REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Chandran K C Explains Homeopathy As Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)

Edzard Ernst Converted Into Skepticism And Became An ‘Authority’, After Failing As CAM Practitioner!


Edzard Ernst is presently one of the most prominent ‘authority’ most widely quoted by  ‘anti-homeopathic’ skeptics .  He claims he had ‘got trained’ in homeopathy and alternative medicines in his early professional life, and being ‘convinced’ of the ‘unscientificness’ and ‘futility’ of homeopathy, later left it to dedicate himself for ‘anti-quackery’ crusade.  He dedicates a lot of time for attacking homeopathy on a regular basis on twitter and other social networks. Actually, he was a ‘one-time’ homeopath who turned into being skeptic after failing himself as a homeopath.  For all proverbial jackals who failed in their jumps, ‘grapes’ were always  ‘sour’!

In an article entitled “Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?” published in the American Journal of Medicine, Edzard Ernst— along with Michael Baum- wrote some strong criticisms of homeopathy as follows:

“Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine… These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect…. To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine (eg, Bach flower remedies, spiritual healing, crystal therapy) is therefore not an option. We think that a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an open mind. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work and that positive evidence reflects publication bias or design flaws until proved otherwise… We wonder whether any kind of evidence would persuade homeopathic physicians of their self-delusion and challenge them to design a methodologically sound trial, which if negative would finally persuade them to shut up shop… Homeopathy is based on an absurd concept that denies progress in physics and chemistry. Some 160 years after Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions, an essay by Oliver Wendell Holmes, we are still debating whether homeopathy is a placebo or not… Homeopathic principles are bold conjectures. There has been no spectacular corroboration of any of its founding principles… After more than 200 years, we are still waiting for homeopathy “heretics” to be proved right, during which time the advances in our understanding of disease, progress in therapeutics and surgery, and prolongation of the length and quality of life by so-called allopaths have been breathtaking. The true skeptic therefore takes pride in closed mindedness when presented with absurd assertions that contravene the laws of thermodynamics or deny progress in all branches of physics, chemistry, physiology, and medicine.”

His biographical notes  introduce him as “an academic physician and researcher specializing in the study of complementary and alternative medicine. Ernst was appointed Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, the first such academic position in the world.”

“Ernst served as chairman of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) at the University of Vienna, but left this position in 1993 to set up the department of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter in England. He became director of complementary medicine of the Peninsula Medical School (PMS) in 2002. Ernst was the first occupant of the Laing chair in Complementary Medicine, retiring in 2011.”

“Ernst qualified as a physician in Germany in 1978 where he also completed his M.D. and Ph.D. theses. He has received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation. Ernst also trained as a homeopath and beginning his medical career at a homeopathic hospital in Munich.  He was born and trained in Germany, where he “began his medical career at a homeopathic hospital” in Munich, and since 1999 has been a British citizen.”

“Ernst is the editor-in-chief of two medical journals: Perfusion and Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies. Ernst’s writing appeared in a regular column in The Guardian, where he reviewed news stories about complementary medicine from an evidence-based medicine perspective. Since his research began on alternative modalities, Ernst has been seen as “the scourge of alternative medicine” for publishing critical research that exposes methods that lack documentation of efficacy.”

“In 2008, Ernst and Simon Singh published Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. The authors challenged the Prince of Wales, to whom the book is (ironically) dedicated, and the Foundation for Integrated Health on alleged misrepresentation of “scientific evidence about therapies such as homoeopathy, acupuncture and reflexology”. Singh and Ernst assert that Britain spends £500 million each year on unproven or disproven alternative therapies. In a review of Trick or Treatment in the New England Journal of Medicine, Donald Marcus described Ernst as “one of the best qualified people to summarize the evidence on this topic.”

“In 2008, Ernst sent an open letter urging the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to crack down on high street chemists that sell homeopathic remedies without warning that the remedies lack evidence for claimed biological effects. According to Ernst, this disinformation would be a violation of their ethical code”

“Ernst is a member of the Medicines Commission of the British Medicines Control Agency (now part of the MHRA) which determines which substances may be introduced and promoted as medicine. He also sits on the Scientific Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products of the Irish Medicines Board. He is an external examiner for several university medical schools in several countries. Ernst is a Founding Member and on the Board of the Institute for Science in Medicine, formed in 2009.In February 2011, Ernst was elected as a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry”.

