The Great DBH Rant

A couple of pro-homeopathy blogs, as well as several homeopathy resource websites which I follow have hailed a publication by Dr Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Laureate which allegedly proves homeopathic remedies are active. The paper in question is here (PDF). Dr Montagnier was credited with co-discovering the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Big name attached to homeopathy again, like Professor Magdalene Ennis. I have already discussed her 2004 publication with regards to the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on basophils previously.

The abstract of the Montagnier et al paper describes a new property of DNA, whereby high aqueous dilutions of some bacterial DNA sequences can induce electromagnetic (EM) waves.

It is not my intention in this article to criticise this particular publication. In fact, I found it quite interesting. I will not attempt to give technical opinions on this paper regarding methodology, since I do not have much background in EM waves. I hope physicists who happen to stumble across this article can give a more balanced opinion on the methodology involved.

However, one point which has to be made is that the paper is published in Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, a non-peer reviewed journal. The findings of such articles have to be taken with caution.

Another point about the article is that it appears to be a preliminary study. Results were simply reported as either “positive” or “negative” with no attempts at quantification or statistical verification.

The main finding of the paper was that bacterial DNA sequences diluted to between 10^-5M to 10^-18M give off specific EM waves at a different frequency which would be expected of background “noise”. At higher dilutions, nothing above background was recorded.

May I point out that at 10^-18M there is still DNA left? It is by no means homeopathic. In fact the authors acknowledge that at higher dilutions, the EM signals were indistinguishable from background.

The findings of the paper raises interesting questions about the properties of specific DNA sequences, and is certainly an area worth pursuing. However, it is not a paper that bears any relation to homeopathy.

It seems like any paper with the phase high aqueous dilutions written anywhere will pass off as evidence that homeopathy works these days.

Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day, me hearties! Arrrrrrr.

In light of classic physiology and pharmacology, we know the action of endogenous or exogenous ligands is via interactions with a specific type (or types) of receptor. The receptor then changes shape and illicit a predictable functional effect. The extent of this effect typically depends on the concentration of the ligand.

Homeopathic remedies are substances diluted well beyond the Avogadro’s constant, and as such can reasonably be expected to contain no active ligand. The basis of homeopathy assumes that the solvent in which the original ligand was diluted in retains some sort of memory of the original ligand, and as such, the more times the dilution is performed, this memory is strengthened.

That is, this memory is transferrable between solvents during the process of succussion or violent shaking.

As a result, homeopathic remedies claim to have a larger effect the more times it is diluted or succussed. However, this claim has not yet been demonstrated in rigorous scientific studies.

Another problem which has not been reasonably addressed is the fate of these solvents once it enters the human body, which is a vast aqueous environment. Under normal circumstances, i.e., when “normal” or non homeopathic solvents (such as water) are ingested, it would be expected that the solvent molecules diffuses and become homogenous with the body’s aqueous environment.

In other words, these water molecules are indistinguishable with other water molecules in the body.

The memory of the solvent in homeopathic remedies is believed to be due to specific interactions between two or more solvent molecules. I therefore have several questions:

1. Do the solvent in homeopathic remedies not conform to the laws of diffusion? That is, do they retain their interactions with neighbouring solvent molecules after they enter the body?
   1. If they don’t, there is no reasonable mechanism of action, regardless of whether dilution and violent shaking can confer “memory”.
2. If the memory of solvents is indeed transferrable by shaking, would this memory then be transferred to the aqueous environment in the body, given the turbulent flow of blood in some areas?
   1. If they do, would homeopathic remedies not essentially act as vaccines – the patient would not get ill with the same ailment ever again?
   2. Would the taking in of more water during, say drinking, “potentise” the effects? If so, homeopathic remedies should be self sustaining in the body. There is no need for repeated dosage.

I believe these are important considerations if supporters of homeopathy want to be taken seriously.

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of debates about the effectiveness of homeopathy. The tired arguments of quoting poorly conducted clinical trials, cherry picking data and downright baseless statements have culminated in the Faculty of Homeopathy (FoH) to release a statement yesterday titled “We Answer the Critics” (PDF here). You would think there will be some meat in this 5-page document.

The first two points deals with clinical effectiveness and whether homeopathy is beyond the placebo effect. There has already been a lot of discussion as to the lack of positive data regarding homeopathy in clinical trials. It is not my aim here to discuss clinical trial data for one simple reason: There is no scientific basis for homeopathy and without this, in my view, I don’t think homeopathic remedies should even be tested in a clinical setting. Clinical trials that allegedly favour homeopathy, has already been debunked elsewhere.

It is considered unethical in some cases to use a placebo in some randomised clinical trials, because there should not be a group of patients who are denied treatment, particularly when they are selected because they carry a certain disease. Without basic scientific proof that homeopathic remedies exert any biological effect, they are in fact water, ergo, placebo.

Therefore, I have always been bewildered at the number of clinical trials conducted with homeopathic remedies, when the scientific basis is non-existent. The process of drug testing has always involved basic science research into the mechanisms, targets, efficacy, and dose response relationship. This means, we know the cell type(s) and receptor(s) with which the drug interacts with, as well as the functional effects that this drug produces on the cell, then the system, and finally the whole organism. We also know how much drug would produce a given level of effect (dose-response). We also know the amount of drug which may be fatal. Homeopathic remedies seem to bypass all these basic science research and head straight for clinical trials.

