Homeopathy: A Scholarly Computer Geek Investigates for Himself
Meet James Pannozzi, 62, of Sarasota, Florida. During his 32 year career as a software developer in open source projects, data communications and annuities, one family member after another began to succumb to a strange, undiagnosed and eventually fatal illness. This mysterious malaise, which began to affect him as well, led to an investigation of all manner of conventional and alternative medicine. Driven to find a solution to the chronic and debilitating symptoms, he studied medical books and other health references in his quest for answers. Using Google Book Search to investigate older homeopathy books, he fully expected to agree on it being the irrational, unscientific hogwash the continual stream of medical journal and newspaper articles claimed it was. In fact it was the very proliferation of articles against it that brought it to his attention in the first place. He says “I originally was skeptical, but what alerted me that there might be more to homeopathy was the strident and quite unreasonable level of innuendo and misrepresentation against it. Why would something nonsensical require literally hundreds of magazine, newspaper and journal articles to condemn it?”
To his surprise, the more he investigated homeopathy and the huge body of literature, clinical experience and research of the past 200 years, the more he became convinced of its validity. Through reading and research, “I started to learn to my COMPLETE ASTONISHMENT that homeopathy and other alternative modalities were not the absurd unscientific quackery that they had been made out to be. Many of those wonderful homeopathic doctors were no quacks or charlatans but instead among the finest and most dedicated doctors of their day. One can sense their initial disbelief that an infinitesimal dose could possibly work but with continued experimentation and experience, prove definitively to themselves (and me!) that it did work, by the detailed case studies, descriptions and clinical reports. Later on I discovered the experiments of M. Ennis and the web site of Dr. Rustum Roy (www.rustumroy.com) and learned that the scientific basis for homeopathy may not be so very far off from being discovered and that this discovery could very well be one of the greatest breakthroughs of the 21st century.”
Inspired by his research and personal experience, when he retired from computer programming Pannozzi began preparing for a new career as an alternative health practitioner. He has just completed his degree in acupuncture, Chinese herbology and oriental medicine and plans to embark on a formal study of homeopathy. Somewhere in his spare time he also translates homeopathic texts into Italian (he is fluent in Russian and can read Italian and German) and is studying classical Chinese. Never one to shy away from controversy, he has become a vocal defender of homeopathy and sees it, as well as other forms of alternative medicine, as vitally important to include in our institutional medical care: “The basic principals by which homeopathy heals people remains unchanged and is so badly needed in today’s health care systems, many of which lie in utter and obvious ruin.”
Regarding the continued attacks against homeopathy, he says “I have seen more and more increasingly irrational attacks against alternative medicine, with most of them claiming some sort of sanctimonious ‘scientific’ evidence to support their absurd attacks.” He leaves comments on various blogs populated by anti-homeopathy spammers, saying “I’m all for science, but oppose attempts at misrepresentation, ridicule and innuendo against alternative medicine. I remind the armchair skeptics that despite all their talk of science and ‘evidence,’(and attempts to make it appear more than it is), all they really have right now until the researchers are done is opinion – and their opinion is no better or worse than anyone else’s.”
Oh - and regarding the mysterious family illness that was slowly killing everyone off? Turns out it was Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, an autoimmune disorder causing an imbalance of hormones. Treated with a simple hormone replacement pill, Pannozzi is now free to move ahead and pursue his dream: following in the footsteps of the brilliant, dedicated homeopathic and alternative practitioners whose work continues to provide inspiration and healing on into the future.
One of the reasons why there are so many articles surrounding--and debunking--homeopathy are because followers refuse to accept the evidence against it. Note that many of the "irrational" attacks that Pannozzi is referring to are from the internet. He makes little or no rational mention of the serious investigations into homeopathy that professionals from a variety of fields have made showing the outlandish weaknesses in homeopathic beliefs, nor to the inability of homeopathy to reproduce its own claims.
The reality is twofold: on the one hand, homeopathy makes claims that would fly in the face of modern science and medicine. This, in and of itself, of course, is not enough to debunk homeopathy. However, as Carl Sagan has stated, in the face of established, long-standing, peer-reviewed, and sound theories in science any extraordinary claims are required to provide extraordinary evidence to the contrary. Homeopathy has simply failed to do so.
