@DBT9 Well as to your author, well there's many things I could pick, but the main gem sticking out at me, do you have a placebo effect for plants? Do you have any study for the placebo effect for plants?
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://www.homoeopathie-online.info/medizin-falsch-gedacht-rezension-ueber-natalie-grams-neu-gedachte-homoeopathie/Medicine wrongly thought: Review of Natalie Gram's “newly thought” homeopathy
The number of doctors with additional homeopathic training is steadily increasing.It has grown by around 200 percent in the last ten years (SPIEGEL), and currently more than 7,000 doctors in Germany use homeopathy in their medical practice.- The doctor Natalie Grams went the opposite way: She turned away from homeopathy and accuses her colleagues of fraudulent patients in her current book “Homeopathy rethought”.
It is astonishing: a doctor who has been using classic homeopathy in her medical practice for years suddenly notices that homeopathycontradictstoday'sscientific knowledge of conventional pharmacology. - A fact that is known to every doctor at the latest when he begins a "further education homeopathy", which with the award of the "additional designation homeopathy" by a medical chamber or the award of the "homeopathy diploma" by the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ ) is completed. Natalie Grams has attended advanced training courses in homeopathy for many years and, according to her own statements, graduated in 2011 with a successful examination at a state medical association.(Addendum to the editor: Deutschlandradio-Wissen published aninterview with Natalie Gramson November 25th, 2016, in which she claims to have acquired the additional title of homeopathy during her studies (min. 3:05). The problem with this The statement is that it is not legally possible to acquire an additional medical qualification in homeopathy during your studies. "Further medical training includes learning medical skills and abilities after completing medical training and granting permission to practice medical activity," it says in theadvanced training regulations (WBO) of the state medical association(LÄK) Baden-Württemberg, which is responsible for Grams.Accordingly, obtaining an additional qualification in homeopathy prior to a license to practice medicine is excluded.)
Gram's completely correct core thesis is: "The equation homeopathy = medicine = natural science no longer works today" (p. 57).In your publication she never tires of emphasizing again and again that from her (today's) point of view medicine is to be equated with natural science.
Medicine is more than just science
"Medicine is not a natural science, but an empirical science that also makes use of scientific findings from other specialist areas," emphasized Prof. Dr. Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe during his twelve years as President of the German Medical Association (BÄK), which ended in 2011. With “empirical science”, however, is by no means meant “anecdotal” evidence in medicine - but rather empirical science that provides knowledge through experiments, observations or surveys. Hoppe had been a member of the BÄK board since 1975, he founded the “Dialogue Forum Pluralism in Medicine”, which promotes the unprejudiced cooperation of conventional and complementary methods in medicine.
The claim that medicine is pure natural science is by no means capable of consensus within the German medical profession, but rather a marginal view of medicine that is more often represented by natural scientists and science journalists than by doctors. If the reader looks at the online sources that Grams cites in her book, it becomes apparent that she visits Wikipedia pages 39 times and only lists eight other websites in the list of sources. She left out the Wikipedia page on the keyword "Medicine": "Medicine (from Latin ars medicinae," medical art "," medicine ") [...] is a practical empirical science."
According to the “Charter of Medical Professionalism”, the medical profession is based on three target principles: “the well-being of the patient, patient autonomy and medical-social justice” (Dtsch. Ärzteblatt 2010; 107 (12): A-548 / B-477 / C-469). A special obligation of the doctor to regard medicine - like Grams - exclusively as part of natural science does not belong to medical professionalism. But: to make “no polemically exaggerated statements about therapeutic alternatives” (ibid.). “Homeopaths want to be part of medicine, and medicine is just part of natural science,” Grams claims naturally in an interview with Stern. It is correct: “Homeopathy is part of today's medicine, and it also makes use of scientific knowledge.“Therefore, according to the Social Code V, homeopathy and other“ special therapies ”are fundamentally part of medical care.
Selective study selection
When it comes to the hot iron “Meta-analyzes in homeopathy research”, it quickly becomes clear that Grams is apparently not interested in a transparent debate on homeopathy research. She refers to the work of Shang et al. (2005) and Ernst (2002), who give homeopathy a negative result (effect no better than placebo). The Grams reader will look in vain for the meta-analyzes by Kleijnen (1991), Linde (1997), Cucherat (2000) and Mathie (2014), all of which provide positive results on the effectiveness of homeopathy. Nevertheless, she claims: “One thing is certain: Neither has a study that meets modern scientific criteria yet been able to prove that homeopathy actually has an effect that goes beyond a placebo effect (Ernst 2002; Sheng et al. 2005),its principles can still be explained scientifically ”(p. 61).
