Homeopathy Subversion

[liveonearth]

I've been reading the assigned chapter (chapter 7 of Amy Lansky's book Impossible Cure; The Promise of Homeopathy) and decided to do a little web search to see if anyone else had some thoughts about the way that homeopaths like to present the science about their pet topic. I discovered that I am not the only one who thinks the presentation of the material is biased and that the so-called science is distorted so badly as to not merit the name "science" anymore. But check out the links for yourself, if you're interested. I found these by searching for "Linde 1997 homeopathy", referencing his 1997 meta analysis "proving" that homeopathy is 245% more effective than placebo. Linde's analysis included research in all languages, making it difficult for any non-linguistically oriented individual to directly critique his much-quoted analysis.

First, here's the Linde meta analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601
And a nugget of Linde's work:
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=11999000167

If you read Lansky's chapter 7, you read that the government of India said in a press release that "After a period fo 3 to 16 months, many patients gave a non-reactive response to ELISA and some gave negative response to Western blot test [both standard tests for HIV] indicating effectiveness of the therapy" (page 180). Well, so homeopathy cures AIDS? That is the implication, though certainly not the fact. But here's one for the government of India: Homeopathy Gives You AIDS, by Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, September 15th, 2007: http://www.badscience.net/?p=531

This one is entertaining:
Blog: Journey through a Burning Mind
Ignorance and Stupidity = Homeopath “Specialists” (Part 1)
March 11th, 2008
http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/03/11/ignorance-and-stupidity-homeopath-specialists-part-1/
And here's another slam:
Homeopathy: Wasting Resources for Distributing Water
January 14th, 2008
http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/

This one's a bit more scientific and gives more info about the studies that Linde included:
from the blog Bandolier; Evidence Based Thinking about Healthcare
Title: Homeopathy - dilute information and little knowledge
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band45/b45-2.html

And here's another science-oriented commentary without the sarcasm:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=242

Here's a scientific review of scientific reviews of homeopathy that does NOT recommend its use in medical practice:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118952006/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Edzard Ernst has some criticisms of Linde's methods:
http://web.lfp.cuni.cz/journals/bioenv/1998/2-3/c26-en.html

Annals of Internal Medicine: A Critical Overview of Homeopathy
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393

Magical Thinking in CAM:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/alternative.html

In Veterinary Practice:
http://www.vetscite.org/publish/articles/000051/index.html

The Integrator Blog:
http://theintegratorblog.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=441&Itemid=1

in Pharmacy:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3833/is_200701/ai_n18705734/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

The Townsend Letter tries to walk the fine line but shows signs of being a marketing tool:
http://www.townsendletter.com/June2008/boiron0608.htm

And Vithoulkas (homeopath by golly) says science is confusing the issue, missing the point:
http://www.hpathy.com/research/vithoulkas-homeopathic-trials.asp

Homeopathy Swindle
www.alphapharma.eu/HomeopathySwindle.pdf

I know there are lots more but I have to get back to studying for midterms.