved of responsibility for their comments. You cannot have it both ways. If you wish open dialogue then you must practice open dialogue. Nothing in either of the responses you deleted would–by any reasonable standard–constitute a personal attack.

You call yourself an 'expert' and list your 'qualifications as an author and editor. Well, I don't know what school of journalism you went to, but you clearly do not understand what it is to write in a public sphere.

If you have any actual desire for open dialogue you will (a) inform yourself of what journalistic integrity is and (b) put the comment back up.

The choice is yours, but you cannot run away from this as you're doing here.

“Homeopathy cannot prevent the flu because homeopathy is a placebo”?? Nonsense. 200 years of clinical use indicate that this is utterly incorrect. Homeoprophylaxis (prevention of disease) is not only well documented in the medical literature, but is being used all over the world with great success. The largest homeoprophylaxis program was recently used in Cuba to prevent massive annual Leptospirosis epidemics.
Cochrane studies consistently indicate that conventional swine flu vaccine has been proved NOT to work and has no scientific validity.
The real travesty is vaccine pseudoscience being media hyped at the uninformed public creating a false belief system that this cooked up junk will work, and that governments have been conned into doing nothing more than lining the pockets of vaccine manufacturers.
Moreover, recent studies compared the overall likelihood of “placebo effect” in conventional drugs vs. homeopathic remedies. It's about equal. So get off it.

Science 101 questions for you:
1. Who created the “germ theory”? In what year?
2. Provide evidence for the “serially disproven” assertions about Homeopathy — where's your proof? Your comment is begging a huge question.
3. When a conventional MD gives a flu vaccine and the patient gets the flu, should his license be revoked?
4. Show scientific evidence that contradicts the Cochrane studies and CDC data that clearly indicates the immune systems of the elderly are incapable of producing enough antibodies in response to a vaccine so it's useless. Please also provide scientific data that shows vaccines are safe and effective? And in pregnant women?

FYI Homeopathy is not predicated on chemistry alone. See extraordinarymedicine.org for the analysis of Prof. Rustum Roy who proved the physics years ago.

My 94-year-old mother and I have used Influenzinum 9c for many years to prevent the flu. We also used it to prevent swine flu. This is my 12th year of using it and my mother's 6th year of using Influenzinum. To date neither of us has contracted the flu, either regular or swine flu. Before using it we both got the flu. I got it so badly that I was in bed for a week or more during several flu seasons. My mother did not get it as badly as I did but still felt quite sick with it.

I highly recommend Influenzinum and all other homeopathic medicines.

I just saw a really good investigative study on homeopathy on cbc marketplace! I highly recommend viewing it, it helps drive the point home: the is no evidence that homeopathy works, nor that water has a 'memory'. Take a look at the marketplace website under 'Cure or Con?'. Very interesting findings, cheers!

I see moderators. When people who agree with you personally attack, it's okay.

But when people who hold you to account disagree with you, you censure them and ban their commenting….no doubt, like you'll do again.

I recommend that readers looking at the video on homeopathy you are referring to also read the approximately 900 comments posted by patients and practitioners of homeopathy. Those comments set the record straight. See them at:

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2011/cu...

Also interesting are the comments at:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.ph...

As are the 100's of studies showing homeopathy works to significant and sometimes substantial benefit that have been published in respected, peer-reviewed journals like Rheumatology, Chest, Cancer, International Journal of Oncology, Phlebology, Pediatrics, Allergologie, BMJ, The Lancet and the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. You can find some of them at:

http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopath...
http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org/...

1. Microbes first observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek (c. late 17th C); As responsible for smallpox, Nicolas Andry (c. 1700); Ignaz Semmelweis connects puerperal fever as contagious disease (c. 1847); John Snow, the London Cholera outbreak and the infamous 'Broad Street Pump' (c 1854); Louis Pasteur in 1860 and 1864; Robert Koch demonstrates that anthrax is caused by Bacillus anthracis (1890); Joseph Lister develops surgical hygienic procedures drastically reducing surgery mortality based on germ theory (c. 1870's)

2. Just a few (proper) citations to answer your question:

To find a basic point of jumping off in answering this question you can start here: –http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu…

As to homeopathy's general lack of evidence of its own efficacy, try this article:

–http://www.newsweek.com/2008/0…

Or,

Referring specifically to homeopathy, the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has stated:

“In the Committee’s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful. Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.”

(http://www.parliament.uk/busin…

Or,

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the United States' National Institutes of Health states:

“Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. For these reasons, critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile. Others point to observational and anecdotal evidence that homeopathy does work and argue that it should not be rejected just because science has not been able to explain it”

(http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ho…

In regards to 'water memory' there are these articles:

–Teixeira, J (2007), “Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view”, Homeopathy 96 (3): 158–62, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.001, PMID 17678811

–Milgrom, L (2007), “Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy”, Homeopathy 96 (3): 209–19, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.002, PMID 17678819 .

Water memory is counter to the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the law of mass action–FYI.

