It's pretty disappointing to see something as unscientific and wrong as homeopathy promoted on this site, especially for health care for children. This kind of "medicine" is not smart, but has in fact failed every scientific test on whether it actually works or not.

My kids now range in age from 11 to 15. The most helpful book I ran across was "How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor" by Robert Mendelsohn. It is widely available.

Next up on Cool Tools: How to rake leaves with an all natural extension of your chi!

Seriously, I though the fundamental metric was "Cool tools really work". Things like homeopathy are clearly and repeatedly shown not to work any better than no treatment, or placebo at best, and the industry preys upon people looking for a cure. They are the medical equivalent of a late night "make money fast" infomercial. Alas, since they sometime delay needed medical treatment, it is sometimes tragically more than a simple $19.99 you lose.

Homeopathy is touted as a quick and easy cure all with no drawbacks. Even without studies, that kind of claim for a field as complex and wide ranging as health would give pause. There's no traditional medicine or treatment that makes such claims -- even "eat healthy and exercise" is not claimed to be effective against prostate cancer or TB.

Quick, easy and cheap universal fixes with no drawbacks are seldom (ever?) any good.

I have to concur with Jeremy, this kind of woo doesn't belong here. The reason certain therapies are called 'alternative' is because they have either been disproved or remain unproven; when they're proven they become 'conventional medicine'.

I agree with Jeremy's comment. To promote homeopathy and remedies that have been found not to work in controlled studies is not only wrong, but a disservice to your readers.

I also agree with Jeremy. Homeopathic remedies are just water. To use them to treat any illness is just absurd. To use them on your children in place of science based medicine is negligent.

I am amazed at the comments. Since when has homeopathy been "proven" ineffective, been touted as a quick cure all, or been found to not work in controlled studies?

Or my favorite from Bob "Things like homeopathy are clearly and repeatedly shown not to work any better than no treatment, or placebo at best, and the industry preys upon people looking for a cure. "

There is no proof, especially since these supposed "controlled studies" were performed by the medical association that is trying to discredit homeopathy.

If Homeopathy is such a snake-oil industry, as you claim, then why is it so popular, so effective, and so ingrained in every other culture in the world except ours? Simple, because it works. Not as a placebo effect, but as a legitimate form of healing the body naturally. It's a matter of choice. If you don't like it, then you don't need to use it. Simple as that.

To all of you folks who don't like the Cool Tool item of the day because you don't think it's a Cool Tool -- that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but we don't need to rehash that tired old argument nearly every day. If you don't like it, then send in a better submission. But don't knock the people who made the effort.

Homeopathy is not an alternative to medicine, it's merely shamanism all dressed up for a modern audience. To suggest that one treat a child with homepathic products is, at best foolish and at worst, negligence. This post should be removed, post haste.

I concur - homeopathy has failed repeatedly under the scrutiny of scientific method. I don't think this is the right forum for homeopathy to be reviewed, but I find it hard to see this as a cool tool - every empirical test will fail it

For the past 10 years, since I first encountered oscillococcinum, I have used it whenever the flu has begun to surface with symptoms. I do not take flu shots since the only times I have gotten the flu was following receiving a shot.

Although this is the only homeopathic remedy I use, it has been remarkably effective.

Cool Tool submissions are submitted by those who find the tools effective and wish to share the information and their experience. There are several commenters who are less than pleased that homeopathy has been brought up within this posting and make claims for its ineffectiveness. Has this been your experience, or are you parroting something that you read or heard? If "your" experience of homeopathy has been negative or "you" find it ineffective, then please do share this as a comment regarding the practice of homeopathy. Because I can assure you, others have had experiences spanning from the reflection "hmm, that did it" to the profound, myself included.

@CR Banks
"There is no proof, especially since these supposed "controlled studies" were performed by the medical association that is trying to discredit homeopathy."

You state there is no proof, then claim the proof is being used to discredit homeopathy. Yes people are continuing to discredit homeopathy because it is bogus. It is popular because there are so many people willing to believe irrational quackery and because there are others that are either confused or lying about it's effects. It's a matter of choice for adults who should be able to reason for themselves. It is not a matter of choice for their children. It is irresponsible to treat your child with something that has been proven to be worthless.

I also take exception to your assertion that we shouldn't speak our mind on the subject being presented. This site has a comments section for a reason. As long as the discourse is courteous and on topic, I don't think you should get to decide what others say.

There are two common usages of the term Homeopathy. The first is a synonym for "herbal medicine". The second, the older and more correct usage is @Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy.