From his official biographical info itself, it is evident that in his early days of professional career Ernst tried and failed all sorts of CAM practices himself, which he now calls ‘quackery’.  “He received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation” after gaining his MD.  A perfect blend of all ‘quack practices’!

Edzard Ernst’ failure as a homeopath only proves he lacked some basic qualities essential to become a successful homeopath. He failed as a homeopath, and then turned a skeptic. His failure is only his failure- it does not disprove homeopathy by any way. Once he failed in putting a mark as a successful homeopath or CAM practitioner, he just tried the other way to become famous and respectable- he converted himself into a skeptic, which provided him with ample opportunities to appear on ‘anti-homeopathy’ platforms’ as an ‘authority’, ‘expert’ and ‘ex-homeopath’!

Ernst says: “We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work”. He ‘starts’ from a ‘conclusion’. It is they way all skeptics talk. But, they should remember, such a behavior goes against genuine scientific method. Premise for starting an objective inquiry cannot be a subjective conclusion. That amounts to ulterior form of bias and prejudice.

See why he says homeopathy ‘cannot’ work: He fears, “if homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect”. That is it! Homeopathy ‘should not be correct’, to prevent the disaster of  “much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology”  becoming “incorrect”.

Once somebody succeed in proving homeopathy as per scientific methods, in a way fitting to existing scientific knowledge system, hope ERNST’s fear “much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect” could be put to eternal rest.

If his approach has been scientific, he should have put this issue in a different way. Had he said ” “if  the those THEORIES about homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect”, I would have strongly supported that statement. He should not have said ‘homeopathy cannot work’ only because theories were wrong. It is not ‘theories’ that work- theories only explain objective phenomena. If theories going round about homeopathy are found not to agree with ‘physics, chemistry, and pharmacology’, those wrong theories could be modified or even discarded, and new ones evolved. It is not right to “start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work”, but see with open eyes whether it works. If it works, we can inquire ‘how it works’, and make scientifically viable theories to explain it. That is genuine ‘scientific method’.

Edzard Ernst and his learned skeptic friends should know, there are many unexplained phenomena still existing around us. If they are objective TRUTH, they will be gradually proved in due course. Many things which are proved now were unproven in yesterdays. We know many things our forefathers had no any idea. Our grand children will know many things we do not know now. That is the way human knowledge advances. If you are not willing and capable of exploring beyond what you already know, and still you think you know everything, you become a skeptic. Somebody’s pathological ignorance regarding homeopathy cannot be considered an evidence against homeopathy.

By categorizing “homoeopathy, acupuncture and reflexology” into same group, Ernst proves his utter ignorance about therapeutic principles and methods involved in homeopathy. Actually, homeopathy has nothing in common with acupuncture  and reflexology, except that he ‘tried’ all of them together in his practice, and failed.

Let us sum up and analyze what Ernst says about homeopathy:

1. Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine.

2.  Axioms of homeopathy are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them.

3. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect. To have an open mind about homeopathy is therefore not an option.

4. Belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an open mind.

5. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work .

6. Positive evidence reflects publication bias or design flaws until proved otherwise.

To accuse homeopathy to be a “faith-based medicine” and then attack it from that angle- it is a common game plan of skeptics. Who said it is “faith-based medicine”?  Whose faith? Physician’s or patient’s?  Faith will not cure in homeopathy, if the physician prescribed a wrong drug that is strictly indicated in a particular patient. If it were ‘faith’ that is the healing factor, any one homeopathic drug could have cured  every  patients having ‘faith’.

What about ‘new-borns’  and infants? Do you think ‘faith’ or ‘placebo’ will work on them? To say so is utterly ridiculous. Had you seen an infant persistently crying for days together in spite  of using every allopathic drugs, getting calmed down within minutes by a dose of chamomilla 30 single dose, you would never say homeopathy is ‘faith-based’ medicine or placebo.

What about livestock getting cured by homeopathic drugs? Is also ‘faith’ that cures them? I have been working as a veterinary professional for years, in government-owned cattle farms, piggeries and poultry farms. I have seen thousands of cases of pigs cured  of violent diarrhea with ars alb 30, devastating coccidiosis in poultry cured by merc cor 30, even gangrenous mastitis cured by phytolacca 30 and conium 30, which I am sure, no sane persons can say are ‘faith-cures’.