In regards to your attempted rebuttal of homeopathy and the placebo effect you're confusing the effect with the 'non-specific effect'. Try these articles:

–Barrett S (28 December 2004), “Homeopathy: the ultimate fake”

–Ernst, E (2007), “Placebo: new insights into an old enigma”, Drug Discovery Today 12 (9-10): 413–8, doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2007.03.007, PMID 17467578

Ernst, by the way, is one of your own, just with a better understanding of science and research (and integrity).

For the dangers of homeopathy as delaying px accessing evidence based modalities (proven), you can try these articles:

–Altunc, U.; Pittler, M. H.; Ernst, E. (2007), “Homeopathy for Childhood and Adolescence Ailments: Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials”, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82 (1): 69–75,

–Ernst, E; White, AR (1995), “Homoeopathy and immunization.”, The British journal of general practice 45 (400): 629–30,

–http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pro…

–Malik, Imtiaz A.; Gopalan, Sethuraman (2002), “Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer”, European Journal of Epidemiology 18 (8): 817–22, doi:10.1023/A:1025343720564, “CAM use [in the developing countries this study solely considered] was associated with delay in seeking medical advice (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.3) and presentation at an advanced stage of disease”

3. You seem to be unclear as in how immunization and epidemiology works. The vaccine is a very limited number of strains of influenza that have been determined through epidemiological research (statistics, demographics, and prediction) to be most likely to be facing a specific regional area. These are what are in this years (any years) vaccine, not all possible strains.

The flu the px gets, in your example, would not be the influenza strain within the spectrum of influenza's in the immunization. Are you aware that there are literally millions of different strains of influenza and that they change over time (i.e. evolve), yes?

4. (a) Show the Cochrane and CDC studies–this is called citation.; (b) please read up on the mortality rate of the Spanish Flu.

RE: R. Roy. I can only assume–because you didn't provide a citation–that you're referring to the artcle, “Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenic-induced toxicity in mice.” The 'findings' were from a small sample group of mice; they were never replicated anywhere else; and have never moved into human trials (and for good reason).

I'm not sure why you're arbitrarily applying your own rules. Please take a close look at several of the responses by poster 'lauriej1'.

Personally, I don't take offence to these–but, seeing as you've removed other posts no more (or less) offensive I am wondering what your criteria for censure is..?

You don't seem to be applying this fairly, so could you be more specific in your criteria?

You have provided only links to websites as support of your claim that there are “100's” of of studies “published in respected, peer-reviewed journals like…”, but to be taken seriously you'd need to provide that actual articles–otherwise, your not citing sources at all.

The responses to the CBC report represent (1) a comments section open to anyone and anonymous and (b) are anecdotal replies, not evidence of anything. Of this, Spiked is more of the same.

Is there a reason why you do not provide specific citations? If you're unsure of how to do so (in this medium) feel free to take a look at my response to lauriej1 above for examples

I have been getting a flu shot for several decades and I have never been sick with a flu, but I would not cite this as evidence of the efficacy of immunization, I would cite the epidemiological studies…anecdotes are stories, they are not evidence….

My apologies, I missed these two questions:

1. Are Vaccines safe question:

NOTE: I only included government organizations because, unlike their private counter-parts, public services are held more easily to account, have a greater and clearer mandate to the public, and are more transparent (this is not suggesting they're perfect).

–Health Canada: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/…

“Yes. Vaccines are among the safest tools of modern medicine. Serious side effects are rare. For example, severe allergic reactions can occur, but they very rarely do. In Canada, this kind of reaction has occurred less than once in every 1 million doses of vaccine, and there are effective treatments for this condition. The dangers of vaccine-preventable diseases are many times greater than the risks of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. “

–U.S. Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pu…

“In the vast majority of cases, vaccines are effective and cause no side effects or only mild reactions such as fever or soreness at the injection site. Very rarely, people experience more serious side effects, like allergic reactions. Be sure to tell your healthcare provider if your child has health problems or known allergies to medications or food. Severe reactions to vaccines occur so rarely that the risk is usually difficult to calculate.”

–U.K. National Health Services: http://www.brightonandhovepct….

“All vaccines available through the NHS have been thoroughly tested for safety and, though all medicines can cause side effects, vaccines are among the safest medicines in the world. “

2. Are they safe for pregnant women:

–Health Canada Immunization Guide (see p. 18 for specifics to your question): http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Col…

This is the sixth edition, for updates go here: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/nac…

The short answer: “Vaccinators are advised to consult with an expert in pregnancy and immunization before deciding on the necessity for immunization during pregnancy.”

However, caution is evidence only of concern. Read this closely:

“Immunization during pregnancy may be indicated if the risk of infection is high, the
illness would cause significant risk to the mother or fetus, and the risk of adverse
effects from the vaccine is acceptably low. When these conditions do not prevail, any
vaccination should be deferred until after delivery. There is a theoretical risk to the
fetus from live-virus vaccines, but specific fetal damage from administration of currently
licensed vaccines during pregnancy has not been reported.”

“There is no evidence to suggest that pregnant women are at increased risk of allergic
reactions after immunization.”

“Immunization with live, attenuated virus for children from families with pregnant
women is not contraindicated and should never be postponed for this reason.”