The work of Prof. Robert G. Hahn with the title“Homeopathy: Meta-analysis of pooled clinical data” (Volume 20 (5), 2013; 376-381)is extremely helpful in this context. Hahn is a recognizedresearcher and professor for anesthesia and intensive care medicine at the University of Linköpingand author ofseveral hundred scientific papersin the field of anesthesia and intensive care medicine, he has also received several research awards. And: - So far it has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy. Motivated by a dispute about the scientific assessment of homeopathy on the Internet, Hahn has critically examined the previous meta-analyzes on homeopathy. He comes to the conclusion that some “meta-analyzes on homeopathy are negative because 90 percent of the data are excluded”. And indeed, for example, at Shang et al. (2005) included a total of 110 studies in the meta-analysis - in the end, however, only eight studies were evaluated without making the criteria for study selection transparent.
In addition, Hahn clears up “myths” of homeopathic research, which can be found in Grams in particular. The thesis: "There is not a single positive homeopathy study" is wrong, according to Hahn, because the majority of all homeopathy studies show significantly positive effects. And the thesis: "The quality of homeopathy studies is low" is also wrong, according to Hahn, because this has already been well examined and refuted in several papers.
In Switzerland, homeopathy has become an equal part of basic medical care after scientific evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy was presented. The HTA report relevant in this context comes to the conclusion: "The effectiveness of homeopathy can be considered proven, taking into account internal and external validity criteria, and professional, appropriate use as safe" (Effectiveness, Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Homeopathy in General Practice - Summarized Health Technology Assessment; Forsch Komplementärmed 2006; 13 (suppl 2): 19-29).
The list could be expanded. For example, the Swiss physicist Stephan Baumgartner, who has demonstrated a significant effect of homeopathics on the growth of duckweed. Natalie Grams claims nonetheless: “There are no studies that actually and unequivocally prove an effect of homeopathy; at most an unspecific placebo effect can occur ”(p. 61). Why does it have to be that way? - Grams became aware that the dilution (or potentiation) of homeopathic medicines is thesame as todayContradict the state of science: “The active ingredient from a potency of 6 D is so diluted that it can practically no longer be responsible for a medicinal effect,” explains Grams.Ergo: Effect excluded.Then she adds a nonsensical superlative on the subject of high potencies (from potency C30): "Here the dilution has reached such a high level that with absolute certainty no material effect can be expected from the original substance."Ergo: Effect "absolutely safe" excluded.
The "one argument method"
In her book, Grams also expresses very valuable criticism, for example regarding the homeopathic drug proving or the selection criteria for the homeopathic medicine that is individually suitable for a patient. Unfortunately, however, the author repeatedly invalidates her nuanced criticism herself - with the “one-argument method”. Why differentiate criticism of remedy provings, repertories or materiae medicae if the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines per se is excluded by the author? Why discuss the study situation against this background? Based on this argument - the pharmacological implausibility of homeopathic remedies - there is no need for a constructive debate on medical homeopathy.
Both double-blind, randomized studies and studies from health services research show that homeopathy works beyond a pure placebo effect. Even so, critics of homeopathy will never accept these results. The reason: thecurrent state ofscientific knowledge is quickly placed above every empirical research result."Today there are more than 200 randomized clinical studies on homeopathy, of which more than half have a statistically significant positive result in favor of homeopathy,"writesDr. Michael TeutfromCharité Berlin. Overall, the study situation makes it clear: There is the phenomenon of effective homeopathy. Is it up to science to ignore these results because of pharmacological implausibility?
“From the fact that I cannot explain a phenomenon, I do not conclude that it does not exist, but only that its existence should be examined in order to serve the advancement of science”, is a well-known quote from the Berlin physicist Martin Lambeck . Anyone who shares this view of science can no longer sweep the positive study results on homeopathy off the table with the reference to implausibility. Rather, homeopathy is becoming an engine for advancement in science. - Theories in natural science are also often the “last stand of error”. In the Stern interview, Grams is asked whether she knows homeopathic doctors who have now “forsaken” homeopathy as well: “No” is her answer.
You can find more background information in ourfacts about homeopathy