On the other hand, science doesn't disprove a claim: that is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. The claim, itself, must stand to rigor. What science does do is to strive to provide explanations to observed phenomenon--such observations can range from 'hypothesis' to 'theory' to 'law'. This is the 'scientific method'. What discerns the difference between the veracity of each is (a) the ability for peers to reproduce similar findings and (b) for explanations of observed phenomenon to be reinforced by those independent and objective (and competitive) inquiries.
Homepathy, although it makes many claims and squeaks very loudly, has never been able to stand to scientific rigor, provide sound reasons for its findings, nor have its "observed" phenomenon (usually anecdotal) reproduced by an independent or objective source.
Promoters will, of course, cry many forms of foul: from conspiracy theory of a scientific cabal, to the 'lone hero' theory, to the I've seen it work or made it work myself (anecdote). In the end, however, the proponents of homeopathy have yet to provide evidence (let alone extraordinary evidence ) for their claims, nor have their claims, when investigated independently and objectively, been reproducible.
Ironically (perhaps tragically) Susan Drury and Pannozzi make reference to the "mysterious malaise" that is Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis. Well this condition is not so mysterious. It is, in fact, "believed to be the most common cause of primary hypothyroidism in North America" (wikipedia). This is an easily diagnosed and treated disorder requiring nothing more than a tablet a day to thyroid levels at normal (see Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hashimotos-disease/DS00567).
The fact remains that the burden of proof rests on the proponents of homeopathy to provide sound evidence for its extraordinary claims and, then, such results must stand to scientific rigor. Anything less, well, caveat emptor (or worse). Readers interested can begin by looking at these articles. They are not necessarily scholarly research, but they will provide links to such:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
[see "references" at the end of the article]
National Academy Against Helath Fraud: http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html
Skeptic Detective, "Mistaken Authority": http://skepticdetective.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/mistaken-authority/
Science Based Medicine (website): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=336
Perhaps one of the most readable and interesting investigations into all forms of pseudoscience and such is Carl Sagan's, "Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark." Specifically, Chapter 10 ('The Dragon In My Garage') deals nicely with the pseudoscience that is homeopathy as well as the actual dangers involved in holding to it.
You can find this book at Google books here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=5QpLlsPPM_YC&dq=%22carl+sagan%22+%22demo...
Regarding wcullen's statement that:
"He makes little or no rational mention of the serious investigations into homeopathy that professionals from a variety of fields have made showing the outlandish weaknesses in homeopathic beliefs, nor to the inability of homeopathy to reproduce its own claims. "
There are no "outlandish" weaknesses in Homeopathy any more so than in any other branch of science, nor would it be a sufficient basis to form any worthwhile conclusions. I find the "many-worlds" hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics to be far more outlandish than anything Homeopathy has to offer but I don't believe anyone is attacking those scientists as quacks because of it.. The "unusual" aspects of something are not sufficient grounds by which to evaluate it, particularly if it is all based on someone's 1930's ball and stick mental models of chemical molecules. And Homeopathy has, excuse me, been reproducing its curative effects for two centuries now.
And regarding this statement:
"The fact remains that the burden of proof rests on the proponents of homeopathy to provide sound evidence for its extraordinary claims and, then, such results must stand to scientific rigor."
I most certainly do agree and scientists and researchers such as Dr. Iris Bell MD, PhD and M. Ennis are doing just that. Here is a survey of research presented by Dr. Bell at a debate on Homeopathy a few years ago. She discusses the fact that THERE ARE A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER of high quality studies showing homeopathy works.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
Scientific references to journal articles on Homeopathy are here:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/content/homeopathy-research-evidence-base-references
For those who wish to do more than passively accept the pre-packaged bias of the "quackedwatch" web site or the books and sites of other sceptics, the following link may prove of interest, perhaps even revelation because it will have you laughing your socks off at some of the "arguments" of the sceptics:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/
Pretending that research favorable to Homeopathy does not exist will not make it go away. It is good to be sceptical but we MUST allow genuine scientific research to proceed unimpeded by media innuendo, and by those who have allowed their opinions to be shaped by it rather than by a careful reasoning look at the facts - wherever they may lead.