I don’t know from which institution Ernst ‘got trained’ in homeopathy. I don’t think he underwent any duly accredited course in homeopathy, since he reveals that much ignorance and misunderstandings while talking about homeopathy. But, from hearing what he is saying about homeopathy, one thing is sure for me: Ernst ‘got trained in homeopathy’ under somebody who belong to that class of most ‘unscientific homeopaths’ who propagate ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual’ theories about homeopathy. That is why he ‘got trained’ in “acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, massage therapy and spinal manipulation” along with homeopathy.  The ‘training’ he got in homeopathy was obviously of an  unscientific  mode, which made his career as a homeopath an utter disaster, throwing him into the pit of skeptic garbage.

Actually, Ernst is echoing the words of ‘anti-homeopathy’ skeptics of western world who are engaged in exposing the ‘pseudo-scientific’ homeopathic theoreticians propagating ‘spiritual homeopathy’ and ‘energy medicine’. I am sorry to say that he failed to realize the entirely different ground realities existing in countries like India in the field of homeopathic education and practice.

Hope Ernst may  know India is home to around 285,000 registered homeopaths, 186 prestigious homeopathic colleges imparting UG and PG courses, over 6000 government homeopathic dispensaries and about 250 government hospitals. More than 15000 student come out of these colleges every year with BHMS degree, after completing a rigorous five and half year course of study and internship, for which they got admission by scoring top rankings in entrance examinations after 12 years of schooling in science streams. Curriculum of BHMS course constitutes Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Practice of Medicine and all subjects of modern health care knowledge. There is a Central Council of Homeopathy under Government of India, constituted as per a n Central Act passed by Indian parliament, overseeing everything in the field of homeopathic education, research and practice in India.

Homeopathy is a very important wing of public health care system in inIndia. Homoeopathic wings are working in many allopathic hospitals and dispensaries, both government and private.  Homoeopathic doctors provide treatment to millions of patients for different day to day illnesses in the public health care system. Even during sporadic and epidemic conditions, people tend to use homoeopathic drugs for prevention.  Recently, the Indian Government successfully ran a national health campaign ‘Homeopathy for a Healthy Mother & a Happy Child’, which was based exclusively on homoeopathy. Also, private homeopathic practitioners are contributing a great deal in public health care through their private or charitable clinics.

Besides clinical research, there are fundamental, drug standardization, drug proving and clinical verification research going on, both at government and private levels. For example, the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy is conducting a lot of such research, either independently or in collaboration with other research institutes or individual researchers, under an extra-mural research scheme at the Dept of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Indian Government. Other than that, almost all homoeopathic organizations and individuals are doing their bit toward research for the further validation of homoeopathy in today’s times of evidence-based medicine. The results have been encouraging, to say the least. In fact, over the years, Indians learnt better ways of conducting research from their international counterparts and the recent research has been carried out as per standardized, internationally recognized methods and are therefore more acceptable.

A few exemplary results from clinical  studies include work on tubercular lymphadenitis, japanese encephalitis, etc. In addition, some administrative studies have been undertaken, like the ‘assessment of the cost effectiveness of homeopathic clinic in the cafeteria approach’ and ‘public-private partnerships in the provision of homeopathic services in the city of Delhi, where it was tried to analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of medical pluralism in India and have worked out some solutions for implementing medical pluralism more effectively in all parts of India.

These facts and figures are a clear reflection of the belief of the people ofIndiain the homeopathic system of medicine, which, in turn, is a result of the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating a wide range of illnesses, which has convinced the Indian masses over a period of time.

If Ernst was actually  concerned of knowing the truth about homeopathy,  he would not have  “started from the premise that homeopathy cannot work”.  He would have considered all facts before publicly declaring ‘homeopathy is ‘faith-based’,  and grouped along with ‘reflexology acupuncture’. He should have experimented himself and done a little more home work about homeopathy, before echoing the malicious propaganda of  other ‘anti-homeopathy skeptics’.  I would not have bothered much if he had said ‘homeopathy is not scientifically well proved’, instead of declaring it is ‘faith-based medicine’. I understand, nobody could so far even propose a scientifically viable hypothesis about how homeopathy works, a hypothesis that could be presented as a rightful candidate for verification using scientific methods. Actually, those ‘pseudo-scientific’ homeopathic theoreticians are making situation for homeopathy still worse.