Please note that, like anything in science, it is usually the scientists who will be forthcoming about any concerns and rarely the critics. For example, there ARE controversies (of merit) with Immunization, but you can read about them clearly here–from Health Canada (not homeopathy.com): http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/pub…

Please provide specific citations to your unsubstantiated claim that “Cochrane studies consistently indicate that conventional swine flu vaccine has been proved NOT to work and has no scientific validity.”

RE: “The real travesty is vaccine pseudoscience being media hyped at the uninformed public creating a false belief system that this cooked up junk will work, and that governments have been conned into doing nothing more than lining the pockets of vaccine manufacturers.”
–Please qualify and provide substantiation to these declarative claims

RE: “Moreover, recent studies compared the overall likelihood of “placebo effect” in conventional drugs vs. homeopathic remedies. It's about equal.”
–Besides the fact that you–again–do not substantiate or cite these “recent studies”, the trouble this is twofold: one, the placebo effect would be the same no matter what–I'm not sure you're really understanding what a 'placebo effect' is here; two, if the only evidence for homeopathy is placebo then it becomes a problem of ethics via informed consent: you cannot provide a modality ethically if its only known effect is placebo because this is misleading the patient.

Finally, homeoprophylaxis is merely the hyped up term for 'like cures like' and provides no new evidence in support of homeopathy. In this sense it has an analogue in creationists dressing up their beliefs as 'intelligent design'–same old idea, new scientific sounding word, still lacks evidence.

In regards to the Cuban experience, this study is dissected here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicin…

The long and the short of it is that the authors “conducted a study of questionable ethics and questionable methodology, and came up with questionable conclusions. Most important, however, was the lack of a plausible hypothesis from the start. There is no reason to think that ultra-diluted potions containing nary a molecule of “medicine” should affect anything. Given this lack of plausibility, statistically significant findings should be examined with suspicion, and other explanations for any such findings should be sought aggressively. The authors do not discuss possible alternative explanations, exacerbating the travesty that is their work.”

It is also discussed (and dissected) here: http://www.quackometer.net/blo…

In the end you are providing neither argument nor evidence let alone citation to support your claims.

Hey Guy – try to look up survival statistics for the 1918 Spanish Flu. Death rate for those treated with homeopathy were 1% – death rates for those treated with conventional medicine were 30 to 40%.

Olavius: provide a specific citation, otherwise you're not making a point nor a counter-point nor providing evidence.

Hi, Just a small note: It's toe the line, not tow the line.
The phrase “toe the line” is equivalent to “toe the mark,” both of which mean to conform to a rule or a standard. The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002; ed. by Glynnis Chantrell) says, “The idiom toe the line from an athletics analogy originated in the early 19th century” (514)

Interesting. I always thought 'toe the line' was an old British Navy term for doing morning head counts to ensure every one was there and not either dead or escaped. There's a line on the deck that men would have to put their toes on….

Here's how you make a homeopathic “medicine”: you start with something that has no provable connection to the disease, other than the arbitrary assertion that it causes symptoms something like the disease (often highly subjectively selected). You then dilute it until there is none left. The dilution only works if you bang it exactly the right number of times on a special leather pad – there is no known rational basis for the selection of this particular number. Then, you drip it onto sugar pills and let it evaporate. Finally you give the sugar pills a label. This label is generally the only thing that distinguishes one remedy from another, no known scientific test can tell the difference.

Recommend it all you like, I still say it's somewhere between witchcraft and fraud.

See under “confirmation bias”. Next?

200 years of “clinical use” indicates nothing other than that for 200 years people have used it. People used bloodletting for a very long time, now thankfully it's restricted to conditions where it actually works (such as polycythaemia). 200 years ago Samuel Hahnemann did not know about Avogadro's number or quantum mechanics, now we know about these things and they absolutely refute core tenets of homeopathy.

Your argument does not establish the objective validity of homeopathy any more than the number of adherents of any particular religion objectively establishes its belief system. And let's remember that, just as religious belief systems are generally mutually exclusive to a greater or lesser degree, so CAM modalities are also mutually incompatible – yet each modality has adherents who use exactly the same appeals to tradition and popularity as arguments for their chosen form of “healing”.

“Measles transmission within the US stopped in 2000 because of vaccination. Outbreaks here start with an importation from somewhere else where the disease still flourishes — but they gain a foothold because lack of vaccination, primarily from vaccine refusal, lets the disease get past what should be an impregnable barrier of herd immunity to attack those who are too young to be vaccinated or whose immunity has faded.”

http://www.wired.com/wiredscie…

Reasons like the ones in this article, and the ones I discussed in an earlier post but which were removed by the moderators for an unknown and unqualified reasons, are why it is an un-ethical position NOT to vaccinate except where clearly contra-indicated.

You cannot avoid the ethical implications by deleting posts under the guise of them being 'personal attack'–that's just disingenuous.

This is exactly the reason that homeopathy needs regulation, restriction and in many cases banning!

As this group very eloquently puts it:
http://www.facebook.com/group….