Which brings me to the third point in the FoH statement: That there is a scientific basis for homeopathy. I am interested in basic science, so this will be the focus of my rant.

The So-Called Science

Before I start, a quick recap of the “science” behind homeopathy. The basis of homeopathic remedies lies with 2 key points which flies in the face of all science:

1. The dilution of a substance beyond Avogadro’s constant retains its biological effects.
2. The more dilute, the more effect.

Point #2 needs more clarification. A substance diluted to the point where no molecule remains could not be diluted further. It is plain water (or solvent). Subsequent dilutions result in hypothetical concentrations.

Since the experiments of Jacques Benveniste and the Nature fiasco in 1988, many attempts to replicate Benveniste’s original findings or the effects of ultra-dilute solutions have failed [1, 2].

Belon et al [3] found something though, and this is one of the papers the FoH cited in their statement. Homeopathic concentrations of histamine (<10^-30 M) significantly inhibited anti-IgE mediated activation of basophils.

Bit of quick background: Addition of anti-IgE activates basophils. The cells then release histamine as part of the allergic response. Activated cells can be stained blue by Alcian Blue, which acts as a marker for activation. The histamine released acts on specific receptors on the basophils to stop activation. This is called a negative feedback process.

So theoretically, if we add anti-IgE together with histamine, we should get lesser activation than just anti-IgE alone. In fact, we already know that. The difference here is they are testing ultra-diluted histamine – also known as – no histamine.

Second bit of background. Histamine concentrations of <10^-30 M are exactly what I mentioned above. They are hypothetical concentrations. Nothing is left but water by this point. In fact, at dilutions beyond 10^-23 M, we are already entering the realms of there being one single molecule of histamine left.

The Belon et al Experimental Setup

The Belon et al study was done at 4 separate locations, France, Netherlands, UK and Italy. Basophils were purified from human blood (with all the ethical clearance). They took the basophils and separated them into two groups, one would have 3 concentrations of anti-IgE (1 µg/ml, 0.2 µg/ml, and 0.04 µg/ml) tested with water diluted to different hypothetical concentrations (from 10^-30 M to 10^-38 M). So these lot are the controls. The second group would have the same 3 concentrations of anti-IgE with histamine diluted to the same hypothetical concentrations. So to visualise the different experiments performed, the two sets of experiments could be grouped into a table like this:

Table 1

So the water column acts as controls, and the histamine column is the test. Arranging the data like this means that they are also testing increasingly dilute histamine at various anti-IgE concentrations. It is good, I’d love to see some “reverse dose response”.

I didn’t. Shame.

Botched Controls

First up, simple science. If the experiments were set up correctly, we would expect that in the control group, nothing would happen in increasingly dilute water. But, we would expect that in varying concentrations of anti-IgE, there would be a dose dependent effect. That means there would be more activation of basophils at 1 µg/ml, lesser at 0.2 µg/ml, and least in 0.04 µg/ml.

This was not the case.

From the data in 3 out of 4 labs, there were clearly no changes in activation between the different anti-IgE groups in control conditions. To me, that means that the controls were already botched. The basophils were not responding in a predictable, physiological manner.

Dodgy cells, or dodgy anti-IgE preparation, I don’t care which. This was not a rigorous experiment as the authors claim. To be fair, this paper is already not worthwhile pursuing. Actually, the journal itself has lost a lot of credibility, since their peer review process didn’t even pick up something this obvious.

But lets plough on with another point, because in one of the labs, there was the expected dose dependency in controls. Before I even get into what they actually found, there was another strange occurrence.

Moving the Goal Posts

They clearly went through the trouble to test increasingly dilute water and histamine by knocking up 5 different concentrations of the stuff. But they presented and analysed their data by lumping together all 5 different concentrations as one – called “+histamine”. So the groups now look like this:

Table 2

Suddenly much simpler eh? You assume differences with varying concentrations of histamine, then put them together as one variable?

Are they retrospectively assuming that “Ah there is nothing in them anyway, just lump them together”?

You cannot do that.

Still, putting this aside, only the lowest concentration of anti-IgE tested showed what you would expect of histamine, a significant reduction in activation. And this was only by around 12%. At the highest concentrations of anti-IgE, there was actually a significant increase in activation. The complete opposite to what you would expect. Of course, in the discussion, the authors just glossed over this.

Missing Data

Looking at some of the raw data revealed an issue which may explain why different dilutions were lumped together to be analysed, and also the significant reduction in activation at 0.04
µg/ml anti-IgE. The authors stated in the paper that some 30% of data points were discarded because of either “lost” data, or “censored” data, where the basophils did not respond to anti-IgE treatment. This is hardly surprising, considering the gaping problem with their control data.

But missing and/ or discarded data is not uncommon, so long as there is a good justification for it.

Within the raw data, the only times where ultra-diluted histamine seemed to have an effect was when the N number was exceptionally low, i.e. very few measurements were recorded. At some dilutions, only 3 or 6 repeats were available, where the rest of the groups were composed of between 15 to 40 measurements. Incidentally, the low number of repeats were where the dilutions had a large effect. So when the different dilutions were averaged together, erroneously, a significant effect is not too surprising.

And even then, the difference was only small.

The rest of the paper shows some anomalous effects here and there, with no correlations to anything. Given the controls were not adequate, this is hardly surprising. One graph showed that the effect of histamine at 10^-10 M is similar to that at 10^-40 M. At 10^-10 M, there is still histamine in the solutions. If anything this graph clearly shows that the more dilute a substance, there is no more effect. Something to bear in mind considering homeopathic remedies get more expensive as they get more dilute.

It bewilders me that the authors described the data as “highly significant”.

It is highly significant if the controls were done right.

When The Method is Rigorous, We See Something Different

The same experiments were performed in 2005 (a year on) by a second group in Switzerland [4]. The conclusion:

We were not able to confirm the previously reported large effects of homeopathic histamine dilutions on basophil function of the examined donor. Seemingly, minor variables of the experimental set up can lead to significant differences of the results if not properly controlled.

The Belon et al study showed nothing.

There is still no scientific basis for homeopathic remedies. I maintain my view that with no physiological basis that the remedies have any biological effect, it is unethical to test them on patients in clinical trials.

Now back to writing my thesis…

References

1.    Hirst, S.J., et al., Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. Nature, 1993. 366(6455): p. 525-7.

2.    Ovelgonne, J.H., et al., Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties. Experientia, 1992. 48(5): p. 504-8.

3.    Belon, P., et al., Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm Res, 2004. 53(5): p. 181-8.

4.    Guggisberg, A.G., et al., Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro. Complement Ther Med, 2005. 13(2): p. 91-100.

You can’t make this stuff up. As though the world is not filled with enough quackery and woo, we now have a “hybrid-woo”. Let’s start with this Fox News report.

(Warning: Contains stupid. DBH will not be responsible for any loss of intelligence caused by watching this clip.)

The website Tong Ren World (no link provided here – I refuse to contribute to it’s google ranking) has this description:

Developed by Tom Tam,   and an integral part of the Tom Tam Healing System,   Tong Ren is a form of energy therapy for restoring health and vitality.   Tong Ren is based on a belief that disease is related to interruptions, or blockages,   in the body’s natural flow of chi, neural bioelectricity, blood, or hormones. Tong Ren seeks to remove these blockages, restoring the body’s natural ability to heal itself, even when illnesses are chronic, debilitating, or otherwise untreatable.

Tong Ren   combines western   knowledge of anatomy and physiology with the ancient principle of “chi,” or life force energy, to create what many consider to be a powerful new healing modality. Drawing on the Jungian theory of the “collective unconscious,”   Tong Ren is believed to access energy from this universal source and direct it to the patient.   Because no physical contact is involved or necessary, Tong Ren is often practiced as distance healing.

So there you have it. Acupuncture points, a doll and a hammer. Bang specific acupuncture points on the doll and healing energy will be emitted which can cure anything from end stage cancer to AIDS. This is a combination of acupuncture and voodoo. The usual canards are there: interruptions and blockages of chi, ancient principles, the ability to treat the untreatable, lack of side effects.

But there’s more. No physical contact necessary and most often done as distance healing. Well the commercial potential of this thing is endless! And the distance healing part has not gone unexploited. Mr Tam has set up a website for conference calls! The site is imaginatively named Tong Ren To Go. Calls are not free, of course. And here is the kicker, it is a modality of healing whereby the more people joins and practices, the bigger it’s healing effect.

The greater number of people who practice Tong Ren, and the frequency with which each person uses it, increases its strength as a tool for healing.

The key point I want to bring up here is not the “the more the better” part, it’s the participation bit. As it turns out, anyone can sign up to “guinea pig” (the name for these Tong Ren classes. Touche!) classes and become a healer. Of course, you need to buy the kit first. There is a dedicated website called Tong Ren Shop. The doll comes at USD 35.00, the hammer at USD 35.00. Then there’s the “TENS machine”, such that an electrical pulse can be applied to specific acupuncture points for more effective healing. That comes in at a whopping USD 85.00. It is not over though, as there is more, and this one takes the cake for me – a laser (USD 30.00). This is what they say the laser does:

We aim the laser at specific points on the Tong Ren to allow the mind to focus on gathering energy into these areas. In general, the laser is used for tonification while the hammer is used to remove physical and energetic blockages.

As I was typing this, Microsoft Word flagged the word “tonification” because it is not in the dictionary. Well I am not surprised. It is a made up word, another characteristic of quackery – the use of jargons which makes no scientific sense. In fact, typing the word “tonification” into google returns a barrage of woo. As it turns out, it is a buzz word in acupuncture.

One last nail in the coffin for classing this as quackery (as if that was ever in any doubt) is the evidence. For the quack experts out there, this is dead simple. It’s success (using this word very loosely) has been measured solely by anecdotes. All Tong Ren websites are littered with “testimonials” of how it has improved, or in many cases, even cured diseases where conventional medicine was stumped. Most of these people have had conventional treatment for, say, cancer. These treatments (chemotherapy, radiotherapy) are not pleasant and takes a while to work. During these times, patients get fed up, upset and seek alternatives. They have woo practiced on them and around the same time, they experience improvements (because of the conventional treatments). The credit then goes to woo.