Homeopaths as well as millions of patients visiting them know homeopathy works. That is their personal experience. Ernst  should think more than twice before saying it is ‘faith-based’ and ‘fake’. Had visited a few homeopathic clinics in any city in India, he would have realized that all people visiting homeopaths are not much less knowledgeable or more ‘superstitious’ than him. Many respected members of scientific community use homeopathic medicines, knowing well that it is not yet ‘proven according to scientific methods’, but very much confident from experience that it is not ‘fake’ or ‘mere faith’. They experience it WORKING.  Had he ever consulted a good homeopath from India,  or taken a course of homeopathic medicine himself, he would have stopped  demeaning comment against homeopathy.

I agree,  nobody so far knows how homeopathy works. To mask this ignorance, ‘intellectuals’ among homeopaths create fanciful theories. All these theories about homeopathy  are utter nonsense- pure absurdity. Until homeopaths stop talking nonsense ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy, we cannot expect a fair deal from scientific community. At least homeopaths  should show the humility to say: “we know homeopathy works- that is our daily experience; but we do not know how it actually works; we need the help of scientific community to resolve this riddle”.

Edzard Ernst, I would earnestly request you to spare a little time to verify whether homeopathy works.  If you would co-operate, we are ready to provide as many real life proofs as you need. Only when you are ever convinced homeopathy works, we would expect you to take up topic of ‘how homeopathy works’.

Here is my scientific definition for HOMEOPATHY:

Homeopathy is a therapeutic method of curing diseases by using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances, which in ‘molecular forms’ could produce ‘symptoms’ similar to those presented by the patient. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms indicate that the drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have ‘similar’ functional groups, by which they could bind to ‘similar’ biological molecules, produce ‘similar’ molecular inhibitions that caused ‘similar’ molecular pathology which are expressed through ‘similar’ subjective and objective ‘symptoms’. Molecular imprints of ‘similar’ drug molecules can act as artificial binding sites for ‘similar’ pathogenic molecules due to complementary configurational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions, which amounts to ‘cure’. This is the scientific meaning of Similia Similibus Curentur.

If you are interested in that topic, I am ready to provide details of my work which try to explain and prove ‘how homeopathy works’  on the basis of ‘Molecular Imprinting’.  I am giving link to my article, hoping you can spare some time in between your busy schedules.  https://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/

Until homeopathy is ‘disproved’, kindly refrain judiciously from commenting against homeopathy. You can say: “I don’t know whether homeopathy works or not. I know all those theories about homeopathy are unscientific. If homeopathy actually works, it has yet to be proved and explained according to scientific methods”.

15 Comments

  1. Homeopathy cannot be exempt from the same scientific standards as any other real or alternative medical treatment. It’s basic principle contradicts the most basic laws of chemistry and physics that any teenager can comprehend in second level education. Homeopaths continue however to ignore this and instead hijack whatever the latest scientific sounding buzzwords are. Just look at desperate claims about nanomedicine and quantum theory. This complete ignorance of the basic principles followed by any responsible health professional is reflected in the utter failure of homeopathy to produce anything other than placebo effects in clinical trials

    Like

  2. brpwrdnsfrnzy

    “Homeopathy is unexplained”

    But then, there’s no need to explain homeopathy until you demonstrate that it works.

    Like

  3. hey folks, chandran is right to say that HOMEOPATHY IS NOT YET SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, but the facts that he provided about homeopathy and its prevalence in indian subcotinent is true. CLINICALLY, HOMEOPATHY DOES WORK. it is evident by its popularity in india.
    do you really belive that a hoax could survive 200 long years. name any other form of so called hoax medicinal practice that had survived 200 years, in such a bitter opposition of prevalent medicinal stream. homeopathy is gaining its popularity worldwide again.
    allopathy has its own importance.The fact that homeopathy works, does not belittle the importance of allopathy.

    Like

  4. You really don’t understand science. You ask skeptics not to attack homeopathy until it has been `disproved’. That is not how science works (or even how logic works). Skeptics are not making claims, homeopaths are. Therefore it is for homeopaths to provide evidence for the claims. It is not for skeptics to provide evidence to disprove it.

