Homeopathy—quackery or a key to the future of medicine?

Gold, Peter; Novella, Steven; Roy, Rustum; Marcus, Donald M.; Ir, Bell; Davidovitch, Nadav; Saine, Andre

doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.12.002

Cited by 20 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Se observó que el Mercurius-Heel®S no presentó ningún efecto citotóxico en los fibroblastos gingivales humanos, al utilizar concentraciones entre 300 mg/ml (una tableta) a 0,0005 mg/ml. Al igual que en el estudio de Oliveira et al (2011), se obtuvó también resultados en concentraciones bajas del medicamento, lo que favorece lo descrito por la homotoxicología, donde se considera que cuanto más diluido esté un medicamento homeopático, más potentes es (Gold et al 2008, Rutten 2011. Por otra parte, se observó que en periodo corto (15 minutos) es suficiente para obtener buenos resultados, tiempo en el cual la tableta se disuelve en boca (Chandira et al 2010, Patel et al 2010, y su efecto puede observarse hasta 48 horas después de ejercido el estímulo.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Medición de la citotoxicidad y producción de citocinas en fibroblastos gingivales humanos estimulados con Mercurius−Heel®S: Un estudio piloto

Robayo

Patiño²,

Rueda³

2014

Univ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mercurius-Heel®S is a homeopathic remedy used to treat infectious diseases such as gingivitis and periodontitis, mainly in the oral cavity. The main component of this drug is the Mercurius solubilis. Its cytotoxic effect was established based on cell viability and its anti-inflammatory effect by measuring the cytokines Mercurius-Heel®S on human gingival fibroblasts (FGH). We treated cells with Mercurius-Heel®S at concentrations of 300 mg/ml to 0.0005 mg/ml and left untreated cells as a control. Cell viability was measured using the MTS® colorimetric assay and the expression of cytokines (IL1b, TNFa e IL10) present in cell supernatants was performed with Quantiquine® ELISA. From 3.7 mg/ml to 0.0005 mg/ml, we observed a significantly higher increase in cell viability in comparison to the control (lower concentrations of the drug). Cytokine production was not significantly different at different concentrations of Mercurius-Heel®S. There was no significant increase in IL1b, IL10 and TNFa and Mercurius-Heel®S showed no cytotoxic effect on FGH.

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Medición de la citotoxicidad y producción de citocinas en fibroblastos gingivales humanos estimulados con Mercurius−Heel®S: Un estudio piloto

Robayo

Patiño²,

Rueda³

2014

Univ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They do not work by retaining any active ingredient. [40] [Homeopathy is] 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.… We think that a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an open mind.…”

Section: Arguments About Implausibility In the Stc Report And The Widmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s position on the implausible effectiveness of homeopathic treatments

Turner¹

2017

Theor Med Bioeth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2009, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) conducted an ‘evidence check’ on homeopathy to evaluate evidence for its effectiveness. In common with the wider literature critical of homeopathy, the STC report seems to endorse many of the strong claims that are made about its implausibility. In contrast with the critical literature, however, the STC report explicitly does not place any weight on implausibility in its evaluation. I use the contrasting positions of the STC and the wider critical literature to examine the ‘implausibility arguments’ against homeopathy and the place of such arguments within evidence-based medicine (EBM). I argue that the STC report undervalues its strong claims about the mechanistic plausibility of homeopathy because it relies on a misunderstanding about the role of mechanistic evidence within EBM. This is not a conclusion for a revision of the role mechanistic evidence plays within EBM, however. It is a conclusion about the inconsistency of the STC report’s position towards implausibility arguments, given the evidential claims they endorse and the atypical situation that homeopathy presents. It provides a further example of the general point that mechanistic reasoning should not be seen as providing categorically lower quality evidence.

show abstract

“…2 A central issue in this debate obviously is the scientific proof of efficacy of homeopathic medicines. 3 Homeopaths tend to either claim that conventional science does not provide the tools for evaluating homeopathy, 4 or that much of the clinical trial data are demonstrably positive. 5 Yet independent systematic reviews of rigorous studies regularly fail to confirm this notion.…”

Section: Advice Issued By Professional Homeopathic Associations: a Sumentioning

confidence: 99%

Advice issued by professional homeopathic associations: a survey of websites

Ernst¹

2009

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homeopathy—quackery or a key to the future of medicine?

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Medición de la citotoxicidad y producción de citocinas en fibroblastos gingivales humanos estimulados con Mercurius−Heel®S: Un estudio piloto

Medición de la citotoxicidad y producción de citocinas en fibroblastos gingivales humanos estimulados con Mercurius−Heel®S: Un estudio piloto

Evaluating the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s position on the implausible effectiveness of homeopathic treatments

Advice issued by professional homeopathic associations: a survey of websites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About