James Pannozzi
Readers can simply look under the wikipedia entry "Claims of Homeopathy." Of course, wikipedia, itself, is not a repository of research, but this entry at least will point readers to long established, soundly researched, and peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I'll quote just a few lines and readers can follow the links to the research themselves.
In regards to their being no outlandish weaknesses in homeopathy:
"Simply put, claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence."
In regards to the so-called 'positive' studies supporting homeopathy:
"While some studies have positive results, systematic reviews of all the published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy."
And,
"...most positive studies have not been replicated or show methodological problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy."
Finally, "higher quality trials tend to report less positive results."
Readers should note the level of the journals cited in the wiki entry: Journal of Clinical Pharmacology; American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs; Mayo CLinic Proceedings; Lancet; The British Medical Journal; The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; The European Journal of Clinical Pharmocology.
Now compare the references that Susan Drury and James Pannozzi refer to and you'll find that the vast majority of them (no, not all---but see the wiki entry references # 8, 11, 15, 18, & 20) refer to "journals" that are not widely accepted within the medical or scientific fields. This is not because there is a conspiracy against them, rather that they very often use unsound, questionable, or unreliable methods of investigation (see wiki references # 8, 11, 18, & 20--specifically)--let alone the concern of bias through their direct connections to the industry (not that science and medicine don't have these issues).
What you will also notice from proponents is that they will dismiss arguments or avoid them instead of addressing them as can be seen in Pannozzi's dismissal of an otherwise excellent (and well referenced) response to homeopathy via the perhaps ill-named 'Quackwatch' site. Instead of drawing direct argument against or illustrating weaknesses in the articles and links I've provided he, instead, warns you of it being "pre-packaged bias." Readers can, and will, very easily recognise just what is 'pre-packaged' and what is soundly researched and referenced.
What I suggest is, for those of you unlike Drury and Panozzi who have made up their minds, you investigate the issue--through credible sources--yourselves.
In the end, homeopathy's claims have not been adequately supported nor reproduced; furthermore, the very basis of homeopathy's claims fly in the face of several sciences. Therefore, the burden of proof is on them to not only reproduce their claims using sound methodology, but, seeing as these are extraordinary claims, they will need to provide extraordinary evidence. Sadly, and again, sound and even basic evidence is not forthcoming...
drf: As a Certified Veterinary Homeopath, you will no doubt be able to point us in the direction of some properly conducted clinical trials which demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for animals. I am sure there are masses of anecdotal evidence, but there are many readers here who will not be satisfied by that and will require more substantive evidence.
Contrary to what you say about the placebo effect and animals, I would hope to see studies which take the effect into consideration. Animals are not immune to the placebo effect: just as we humans respond well to a little loving care and attention, it can also work wonders for your pet. Giving an animal a sugar pill and some extra attention is like giving a toddler a Band Aid and a warm hug. The child may only have an upset stomach or a mild bruise, and yet it might appear that the Band Aid actually cured something.
The placebo effect might also work in the other direction: if we give an animal a medicine, we might ourselves believe they are getting well as a consequence. If an owner believes their dog is recovering from a malady for which treatment was adminstered, they might then take them on more walks and the dog may appear to get better. Was it the treatment or the run in the long grass? The placebo effect can work on the human, whose behaviour then influences the animal.
Animals also recover without the need for intervention, just as we humans do. We might fools ourselves into believing that the recovery was due to a medicine that was given, when in fact it had nothing to do with it. It is very hard to tell, which is why clinical trials are conducted and why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient means with which to judge the efficacy of a medicine.
If you can cite us some evidence for your claims that homeopathy works on animals, I would hope to see that the factors outlined above were controlled for in the studies. Double blind trials using placebos and control groups are probably the best methods we have available, and statistically significant results which show a positive outcome should be reproducible. If the evidence shows that homeopathy works and can cure serious illnesses in animals, as you say, this is something that the whole world needs to know about.