    Like

  5. Did you deliberately misspell homeopathy in your web address?

    Like

    • Chandran Nambiar

      Dear friend, genuine science is all about inquiring truth about unknown phenomena in this universe- not ‘attacking’ phenomena that could not be yet explained. Phenomenon of ‘gravitation’ is not well explained- but would you ‘attack’ gravity, and say that ‘gravity’ does not exist?

      Homeopathy is unexplained. It is not well explained. People talk different nonsense things about. In spite of all nonsense theories, phenomenon of ‘homeopathic cure’ exists as an objective truth, same way as ‘gravity’ exists. If you are a scientist, you can ‘attack’ those unscientific theories going around about’ homeopathy, but from the premise that ‘homeopathic cure’ is an objective truth.

      Like

      • Gravity has an effect that is easily observable: things fall to the ground, the planets orbit the sun etc. Homeopathy has no such observable effect, as shown by numerous well-designed RCTs that fail to show any effect beyond placebo (RCTs that, frankly, aren’t particularly scientific given the reasoning in my post below).

        Homeopathy is unexplained because there is no phenomenon to explain. It’s interesting you say that it is unexplained/not well explained here, but in your post, you provide a “scientific” definition of homeopathy (that is devoid of any evidence and based entirely on guesswork that is at odds with current scientific knowledge). Are you saying that your scientific definition is just a guess? Why don’t you base your guesses on current knowledge, rather than talking nonsense about molecular imprints and “Similia Similibus Curentur”?

        Like

    • Chandran Nambiar

      To tell the truth, it was a typing error happened while registering my page. I noticed that mistake after a few days, by which time a lot of posts have been made and a lot of subscribers also. I could not find a way to save my pages and subscribers while making a change in my web address. Hence, I decided let it remain as such.

      Like

      • It is worthy to recognise mistakes and there is never any shame in realigning your opinions about the nature of reality once new evidence is shown to you. I hope you don’t feel ashamed of the time you’ve wasted believing in magic water and I dearly hope you don’t ever prescribe or take homeopathic products for anything life threatening in the meantime.

        Like

  6. What a hilarious post. It is a spoof, isn’t it?

    Like

    • Chandran Nambiar

      Means, you miserably failed to get the kernel!

      Like

      • Zeno

        No, I got it OK. But you miserably failed to understand science, the scientific method, evidence, the null hypothesis, bias and critical thinking.

        Like

  7. “…He ‘starts’ from a ‘conclusion’. It is they way all skeptics talk. But, they should remember, such a behavior goes against genuine scientific method. Premise for starting an objective inquiry cannot be a subjective conclusion. That amounts to ulterior form of bias and prejudice.”

    Not really – the general way of going about science is to form a hypothesis based on current knowledge and theories, then to test that hypothesis. Current knowledge and theories in physics, chemistry, medicine etc. do not support the hypothesis that homeopathy should work, so it is ridiculous to suggest it as a hypothesis in the first place.

    Imagine if I suggested that cow poo makes all drugs twice as effective, because of the special properties that cow poo has. Why is it worth investigating this hypothesis? It is clearly ridiculous, based on our current knowledge of cows, poo, physics, chemistry, medicine etc. If I produced a (or even several) clinical trial(s) with results showing that patients benefitted from my cow poo treated drugs, then it is reasonable to assume that the trial(s) suffer(s) from methodological flaws, is a hoax, or is a fluke, not that cow poo has magical healing properties.

    Your ‘scientific’ definition of homeopathy is full of conjecture and devoid of science, and completely at odds with current knowledge. It is just as ridiculous to form a hypothesis to test based on your definition of homeopathy as it is to form a hypothesis based on my cow poo claim.

    Like

  8. What a ridiculous post.

    On what basis did Ernst ‘fail’ as a Homeopath? You reveal your bias immediately because you yourself start from the biased position that Homeopathy works and Ernst somehow couldn’t make it work for him!

    It’s perfectly sensible to propose a null hypothesis as a starting point when testing homeopathy (or any treatment), especially as homeopathy has the issue of no prior plausibility and at high enough dilutions no active ingredients are present in the remedies themselves.

    Also, can’t see the problem with labelling it as faith based when, as you say yourself “homeopathy is not scientifically well proved”. So what is it then?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: