Homeopathy « Anomalous Distraction
Transcript of Homeopathy « Anomalous Distraction
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
1/17
Anomalous Distraction
A protein crystallographer opines about science, pseudo-science & academia.
Home
AboutStructure Gallery
Copyright notice
Diluting the Truth.
January 18, 2010
Both followers of this blog (Hello Mum!) may remember THIS post, where I discovered homeopaths on THIS website were
citing THIS article in the BMJ (De Lange de Klerket al,BMJ1994; 309: 13291332) that found that Homoeopathic
medicines produce no clinically relevant improvement as proof that homeopathy works. Maybe they hoped that people would
see the title in the citation (Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper
respiratory tract infections), and assume that paper does indeed support homeopathy.
Lets remind ourselves of what the take home messages in De Lange de Klerk et alare:
Conclusion : Individually prescribed homoeopathic medicines seem to add little to careful counselling of
children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infection in reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of
antibiotics, and need for adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy.Clinical implications
Some children suffer more and longer episodes caused by upper respiratory tract infections than their peers
Homoeopathic doctors claim success in the treatment of such children
In this study the small difference in symptom score found in favour of the homoeopathic medicines was not significant
Antibiotic use was reduced greatly in both groups, but slightly more in the treatment group
Homoeopathic medicines produce no clinically relevant improvement in recurrent upper respiratory tract infection
The small difference in the mean daily symptom scores in the treatment and placebo groups was not significant (P=0.06 or 0.07 after correction for
baseline differences).
So, not a paper that conclusively shows any proof of efficacy for Homeopathy*.
So I thought it might be fun (think what you will of my definition of fun) to do a little digging and see in what other contexts
this particular reference was cited.
According to Scopus our paper is cited in 48 scholarly articles.There are some rather interesting ones in and amongst those 48.
Lets take a look at three of them.
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
2/17
1) Priorities and methods for developing the evidence profile of homeopathyRecommendations of the ECH General Assemblyand XVIII Symposium of GIRI
M. Van Wassenhoven
Homeopathy
Volume 94, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 107-124
Nevertheless RCTs have been performed and meta-analyses of these studies have concluded that there is clear
evidence of efficacy in favour of homeopathic treatments that cannot be attributed only to a placebo effect. In
children, using comparison groups, significant results have been obtained for recurrent infections(my bold),
postoperative agitation, adenoids, otitis media, and stomatitis in patients with cancer (complication of
conventional treatment). There are promising pilot studies on low back pain, premenstrual syndrome and chronic
fatigue.140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,
167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,
196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224,
225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253,
254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282,
283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311,
312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340,
341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369,
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,
399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427,
428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452 and 453
Our reference is number 206 in that lot. And our reference was significant all right if I can just remind you Homoeopathic
medicines produce no clinically relevant improvement in recurrent upper respiratory tract infections & The small difference in
the mean daily symptom scores in the treatment and placebo groups was not significant (P=0.06 or 0.07 after correction for
baseline differences). this would appear mutually exclusive with clear evidence of efficacy in favour of homeopathictreatments that cannot be attributed only to a placebo effect. Hmmm.
(and no, I havent gone through each and everyone of those references)
2)The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature
RT Mathie
HomeopathyVolume 92, Issue 2, April 2003, Pages 84-91
In this paper, our reference, (55) is cited in table 1 in a group of 47 papers that observed a homeopathic effect superior to
placebo. Just remember this is a paper that clearly states The small difference in the mean daily symptom scores in the
treatment and placebo groups was not significant (P=0.06 or 0.07 after correction for baseline differences). Confused? You
should be.3) Antibiotics and the development of resistant microorganisms. Can homeopathy be an alternative?
Petter Viksveen
Homeopathy
Volume 92, Issue 2, April 2003, Pages 99-107
This paper states that Results in a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of children suffering from upper respiratorytract infections were in favour of homeopathy (P=0.06).[de Lange de Klerk E, et al. Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
3/17
burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.BMJ1994; 309: 13291332.68] The conclusionof this study was that individually prescribed homeopathic medicines seem to add little to careful counselling of children withrecurrent upper respiratory tract infection in reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of antibiotics, and need foradenoidectomy and tonsillectomy.
Contrast this with the original paper: The small difference in the mean daily symptom scores in the treatment and placebogroups was not significant (P=0.06 or 0.07 after correction for baseline differences).
Once again the original paper contends that the differences between placebo and homeopathy were not significant Viksveen
says otherwise, but then in the sentence after that, quotes verbatim the negative results for homeopathy in the study. WTF?
Is mis-citing a word?
The vast majority of the 48 papers that cited De Lange de Klerk et al, cited it correctly to indicate that this particular study hasnot shown that homeopathy is really effective beyond placebo, or more research is needed in this area. The three I have gone intomore detail about have (pretty much) taken the exact opposite conclusions from the paper.
The eagle-eyed amongst you will have spotted that all 3 of these papers come from the Journal Homeopathy, the organ of theFaculty of Homeopathy. The members of the editorial board / advisory board of Homeopathy can be found here.
But wait? Whats this? Of our three papers who cite De Lange de Klerket alas positive proof for the efficacy of Homeopathyabove that of placebo effect, 2 are authored by members of the Homeopathy editorial board? Shurely Shome Mishtake?(Michel van Wassenhoven on the Editorial Advisory Board, RT Mathie on the Editorial Board).
The author of the 3rd paper, Petter Viksveen is a practising homeopath, working in Norway, and a graduate of the fine MScMasters Degree in Homeopathy, which was until recently awarded from the University of Central Lancashire. Anyone interestedin the course materials for that degree course can of course see them on David Colquhouns excellent blog.
The fact De Lange de Klerk et alhas been erroneously cited 3 times by the same journal demonstrates a failure of the individualauthors concerned to correctly reference and source their work, and a repeated failure of the reviewers and editors ofHomeopathy to spot such an obvious error. I leave the reader to make his/her own conclusions about the quality of thepeer-review process at Homeopathy.
It is interesting to note that publishing house Elsevier (who publish and distribute Homeopathy) have signed up to the committeefor publication ethics, COPE.
Obviously, as a concerned scientist I have contacted COPE about this matter, for their advice on how to get these errors
corrected.In Conclusion
Of all the qualities a good scientist must have, intellectual honesty and rigour are paramount.Any scientist worth his Natrum muriaticum would have at the very least, skimmed though any paper he is citing certainly hewill be aware of the major conclusions that a paper draws. To do otherwise is neither intellectually honest nor intellectuallyrigorous.Given the format of De Lange De Klerk et al, even when viewed alone the abstract gives a really big hint as to the conclusion ofthe paper: (hint look at the words after Conclusions) it is really exceptionally difficult to avoid the conclusions this papermakes.
I cannot conceive of a situation in which a professional scienist could cite a paper to support a hypothesis which is the oppositeof the conclusions of the cited paper, without being either woefully negligent or intentionally duplicitous.Given the credibility problems that homeopathy has in the scientific community, if homeopaths are to obtain evidence that isirrefutable and universally accepted, their actions must stand up to close scrutiny after all remarkable claims require
remarkable evidence.The examples above fail to stand up to such scrutiny. I might add that it did not take me very long to find this out I have lookedat 1 paper, cited 48 times and found 3 egregious errors. Have I been lucky enough to stumble upon the one paper that has been soerroneously cited? Or are there more examples out there?
-
*I am not commenting on the accuracy of De Lange de Klerk et al (there are a couple of letters to the BMJ from Peter Fisher amongst others complaining about the stats/methodology in
this paper) that is NOT the point I am making here. The fact is that this paper clearly and unequivocally concludes that Individually prescribed homoeopathic medicines seem to add
little to careful counselling of children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infection in reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of antibiotics, and need for adenoidectomy and
tonsillectomy. The paper has NOT been retracted, neither has anyone published a re-analysis the data, as far as I can see. If either were the case, one would cite the re-analysis or the
retraction not the original paper.FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
4/17
5 Comments | Bad-science, Homeopathy | Permalink
Posted by xtaldave
Blinded by pseudo-science?
January 11, 2010
This article was posted on twitter under the #ten23 hashtag today by a homeopath (who shall remain nameless), who perhaps
thought that this was good evidence to cite for homeopathy being superior or at least preferable to conventional treatment of
bacterial infection by antibiotics.
The article contains one line which caught my eye:
Research shows that homeopathy can serve as an effective alternative to antibiotics in a range of
infectious conditions for which they have been commonly used5-13
.
WOW! look at that 5-13 thats 9 references to back up 1 point must be an important one!
Lets take a closer look at these articles that show that homeopathy can serve as an effective alternative to
antibiotics:
5. Adler M. Efficacy, safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis. Adv Ther 1999; 16: 103-111.
Abstract says: (Note I was unable to obtain the full paper as I hit a 404-wall for this journal.)
The average treatment duration was 2 weeks. At the end of treatment, 81.5% of patients described themselves as
symptom free or significantly improved. Adverse drug effects were not reported.
Hmm, NHS says:
Sinusitis often clears up by itself, and about two thirds of those who get the condition do not need to see their
GP.
On average, sinusitis takes about two-and-a-half weeks to clear.
Over-the-counter painkillers and decongestants can be used to relieve facial pain and a blocked nose. Antibiotics
are unlikely to help unless the sinusitis becomes chronic (persistent).
So, the NHS say that on average, sinusitis will sort itself up after 2 and a half weeks, and the majority of sufferers donot need to see a medical practicioner.
In the homeopathic study 100% of sufferers saw a homeopathic practioner, and 81.5% of them were better than
significantly improved after treatment.
So no improvement on no treatment at all. Hmm.
NEXT!
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
5/17
6. De Lange de Klerk E, et al. Effects of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of symptoms in children with
recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. BMJ 1994; 309: 1329-1332.
Ooh! BMJ. A real journal. And it looks promising! Design : Randomised double blind placebo controlled study.
Paper Concludes:
CONCLUSIONIndividually prescribed homoeopathic medicines seem to add little to careful counselling ofchildren with recurrent upper respiratory tract infection in reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of
antibiotics, and need for adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy.
and elsewhere
Homoeopathic medicines produce no clinically relevant improvement in recurrent upper respiratory tract
infections.
Hang on a minute the homeopaths are actually citing a paper which concludes homoeopathic medicines seem to add
little to try and bolster the case for homeopathy as an effective therapeutic strategy? Either someone didnt read this paper, or
someone didnt think that someone else would read this paper.
I believe FAIL is suitable internet vernacular for an occurance such as this.
7. Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution?
Br Homeopath J 2001, 90: 180-182.
Another disease where sponaneous resolution is a factor. Treatment of the disease is not relevant in this case, as
the study looks a pain management. A notorious placebo mine field. However I cant find the full text of the paper to
comment on how the study was conducted. If you have a .pdf of this leave a comment and Ill get in touch.
EDIT: Tom Johnston kindly provided me with a copy of this paper.
The conclusion is the usual homeopathy arm-wavey fewer treatment failures in the group receiving
homeopathy. positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with placebo in uncomplicated
AOM cannot be excluded.
Basically Because of the preliminary nature of this study and its small sample size, definitive results
were not found.
8. Friese K-H, Kruse S, Ludtke R, Moeller H. Homeopathic treatment of otitis media in children: comparisons with
conventional therapy. Int J Clim Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35: 296-301.
I finally tracked down the .pdf of this paper (I can send it to anyone who wants a copy add a comment below) and
it is a curious paper.
there were no statistical differences between the 2 group in any of the outcome measures
those 2 groups being homeopathic treatment and antibiotic treatment.
They also note that 5 children involved in the study took antibiotics after homeopathic treatment but apparently, any comment
on that would be beyond the scope of this article O RLY?FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
6/17
However given that they state:
it was found that 95% of patients with acute otitis could be treated without antibiotics
a trial that compares treatment with antibiotics versus treatment with homeopathic remedies seems utterly pointless.
A placebo controlled study is clearly required.
9. Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary
randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 177-183.
Oh look! A randomized placebo-controlled trial!
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a positive treatment effect of homeopathy when compared with
placebo in acute otitis media cannot be excluded and that a larger study is justified.
Doh! So close, and yet so far.
10. Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B, Haidvogl M, Heger M. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcojmes study
comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7: 149-159.
Hmmm one thing we can all take home from this is that Google Scholar is much better at finding papers in obscure
alternative med journals than PUBMED cant think why. The full text of this paper lives here.
The conclusion to this paper is that:
the information from this study will improve clinical trial design in the real world medical setting and
offer a better understanding of how homeopathy and other alternative medical therapies are and can
be integrated into the practice of medicine.
So it looks like it was more of a methods paper. However, the study seems poorly designed there were largedescrepancies in age ranges of participants in the homeopathic (lots of under 12s) and conventional groups
(mostly adults) and this paper looked at a broad range of pathologies:
(1) upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies; (2) lower respiratory tract com- plaints including
allergies; or (3) ear complaints.
No mention is made in the paper of what conventional therapies (antibiotics?) were used, what the actual diseases were (i.e. were
they diseases that spontaneously resolve anyway) so it is impossible to draw any sort of conclusion about this paper. No
placebo control was used (unethical in primary care setting, I guess).
11. Steinsbekk A, Fnneb V, Lewith G, Bentzen N. Homeopathic care for the prevention of upper respiratory tractinfections in children: A pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial comparing individualised homeopathic care and
waiting-list controls. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2005, 13, 231-238.
This paper lives here (you need to pay or have access) has a small sample size (169) and, again, does not look at
specific diseases and therapies. There is no placebo control.
The authors note:
But, as this was a pragmatic study, it provides no evidence to sustain an argument that homeopathic medicinesFollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
7/17
have specific efficacy.
12. Weber U, Luedtke R, Friese KH, Fischer I, Moeller H. A non-randomised pilot study to compare complementary
and conventional tretaments of acute sinusitis. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2002; 9: 99-104.
What? Acute sinusitis again? Weve already seen that:
Sinusitis often clears up by itself, and about two thirds of those who get the condition do not need to see their
GP.
On average, sinusitis takes about two-and-a-half weeks to clear.
Over-the-counter painkillers and decongestants can be used to relieve facial pain and a blocked nose. Antibiotics
are unlikely to help unless the sinusitis becomes chronic (persistent).
However, the conclusions of the paper offer no succour to homeopaths in search of peer reviewed support:
Conclusions: Both treatments appear to be equally effective (or ineffective). Results might be biased because
both treatment groups differed substantially. Randomised trials including at least 400 patients are needed to
produce valid results.
(Also the homeopathic remedy used was at 3X dilution so not at sub-avagadros concentrations.)
13. Wiesenauer M, Gaus W, Bohnacker U, Haussler S. (Efficiency of homeopathic preparation combinations in
sinusitis. Results of a randomized double blind study with general practitioners.) Arzneimittelforschung 1989; 39:
620-625.
The abstract can be found here. The full text of this paper is not available online.
Sinusitis (again).
The paper concludes:
there was no remarkable difference in the therapeutic success among the investigated homeopathic drug
combinations nor between the active drugs and placebo.
Once again, the homeopathic rememdies were not at sub-avagadros concentrations.
So in conclusion.
Despite the disparity between homeopathy and science, it would appear that homeopaths are all too willing to try and blind
unwary readers with science. Here I have taken a closer look at 9 references provided by homeopaths to provide evidence for the
efficacy of their treatments. Of those 9 references:
4 say that there is no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy,
5 are poorly designed / need bigger sample groups,
2 use homeopathic remdies at dilutions not greater than 12C (so we might expect to find some active ingredient),
1 paper is openly dismissive of the clinical relevance of homeopathy.
4 of them admit that they are looking at diseases which normally resolve without medical intervention anyway *.FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
8/17
So when someone shows you something with a list of references to support their claim make sure you
look at the references!
Because people WILL use references that say the exact opposite of what they are saying in the
hope that you wont bother reading them!
*Yes I know this doesnt add up to 9 some papers fall into more than one catagory
4 Comments | Bad-science, Homeopathy | Permalink
Posted by xtaldave
Cochrane reviews on Homeopathy.
January 10, 2010
So just for information here are the conclusions of all four five
finished Cochrane reviews of Homeopathic treatment.
Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html
Summary > Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like
homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.
Homeopathy for dementia
www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003803.html
Summary > No evidence that homeopathy is effective in treating dementia
Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder
www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005648.html
Summary > There is currently little evidence for the efficacy of
homeopathy for the treatment of ADHD
Homeopathy for chronic asthma
www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000353.html
Summary > Until stronger evidence exists for the use of homeopathy in
the treatment of asthma, we are unable to make recommendations about
homeopathic treatment.
Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
9/17
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004845.html
Summary > Two studies with low risk of bias* demonstrated benefit: one
with 254 participants demonstrated superiority of topical calendula
over trolamine (a topical agent not containing corticosteroids) for
prevention of radiotherapy-induced dermatitis, and another with 32
participants demonstrated superiority of Traumeel S (a proprietary
complex homeopathic medicine) over placebo as a mouthwash for
chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. Two other studies reported positive
results, although the risk of bias was unclear, and four further
studies reported negative results.
* The two positive results are not diluted to sub-10^23, and are
more accurately herbal preparations andNOThomeopathic remedies. With
topical calendula sub 12C dilutions are not used for topical
applications. Traumeel S is a proprietary mix of plant extacts final
concentrations are as follows:
Composition of Traumeel S
Arnica montana D2
Calendula officinalis D2
Atropa belladonna D2
Aconitum napellus D2
Bellis perennis D2
Hypericum perforatum D2
Echinacea angustifolia D2
E. purpurea D2
Symphytum officinale D6
Matricaria chamomilla D3
Achillea millefolium D3
Mercurius solubilis Hahnemanni D6
D2 is equivalent to 1C diution so 1 part in 100 not a true
homeopathic dilution. D6 is equivalent to 1 part in a million.
Leave a Comment | Homeopathy, Science | Tagged: Evidence, Homeopathy | Permalink
Posted by xtaldave
The Molecular Mechanisms of Homeopathy.
January 10, 2010
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
10/17
With the launch of the 1023 campaign against homeopathy, it seems appropriate for me to write a bit onthat very subject. But where to start there are so many blogs that talk about the issues that people have
with homeopathy. The ethical reasons for campaigning against it and the slap in the face that
homeopathic medicine is to scientific thinking have been subject to in-depth coverage. Recently Prof
David Colqhoun has finally gained access to teaching materials for a now-defunct BSc in Homeopathy,
via a freedom of information request. He is reviewing them systematically on his excellent DCs
improbable science blog.
So with all this covered by other, more eloquent and seasoned bloggers than myself, I have decided to
look at homeopathy from my own niche in science from a structural/molecular biologists point of
view.
How medicines work.
To understand the issues that science has with homeopathic remedies, one needs to know how
conventional drugs work. They work by interacting with another molecule in your body. Generally they
will either activate or inhibit the activity of protein molecule that is involved in some sort signal
transduction pathway, or in the catalysis of a particular chemical reaction. Structural biology,
particularly X-ray crystallography is an immensely powerful tool for understanding the nature of these
drug: receptor interactions. For example, crystallography has revealed the nature of interactions
between a bacterial ribosome and the antibiotic chlorampenicol and HINI (Swine flu) neuraminidase
interaction with anti-influenza drug, Tamiflu. These structures reveal the nature of the interaction at an
atomic level. We can see Electrostatic interactions (negatively charged atoms/groups interacting with
positively charged atoms/groups) such as salt bridges and hydrogen bonds. We can see aromatic stacking
interactions (aromatic groups stacking alongside each other) and other hydrophobic interactions. We can
precisely map out the atomic nature of an interaction.
Such information is invaluable in understanding how a drug works. We dont have this information for
every single drug that is used. But in time we will.
A conventional drug, eg Tamiflu, consists of a chemically defined active ingredient at a known and
measurable concentration. Each adult dose of Tamiflu contains 75 mgs of Tamiflu. Given that Tamiflu
has a molecular weight of 312.4 g/mol, each 75mg dose of Tamiflu contains 1.4
10
20
(~140,000,000,000,000,000,000) molecules of Tamiflu (0.075/312.4 * Avogadros constant).
Your body takes up a known percentage of this drug this is known as bioavailability. In the case of
Tamiflu, the bioavailability is ~60% so of the 1.41020 molecules of Tamiflu that you swallow, only
8.61019 get into your blood stream. These then circulate for until broken down/excreted. Tamiflu works
by mimicking the natural substrate of influenza virus neuraminidase, sialic acid. By preventing influenza
virus neuraminidase binding to endogenous sialic acid presented on the surface of your cells, Tamiflu
prevents infection of host cells. Simple. FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
11/17
How Homeopathy works.
Homeopathic remedies are based upon highly dilute samples of a compound that causes a similar effect
to the symptoms of a given disease (like cures like). For example, if disease X gives me hiccups, and
plant extract Y gives me hiccups, I would take a dilute solution of plant extract Y to cure the symptoms
of disease X.
Well overlook the fact that this is treating a symptom (by causing it?), and not addressing anyunderlying cause because homeopathic remedies are potentised during their production. The
originator ofhomeopathy was Samuel Hahnemann, who described a process whereby the effect of these
cures could be enhanced by serially diluting them until one reached ultra low concentrations. Each
dilution step would be accompanied with succussion of the solution ten hard strikes against a soft,
often leather-covered object. The wikipedia page on Homeopathy has a good description of this process.
A typical homeopathic remedy has a concentration of 30C, that is to say, 1 part compound in 100 30 (so
1060). After Hahnemann first devised homeopathy, Avogadros constant (number of molecules in a mole
of substance) was calculated, and shown to be roughly 61023 (hence 1023 campaign). So in a 1023 or
11.5C solution one might reasonably expect to find 1 molecule of compound. The odds of finding asingle molecule of active compound of a 30C homeopathic remedy are very roughly 1 in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 million million million million million
million).
When this was pointed out to the homeopaths (that their remedies had zero active ingredients) they
happily discovered that the water in which the active ingredient was dissolved in had a memory and not
only remembered the active ingredient (doubtless both its molecular structure and pharmokinetic
properties), but the water could also pass this memory on to other water molecules. Cool, huh?
Note the succussion process allows the water to remember the therapeutic ingredient, but not all the
other stuff that the water has seen down the years. And given that a molecule or two of the watercurrently in the coffee I am drinking were likely to have at sometime been intimately associated with an
Ebola virus particle or a molecule of the Ricin toxin I sincerely hope this is the case. The molecular
mechanism of succussion, and how it selects for particular solutes, is currently not understood.
But in order for a homeopathic remedy to work, not only does the water need to retain a memory of the
active ingredient, it needs to actually mimic it, so it can then interact with the required target molecule
to exert an effect. It has to adopt a similar/identical form.
How water interacts with other (bigger) molecules
Crystallographers can show that molecules such as proteins and DNA interact with solvent water atomsin quite specific ways. Ive even generated a little picture to show precisely that:
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
12/17
The grey surface represents the molecular surface of a particular protein Im working on. The red
spheres represent ordered water molecules that interact with the suface of the protein.
We see these bound water molecules in pretty much every crystal structure we solve, as the vast majority
of crystals are formed from aqueous solutions. Indeed, water molecules can become trapped inside
proteins and help them fold correctly and bind substrates or metal ions. Water molecules also participate
in chemical reactions often being split to protenate leaving groups.
So the idea that water adopts a structure around another molecule is not that far fetched. So, being
inquisitive, scientists tried to determine if this water structure persisted after the molecule was removed.
And to their surprise, it did but for only ~50 femtoseconds (0.00000000000005 seconds not very
long at all and not much use for a remedy thats going to sit on the shop shelf for weeks).
And another thing
For the sake of further enquiry, lets assume that the peer-reviewed letter to Nature above is wrong (it
isnt), and water can retain a memory of whats been dissolved in it for much longer than 50
femtoseconds (it cant).
This isnt enough an empty shell of water molecules around a compound that was once there isnt
going to be enough to interact with and engage protein receptors they actually have to then rearrange
and mimic the chemical and physical properties of the molecule that induced the formation of that shell
in the first place.
Not only this this water structure then has to be robust enough to occupy a protein-binding site and
fend off other molecules that might normally bind to that site with a high affinity molecules that will
displace water molecules all the time in order to get into that very binding site. The original therapeuticFollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
13/17
molecule will not only have a particular shape and form it will have an inherent stiffness and rigidity
water molecules in solution move relatively freely and will shift to surround any molecules dissolved it
them that is why water is such an excellent solvent. But not homeopathic solutions. Oh no.
In order to circumvent this, the energetics of homeopathic remedies must be amazing water molecules
typically interact with each other via low energy, transient hydrogen bonds each hydrogen bond
requires 5-30 kJ/mol to break it (depending upon solvent conditions, temperature, etc), but a permanent
covalent bond that links atoms in a drug molecule typically requires over 300 kJ/mol to break it i.e.at least over 10 times stronger. And yet the homeopathic shell of water molecules manages to be as
strong as this. Utterly fantastic stuff.
The properties of homeopathic solutions are beyond comprehension and to think that all this was
achieved by diluting something to a point where no original molecules remain whilst periodically
banging it on something leathery.
Homeopathy is truly unbelievable.
It is the fantastic and unbelievable nature of homeopathic remedies that leads scientists to question their
validity as an effective form of therapy. Experiments to investigate this show that homeopathy is nomore effective than placebo. When a therapy has no active ingredient, no conceivable mechanism of
action, and cannot be demonstrated to be more effective than a placebo, to claim otherwise is both
dangerous and immoral. It certainly has no place whatsoever in a public funded health service like the
NHS.
18 Comments | Bad-science, Homeopathy, Science | Tagged: Homeopathy, Molecular mechanism |
Permalink
Posted by xtaldave
Next Entries
You are currently browsing the archives for the Homeopathy category.
Search Search
Im going here:
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
14/17
Archives
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
Recent Comments
xtaldave on Scientific evidence for h
xtaldave on Scientific evidence for h
homeo on Scientific evidence for h
homeo on Scientific evidence for h
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
15/17
xtaldave on Scientific evidence for h
Blogroll
Alice In Galaxyland
Andy Russell's Blog
Apathy Sketchpad
Bad Science
Black Triangle
DC's Improbable Science
Dr Aust's Spleen
Gimpy Blog
Greater Manchester Skeptics
Jack of Kent
JDC325
Reciprocal Space BlogRespectful Insolence
Science Based Medicine
Science based Pharmacy
Skepchicks
Skeptics book of pooh-pooh
The 21st Floor
The Land That Tim Forgot
The Lay Scientist
The Quackometer
The Thought Stash
Thinking is DangerousTomFooleryBlog
Zeno's Blog
Top Posts
Psorinum therapy - homeopathy for cancer?
The Wonders of the Universe Drinking game rules!
Scientific evidence for homeopathy?
Homeopathic Piggy Poo - Updated.
BREAKING NEWS! Dana Ullman rejects Law of Potentisation
Category Cloud
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
16/17
Academia ASABad-science Batshit Insane Climate Change
Homeopathy InternetzRSeriusBizniz Journalism LibelReformMiscellaneous Woo My favourite... Peer review Politics Poor Journalism
Science Science Communication Skeptivism Uncategorized
RSS me!
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Email Subscription
For those who haven't yet embraced the joys of RSS...
Join 9 other followers
Sign me up!
Tweet Tweet Tweet
Never before has the boss quibbled about the alcohol bill at a Christmas party.... 8 hours ago
Hmmm.... Christmas cocktails. 10 hours agoManchester: so depressing that even the clouds can't stop weeping. 12 hours ago
'Celebrity' is ultimately disappointing - put anyone on a high enough pedestal like that and
they can't help but let you down. 12 hours ago
Today is Xmas party day. No work shall occur. That is all. 12 hours ago
Follow this blog
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat
of 17 12/16/11 11:2
-
8/3/2019 Homeopathy Anomalous Distraction
17/17
Theme: Contempt by Vault9.
Blog at WordPress.com.
FollowFollow
omeopathy Anomalous Distraction http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/category/bad-science/homeopat