The woo-practitioners then chalk this anecdote as n+1 data point that the technique works.

And Tom Tam himself actually admits there is no evidence, from his website:

For any healing system, there has to be a supporting theory, no matter where the theory comes from or whether it makes sense. The theory of the collective unconscious is the basis for Tong Ren Therapy. Without proof all theories are merely conjecture. Proof may be found in research or empirical data. Tong Ren has not been proven by any expert research. This type of research involves financial support, political support, development of modern science, and case studies by a qualified practitioner. The proof for all of my theories is only through the experience and results of my patients and myself. Of course I have no doubt that Tong Ren Therapy works. No one can deny the work we have done or the results we have achieved or argue about it.

“Collective unconscious” is continuously being floated as the basis of Tong Ren. What does Mr Tam think it is?

My belief in Tong Ren healing is associated with the philosophy of the collective unconscious and the power of the mind. Many people accept the idea that there is an unconscious and that the mind is powerful. These philosophical views can be found in many books. When a group comes together to form a collective unconscious, as in healing meditation, this collective mind can become healing power. A leader is required for this type of healing power. When we form a group with a collective unconscious mind, we need a, just as a computer needs a font to show a letter on a monitor.

Collective unconscious is a term coined by Carl Jung. It is a metaphysical notion not testable empirically. It is therefore pseudoscience. It is not surprising therefore that a quackery which is based on pseudoscience, is itself too, pseudoscience. The hammering of a doll with a magnetic hammer to emit healing energy is as un-scientific as the statement “amethysts emit high yin energy”, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It carries the usual danger of woo – It detracts patients from vital diagnosis and treatment from conventional medicine.

In other words, it is wasting the time some patients just simply don’t have.

There is one piece of publication on Tong Ren which concluded:

This first study documenting self-reported effects of TR shows subjective benefits and no adverse effects. Further research on this approach is warranted.

The “investigation” sent out questionnaires to participants of the guinea pig classes. They asked people who already believe in Tong Ren to answer questions about the effectiveness and safety of Tong Ren?

They published a paper by collecting anecdotes!

It begs the question – What is the point of this study?

Nevertheless, I do have a message for Tom Tam, the “creator” of Tong Ren – Two wrongs do not make a right.

And the woo-fusion does not stop there. There is a new one – applying Tong Ren to Astrology! I’ll close with this report in the “Tong Ren International Times”:

Tong Ren and Astrology By Sharon Mullen

I have been an astrologer for 20 years, and I have studied with Tom Tam for about the same length of time. While I have long noted correlations between astrology and Tom’s methods, it is only in the last year, that I have begun to actually combine the two together.

Astrology, basically, is the study of the connections between the objects of the cosmos, especially including human beings and the celestial bodies of our solar system. Nearly every ancient culture, apparently independently, observed the relationships between events on Earth and the movements of the celestial objects.

Perhaps the most obvious example involves the tides of the oceans, which are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. The tides at the new moon are the highest, followed by those at the full moon. The lowest tides occur at the quarter moons.

As our own Tom Tam has observed, modern physics has proven that all objects in the universe are interconnected. If the position of the sun and moon change, which they, of course, do every day, the earth and all on earth also change.

At a person’s birth, the planetary energies which exist at the time and place of birth connect with the person’s own energy and become part of the person’s mind and body. It is not clear exactly how the energies come into the person. It has been suggested, however, that they enter the body through the acupuncture points.

In the ancient world, astronomy and astrology were linked, and considered parts of the same study. Ancient astronomers, who observed the motions of the heavenly bodies, always included information about the likely affects of planetary positions on human lives. The most refined form of astrology was developed in areas which are all now in modern-day Iraq (Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Babylon).

Astrologers use charts to depict the planetary positions for a particular time and place. The birth, or natal, chart is for the time and place of a person’s birth. Not unlike Chinese writing, glyphs are used to represent the planets and other astrological information.

All the planets revolve in a counterclockwise manner around the sun, within a band of energy called the zodiac. The zodiac is divided into 12 sections, known as signs. The moon revolves around the earth, also traveling through this zodiac. The sun does not actually move around the zodiac, but it appears to do so, because of the motion of the earth itself around the sun.

Because the planets are moving at different rates of speed, their relationships to each other change. (Mars, for example takes about 2 Earth years to go around the sun. Jupiter takes about 12.) As they revolve around the sun, the planets come into different positions relative to each other. These planetary positions are known as ‘aspects’.

Some planetary aspects are stressful, difficult. To me, these aspects are very similar to the blockages we speak of in Tong Ren. Just as bioelectricity is blocked, so can the ‘cosmic energy’ be ‘blocked’. (Most astrologers do not actually use these terms, but they seem to fit, nonetheless.) Generally, when two planets are on opposite sides of the zodiacal band from each other, or at right angles to each other, these aspects are difficult.

Often, there are difficult aspects within the natal chart. Much of astrology concerns itself with aspects in the natal chart, or between the charts of individuals, which may also present difficulties. Astrology also studies ‘transits’, or planetary positions which occur after the birth (or event) being studied. While the planetary positions in the natal chart will remain the same, the physical planets keep moving, or transiting. As transiting planets make difficult aspects with planets in the natal chart, stressful energies result.

I should note that astrology is not deterministic, as is sometimes supposed. Certain outcomes are not pre-determined from planetary aspects. We can predict areas and times of stress quite precisely, but we cannot absolutely predict the outcome. Most people, at least in our society, have some choice as to how to handle their aspects.

Interestingly, the same difficult aspect in a chart may manifest in completely opposite ways. For example, a person with his/her Sun at a ninety degree angle from Saturn at birth may be either a bully or one who is bullied. This is because the Sun represents the self and Saturn represents authority figures. While we may be able to guess from other aspects in the chart which type of behavior is likely to manifest, we cannot really know for sure.

This is like the Tong Ren concept that a blockage along the C-6 and C-7 areas could cause either hypothyroidism, or hyperthyroidism, either over-activity or under- activity.

I began my own ‘guinea pig’-like experiment last year. I have now incorporated astrology with Tong Ren when working with dozens of people. After identifying the astrological difficulty, the planetary blockage, if you will, I tap along the glyphs for the planets involved with the Tong Ren hammer and then tap the doll (usually at least at the Liver 3, Kidney 1 points, to ground the energies).

Everyone I have worked on has reported a deep level of release when the chart is incorporated with the Tong Ren treatment. Sometimes, the results have been very striking, with symptoms resolving more quickly. For instance, in one case, persistent pain levels improved with use of the incorporation of astrology and Tong Ren. In other cases, persistent depression was helped. In an MS case, one symptom which just would not resolve did indeed resolve, when astrology was incorporated.

Astrology is a complicated study, but basic information about the planets and their relationships is not too difficult to learn, especially if a person concentrates only on his own chart to start with. Hopefully, this guinea pig experiment will expand, with more people trying out the combination of Tong Ren and astrology.

An un-holy trinity of woo! My head hurts!

I wish that I could say that it was me who came up with that tag line in the title. It is brilliant. But I didn’t come up with it. OfQuack (or the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC)) did. When you type in www.ofquack.org.uk in your web browser, you get redirected to the CNHC website. During the redirection, the title of the page reads:

OfQuack – Making Quacks Look Professional Since 2008

I guess that tagline of OfQuack puts to rest once and for all the outrage as to what this “regulatory body” does. There it is – it is to make quacks “look” professional. Does exactly what it says on the tin. As the quackometer’s Le Canard Noir puts it:

…Ofquack is nothing but a thin veneer of so-called regulation being applied to dubious practices to keep both Prince Charles happy and to allow the government to say they are ‘getting tough’ on quacks. The result is nothing but an official rubber stamp on a deluded trade that does nothing to protect people from the absurdity of alternative medicine.

Except that it is not even a “thin veneer of so-called regulation”. It is to legitimize an illegitimate entity – by making them look professional.

I have recently blogged about my experiences of poking the giant bear (a practicing homeopath in Hong Kong) with a wee stick. I got the handbag treatment. I also said that I will post his response once I have digested all the Chinese thrown at my face. Well here it is. I have included the original text (in Chinese so unless your computer can read the characters, they might just be a load of garbage to you) for completeness. Of course, this outburst was translated to the best of my ability, but nevertheless it is still a translation, and by someone who has just been “cyber-yelled” at. It may be biased, although I think this is a pretty good translation. I did not add any thoughts of my own to what he said. Also I feel it is necessary to include here, my original comment to him. For the entire background to why I gave this particular comment to him and his outrage at a fairly level headed comment, see this post.

So I said (and may I point out this is all I have said):

“Hi. I am originally from Macau, but I am not sharing your delight in the “success” homeopathy is enjoying in Macau. It is scary that while homeopathy is not evidence based medicine, that practicing homeopaths like yourself will come out and say that homeopathy is better than conventional, evidence based medicine.

May I point out that homeopathy, at this moment in time, is at best only a fancy and expensive form of placebo treatment. At worst, it is life threatening, because of delays in seeking medical advice and diagnosis from trained medical professionals.

Finally, the only selling point of homeopathy – the lack of side effects, is simply because of the extreme dilutions in homeopathic remedies, where I am sure even you would agree with me, there is no active substance in the remedy really, isn’t there? This aspect of succussion and potentisation of homeopathy remains a laughing point among scientists and medical professionals who believe that medicine should be evidence based.

I apologise for the stinging attack on homeopathy (and please do not take this personally). I am sure that homeopaths are good people. Afterall, you are doing this for the noble reason of curing patients. But please exercise common sense when advertising your beliefs in homeopathy. While there is no concrete, well conducted experiments that show homeopathy actually provides significant effects, homeopathy can only be considered as a complementary form of treatment, not main stream. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to think otherwise.”

And this is what he replied (all English are my translation; all colour changes and highlighting were from the disgruntled homeopath, to emphasise how pissed off he is with me I guess):

身在United Kingdom (英國)？碩士學歷嗎？

Living in the United Kingdom? Masters level of education?

原来你是在大學讀自然科學、為左研究一ｄ有人講係違反科學定論的事、你一定是看到那套以機械来講解順勢療法的可笑節目、所以就寫順勢療法不可信吧～

So you are at university studying natural sciences, researching a topic that some think is anti-science, you must have seen that laughable TV show which used machines to describe homeopathy, that’s why you are writing that homeopathy cannot be trusted.

我都有看過BBC那套節目、用機械去模擬人體・・・研究西薬就得。模擬人體的微循環系統・・・・真的可以的話早就有有血有肉的智能機械人啦～你以為西醫洗腎？你知唔知洗腎的病人因為依頼機械去洗血個腎會壊死架？你認為現在科學的進歩真的可以解析這個世界上的所有？

I have also seen that show by the BBC, which used a machine to mimic the human body… this can only be used to research western medicine. Mimicking the micro-circulatory system… if it is really possible, then by now we would have intelligent blood and flesh robots ~ And then there is kidney dialysis. Do you know that dialysis patients have damaged kidneys because of these dialysis machines? You think that modern day advances in science can deal with everything in this world?

你是為隨波逐流而跟隨那些講順勢療法不可信但無親身體驗過的消極科學家去寫？

Are you just following the words of those scientists who say that homeopathy is not trust-worthy, when they have not tried homeopathy for themselves?

順勢療法是安慰劑效應？

Homeopathy is the placebo effect?

那你有無膽得罪那班話順勢療法無效的科學家、和證明順勢療法有效的科學家一起親身證明順勢療法是有效？

Then do you dare contradicting those scientists who do not believe in homeopathy and come prove homeopathy with scientists who do believe in homeopathy?

再者、我不理會你信不信順勢療法、你可以永遠講順勢療法無效、騙人。

Then again, I don’t care whether you believe in homeopathy, you can forever say that homeopathy is useless, and is a scam.

我認識和使用順勢療法６年多、我媽媽的高血壓用順勢療法醫好、我的鼻敏感用順勢療法醫好、我朋友的媽媽的胃病用順勢療法醫好、我見過一個小朋友食西薬食到急性類風濕、行唔到、用順勢療法醫番好、識行識走。

I have known and used homeopathy for 6 years. Homeopathy cured my mother’s hypertension, it cured my allergic rhinitis, it cured my friend’s mom stomach trouble, I have seen a child taking western medicine and got acute rheumatism, couldn’t walk, but ultimately cured by homeopathy.

我感受過、體驗過、使用過順勢療法、我就是活生生的證據、證明順勢療法是有效的。

I have felt, experienced, and used homeopathy. I am the living proof, that homeopathy works.

如果順勢療法是安慰劑效應、那你不如問一問西醫能不能醫好鼻敏感、哮喘、糖尿和高血壓？

If homeopathy is the placebo effect, then why don’t you ask western doctors if they could cure allergic rhinitis, asthma, diabetes and hypertension?

西醫能不能不用做手術、化療和電療便能醫到癌症？

Can western medicine cure cancer without surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy?

西醫話得番幾個月命的癌症病人、運用順勢療法来治療他的癌症、現在已活了超過西醫所講的“３個月命“X２０倍、現在還非常精神。這是安慰劑效應？

For those patients who were deemed to only have several months left by western medicine, they turned towards homeopathy to cure their cancer, by now they have lived past the “3 months” that western doctors said they have left, and by 20 times more, and at present are still very healthy. Is this the placebo effect?

西醫“可　以　嗎“？

Can western medicine do this?

西醫能醫到大部分的病嗎？

Can western medicine cure most diseases?

記住、是“醫“不是“止“。

Remember its “cure” and not “relieve”.

你認為順勢療法不可信、

You think that homeopathy is not trustworthy,

你生於澳門、那你知不知道葡萄牙也有用順勢療法？

You were born in Macau, do you know that homeopathy is used in Portugal?

你在英國生活、那你知道英國的御用醫學是順勢療法嗎？

You live in England, do you know that the primary medical treatment for the Royal Family is homeopathy?

你知道這個世界有多少個國家用緊順勢療法嗎？

Do you know how many countries in this world use homeopathy?

你有没有認真使用過順勢療法来處理自己的病？

Have you tried using homeopathy to manage your own illnesses?

你有感受過比西醫折磨的病人来找我們時的痛苦嗎？

Have you felt the pain of those patients who turned to us after being tortured by western medicine?

你有為病人的痛苦、為病人的康服而流過涙嗎？為病人的病情而緊張過？

Have you ever felt pain for a patient, shed a tear for a cured patient? Have you been anxious about your patient’s disease?

你知不知道膽石和腎石是不用開刀或用什麼震散的？

Do you know that gall stones and kindey stones do not require surgery?

你知不知道腦溢血不用開刀也可處理？

Do you know that a brain haemorrhage does not require surgery?

你知不知道癌症根本不用做手術、化療和電療？

Do you know that cancer can be cured without surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy?

你知不知道醫學的基楚是整全營養學？

Do you know the basis of medicine is nutritionism?

天外有天、你讀得書多、讀大學、但有好多野你真係未見識過呀。。。

You have studied a lot, in university, but there are a lot of things that you have not seen…

I don’t know about you but I found this person amusing, funny, condescending, patronising, insulting, and downright “intellectually-challenged” at the same time. I had no idea whether to laugh, feel insulted or feel sorry for this person. All I said was really that he should be a bit careful when advertising homeopathy, and to not use his imagined short falls in conventional medicine to divert patients away from life saving treatments.

The BBC show he was referring to was the “Horizon” production where they showed on TV that homeopathic dilutions indeed have no (big fat surprise) pharmacological effect. The show is still on YouTube broken down into 5 parts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The “machine” he was referring to was a flow cytometer. The experiment did not attempt to mimic the human body, they were only trying to repeat the Benveniste “water memory” experiment (using histamine instead of IgG) in a more controlled manner. Flow cytometry was used as a high throughput method of quantifying activated basophils, in addition to the conventional counting methods. No Frankenstein stuff here, no intelligent blood and flesh robots, just good old science.

How very dare he accuse me of coming to a conclusion about homeopathy just because of one TV show. And for the record, I never knew about that Horizon production until after I read his reply. Subsequently of course I went off and searched for this show and watched it. Good show though.

For those of you who may have a better command of Chinese than myself, feel free to point out my mistakes in the translation. I promise I am not going to throw a hissy fit.

So would a rational medical professional or scientist talk like this in a seminar when someone questions his/ her work? There may be some sarcastic or snide comments, all to the amusement of the audience, but rarely more than that. Because that’s how science works, its discussion, being critical in order to improve on current thinking. But I am sensing a hint of extremism from this man, and that is worrying.

It is not everyday you see a full blown hissy from a “professional”.

Having got quite interested in the subject of homeopathy and its crack-pot view of medicine, I did a simple search to look at the state of matters in and around my hometown, Macau and Hong Kong (both ex-European colonies). Did not take me long to find pro-quackery (in particular homeopathy) posts littered everywhere, and the most shocking thing is, no-one is making a stand! Doctors and scientists are keeping quiet. All post replies on these blogs of practicing homeopaths were of astonishment and awe at the magical wonder that is homeopathy. Sensing a niche (and also the argumentative side of me was getting antsy), I set up shop and proceeded to gently lay on a few truths about homeopathy. The “pseudoscience can kill” blog is here. I borrowed one of Professor Colquhoun’s figures (the distance from earth to sun figure) to make a point, hope he doesn’t mind. Mind though, it was properly referenced. One of the things which immediately got my back up was the outrageous claims from blog authors (which are either trainee or practicing homeopaths), and also the Hong Kong Association of Homeopathy (HKAH) website as well as the Macau Association of Homeopathy (MAH) website that homeopathy is superior to western medicine. They have their usual mumbo-jumbo of how it works, like cures like, succussion and potentisation, etc… but also the following phrase, which I find highly disturbing (the thing was in Chinese so I had to translate it; and in the interests of good scientific practice I have to hold my hand up and say now that this translation by yours truly may have some experimental bias in it and should be translated again in a controlled environment by several neutral people):

“…from the homeopathic point of view, the correct method of medical treatment should involve non-invasive procedures, and toxicity free remedies, to restore imbalances in the body, to strengthen the body, to strengthen the immune system, so as to minimise the negative effects that symptoms have on the body, but must not counteract the symptoms, and suppress the body’s self protection powers, for instance through the use of drugs to control coughing, emesis, inflammation and pain etc, doing so will inevitably lead to serious and dire consequences.”

I apologise for the excessive use of the comma, but that’s how Chinese is written. To minimise bias, I feel it is necessary to include all the commas. This seems to be a swipe at western medicine to promote their hocus-pocus beliefs and frankly I found that out of order. A closer read at blog posts by practicing homeopaths reveals even more shocking statements. How the future of medicine should be left with homeopaths, western medicine should be an obsolete method of treatment, that patients should stop using western medicine. The final straw was when I found a post hailing “success” that homeopathy is now “mainstream” medicine in Macau (they held a large conference apparently), and how Hong Kong should follow suit to avoid being seen as “backwards” and “closed off”. So I proceeded to poke the bear with a wee stick with this reply to his post:

“Hi. I am originally from Macau, but I am not sharing your delight in the “success” homeopathy is enjoying in Macau. It is scary that while homeopathy is not evidence based medicine, that practicing homeopaths like yourself will come out and say that homeopathy is better than conventional, evidence based medicine.

May I point out that homeopathy, at this moment in time, is at best only a fancy and expensive form of placebo treatment. At worst, it is life threatening, because of delays in seeking medical advice and diagnosis from trained medical professionals.

Finally, the only selling point of homeopathy – the lack of side effects, is simply because of the extreme dilutions in homeopathic remedies, where I am sure even you would agree with me, there is no active substance in the remedy really, isn’t there? This aspect of succussion and potentisation of homeopathy remains a laughing point among scientists and medical professionals who believe that medicine should be evidence based.

I apologise for the stinging attack on homeopathy (and please do not take this personally). I am sure that homeopaths are good people. Afterall, you are doing this for the noble reason of curing patients. But please exercise common sense when advertising your beliefs in homeopathy. While there is no concrete, well conducted experiments that show homeopathy actually provides significant effects, homeopathy can only be considered as a complementary form of treatment, not main stream. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to think otherwise.”

Note that I said “please do not take this personally”. I have read somewhere that trying to reason with a homeopath will always incur the wrath of the said homeopath (because someone who has the answers will try and debate with you). I got a reply to my (I must say fairly level headed) comment with what can only be described as “verbal diarrhoea” (you think homeopathy could cure that?). The guy went berserk and as if one reply was not enough, he came back on two other occasions to add to his emotional outburst. Obviously I hit a nerve there! His response was simply a whole list of questions to me and I was pretty sure he was crying while composing the said outburst. I could feel the emotion in the reply. There were font changes, colour changes, highlighting going on. This guy was properly pissed! I am still in the process of digesting all the Chinese thrown at me (I can read but not fast or fluent) and will formulate a level headed response to it soon. You’d think that a professional would at least try to reason and debate instead of throwing a hissy fit when queried and doubted? All I wanted to do was to induce some intelligent scientific debate, and this was what I got? Handbags?!

Ok so I am quack-spotting. And it has been fun. Over the past couple of days, I have been looking more into what the science-wannabes is selling to the unsuspecting public (unfortunate to see, even the Royal Family is falling for these fairy and goblin methods of treating your cold and flu). Not wanting to go into details of what they think is legitimate science (I am rather angered by this and so there will be a post soon once I regained some consciousness from my mandatory Saturday night bottle of wine), I will go straight to the point to what can only be described as a full (albeit small) victory for those of us who believe in proper evidence-based science. This is essentially old news (but give me a break – I am new to this), but I believe if there is one more blog post on this it will only amplify the “awareness”. The UCLan, which in “My Quack-Watch #1” I have already talked about how they offer quack degrees, has dropped their first year BSc Homeopathy course (I have a major problem with these courses offering BSc degrees, I have a BSc – they should really be BHDMYBTPUFT for Bachelor of How Daft Must You Be To Pay Us For This). If only they come with a money-back guarantee for second and third year students who are already neck deep into the course! They cite low recruitment levels for making this decision, and I say WhoopDeeDoo to that. Seems like the penny is finally dropping for some people and the quack-bubble might be showing signs of rupture. They also cite “relentless attacks from the anti-homeopathy league” for this decision – apparently requests for teaching materials are considered relentless attacks. I also have a problem with the term “anti-homeopathy league” – it makes it appear as though it’s a minority, and should be re-termed “scientists”. Full credit to those who are making a big effort to eradicate this tumour in medicine. I hope more universities will take heed and follow suit.

I don’t want to be seen as a “Quack-spotter”, nor do I want to blog exclusively on quackery. There are more official places you can go to for that. Nonetheless, I came across this news and it is just delicious. Long story short, vice dean for the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) has told (nay – ordered) its staff to “refrain from comment or speculation” with regards to courses accredited by the university deemed quackery by outspoken lecturers. UCLan offers degree courses on herbal medicine and acupuncture, and it regards these courses as “satisfied the university’s quality assurance procedures and duly validated”. It begs the question – Why, if you are confident that these courses are valid for the university portfolio and passed so called quality assurances, are you ordering members of staff to keep quiet? Could it be because it seemed like a good idea back then for cashing in on the “boom” in alternative medicine, but deep down you think it’s not really “duly validated”?

I think until these alternative therapies (alternative really meaning “not proven”) lose the alternative tag and become “just therapies”, universities should not offer them as degree courses, but rather teach good science, train good researchers so we could find out more about these alternative therapies. How pissed are people going to be when 5 years from now they find their degrees completely useless (as opposed to almost useless at this moment in time) because science has proved beyond any shadow of doubts that, well, these are indeed quackeries?

Quackery, from the word quack meaning “an unqualified person who dishonestly claims to have medical knowledge” (Oxford Dictionary definition) was a buzzword in my department during the last couple of weeks. I am totally against the practice of quackery (homeopathy, astrology, reflexology, acupuncture and the likes) but I think researching into some of the underlying concepts or beliefs may (or may not, hence research) turn out some stuff useful in normal medicine. For instance, I am a strong believer that much can be learnt from research into traditional Chinese medicine. However, concepts like how homeopaths believe in “reverse pharmacology”, that is, how the lesser a dose, the bigger the response, should just be left as one big joke.

My department, a well known teaching and research institute (obvious to those who know me, but I am not going to name it explicitly) has recently appeared to publicly condone and support the teachings and use of acupuncture. News of students going on a “school organised trip” to China to attend a course on acupuncture has appeared on the University website as well as the BBC website. This has provoked some strong reaction from the more senior members of staff (well a single senior member of staff). “My Department’s Moment of Madness” does not actually refer to this “trip” per se. My position on acupuncture and the likes is obvious. The moment of madness refers to that one breaking point when a senior member of staff found it to be totally appropriate to voice his opinion (and never held back) on the staff and post graduate students mailing list. The relentlessness of this rant is just unbelievable, especially when, in the space of one week (yes this went on for a week!), all staff and PG students have had their inbox packed full of emails from everyone who wanted to put in their two cents worth. The inappropriate use of the “reply all” button was obvious.

I just had to rant about this because towards the end of this fiasco, I felt like I was being spammed. I think this is misuse of the staff and students mailing list, just to get your point across (fair point granted), but there are less childish ways to voice opinions.