From wiki: "The FDA has not approved homeopathic products as veterinary medicine in the U.S. In the UK, veterinary surgeons who use homeopathy belong to the Faculty of Homeopathy and/or to the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons. Animals may only be treated by qualified veterinary surgeons in the UK and some other countries. Internationally, the body that supports and represents homeopathic veterinarians is the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy. The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is controversial, as there has been little scientific investigation and current research in the field is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data.[1] Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[1]
1. [note this is footnoe #90 in the original wikipedia entry] Hektoen L (2005), "Review of the current involvement of homeopathy in veterinary practice and research", Vet Rec 157 (8): 224–9, PMID 16113167
What are our bodies made of? are they made of chemicals? When there are literally tons of money to be made on chemical medicines do you honestly think any alternative will be given a chance? You are wrong, in this greedy world money talks. You talk of scientific research which most of is done by big pharma (they are the only ones who can afford to) of course money will make sure which method will work as even more mysterious diseases will appear when all our food is corrupted by genetic modification. I challenge anyone to show me an independent study that will show that genetically modified food is the same as organic, you are wrong because you cannot outGod God. Oh well when the chemical (Monsanto voted most evil corporation in the world at naturalfoods.com) and pharmaceutical companies get done with us there will be no more earth. Ever wonder why nothing in the grocery store is marked GMO? If it is'nt marked how will you trace diseases or allergy's, etc. to GMO's? Just another way of money making sure we do not know the truth. I also read an article where the placebo effect is all baloney because there is no standard for the placebo. Lies repeated over and over can become accepted as truth simply because of its repetition. Just like homeland security we are being trained to like being herded around and taken care of so we do not question why its being done. If a terrorist really wanted to hurt our country there are far more effective ways than an airplane or two out of control. Sorry folks I grew up thinking for myself and not accepting something simply because it is repeated over and over. If herbs and tonics do not work show me some real scientific proof of that because chemicals are not the answer.
Awesome, well stated. wish more people would think this way.
We have been brainwahsed for too long, we need more open minded people in this world. The food industry and Big pharma are all amont $$$$. That's all they care about.
It is interesting to note that Samuel Hahnemann launched homeopathy in 1796, the same year Edward Jenner launched his smallpox inoculation, which was to evolve into today's multi-billion dollar vaccine industry. The medical profession regards vaccination as a triumph of medical science, even though there is no evidence to show that it prevents diseases or saves lives. In fact, vaccination is best described as an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention. It is somewhat ironic that homeopathy, which the medical profession considers a fraud, is virtually the only modality which can alleviate or reverse some of the wide-spread harm caused by vaccinations.
Home - homeopathy, vaccination and autism website Dr. Tinus Smits
Dr. Tinus Smits presents a very effective treatment for autism. The CEASE therapy which stands for Complete Elimination of the Autistic Spectrum Expression ...www.tinussmits.com/
It is interesting to note that Samuel Hahnemann launched homeopathy in 1796, the same year Edward Jenner launched his smallpox inoculation, which was to evolve into today's multi-billion dollar vaccine industry. The medical profession regards vaccination as a triumph of medical science, even though there is no evidence to show that it prevents diseases or saves lives. In fact, vaccination is best described as an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention. It is somewhat ironic that homeopathy, which the medical profession considers a fraud, is virtually the only modality which can alleviate or reverse some of the wide-spread harm caused by vaccinations.
Home - homeopathy, vaccination and autism website Dr. Tinus Smits
Dr. Tinus Smits presents a very effective treatment for autism. The CEASE therapy which stands for Complete Elimination of the Autistic Spectrum Expression ...www.tinussmits.com/
According to the sceptics of homeopathy, anecdotal evidence from millions of people worldwide claiming the efficacy of homeopathic medicine is not acceptable because they are not deemed scientific. However, when presented with randomised, double blind controlled studies in peer reviewed journals (of which there are many) despite the evidence which clearly shows effects which go beyond placebo these are not considered good enough.
Apparently the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is controversial, due to insufficient scientific investigation and/or is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data. "Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists." Here are a few trials results which presumably are of a high enough standard due to the publications they appear in. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/2/4http://ict.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/362
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657773
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10484832 I doubt whether the pet/owner placebo hypotheses would be applicable to the lab rats and mice and farm pigs in the above papers.
How about rct's in peer reviewed journals using plants then? No anecdotes, no placebo effect. Here are some results. http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-plant-studies/ Curious eh?