If one is using the former definition, there ARE often palliative and curative properties to various herbs under appropriate circumstances.

From the brief description it sounds like this book isn't advocating Homeopathy, but herbal, natural, or traditional "cures" for common conditions that all children go through.

Personally I'd want to see a LOT more research on a substance before I'd expect it to do better than Tylenol, but since that usually doesn't do shit anyway, it's mostly for the parents piece of mind.

Aspirin was originally given as a tea. Then Bayer started producing Pills. And ZyKlon B, which is a rather more permanent cure for things.

So to clarify my position, homeopathy is *different* from "herbal medicine" or "natural medicine". Those SOMETIMES have a value. Homeopathy NEVER does.

The Homeopathy is pure bunk, and has been demonstrated to be pure bunk in numerous ways a long, long time.

It isn't just one study. This isn't just one doctor or medical group. This is doctors and scientists doing research. To assert as CR Banks does these "There is no proof, especially since these supposed "controlled studies" were performed by the medical association that is trying to discredit homeopathy." is a complete LIE. It is not a minor falsehood, it is not merely disingenuous, it is a BLATANT LIE.

If there had been only one study, it might be merely disingenuous. However this is not one study, or even a couple random studies, it's DOZENS of studies. And the higher quality those studies (more people, better controls, better protocols) the more likely Homeopathy was to not exceed the level of the placebo effect.

Homeopathy doesn't even make SENSE given our understanding of modern biology and chemistry.

Take this simple experiment for yourself:
Take two pint bottles of whiskey. Put one on the bar.

Take the other one and pour 15 ounces into a decanter. Put the Decanter on the bar.

Refill the pint bottle with water. Use only the purest spring water (as opposed to using distilled water which would be MUCH purer, but that's SCIENCE which KILLS people).

Shake the bottle vigorously.

Pour 15 ounces out into the drain. That's the best place for it.

Fill the pint bottle back up with water, and shake vigorously.

Pour 15 ounces out into the drain. That's the best place for it.

Fill the pint bottle back up with water, and shake vigorously.

Now, according to Homeopathy you've got some POWERFUL stuff right there.

Now, you wanna get a buzz on.

Which bottle do you drink from?

And if you really want me to assist, I am perfectly willing to wander around the country assisting in testing this hypothesis starting in December.

What's the harm in Homeopathy?

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

I'll stick to rigorously tested and controlled medical SCIENCE for my children.

Thanks, Billy Oblivion, for clearing up the homeopathy issue, I think the confusion was muddying the waters here. I think a better term for what this book describes is naturopathy, which has met with at least limited acceptance by many physicians. It would include such approaches as acupuncture, herbal medicines, and dietary changes rather than surgical or pharmacological solutions.

This discussion has also raised this issue of controlled studies showing the effectiveness of medicines versus anecdotal evidence. If you smear horse poop on your face for the whole winter and don't get the flu, it may not mean that horse poop is an effective way to prevent getting the flu.

Hmmm, it is probably a bad idea to wade into this but...

Given that the drug companies have been shown to have done some pretty biased science to get their(extremely expensive) drugs through the FDA (think Vioxx), I think the notion that non-alternative (mainstream - big Pharma) medical treatments are somehow a gold standard is mistaken.. Some of the "scientifically proven" drugs work only slightly better than a placebo.

Indeed the Placebo effect is the point of this all. About 30% of the participants of any study appears to respond to a placebo as if it were an effective drug. So for non-critical/life-threatening and chronic conditions, homeopathy really does work, even if it doesn't really work. Some significant fraction of healing happens in the brain of the user.

On another note, the scientific method is really just an extremely cool Cool Tool. But is only a tool, and it only solves certain types of problems and only discovers certain types of information. Consider the history of science and you can see many cases where science proved things that are wrong; like the history of phrenology(see The Mis-measure of Man by S. J. Gould) or the channeled scab lands debate. A casual review of the medical literature of the last century suggests we should be fairly sanguine about what modern medicine "proves".

It seems to me that much of the support for "Science and the scientific method" really amounts to scientism.

An adult using homeopathy for themselves is sort of OK -- Darwin -- but Cool Tools should not be pushing this fantasy treatment for kids.

Homeopathy kills babies.

"Parents guilty of manslaughter over daughter's eczema death"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html?page=-1

Not a single person has said anything about the book yet.

(All the comments have been about one word in the subtitle of the book, and the review. This word may or may not mean what people are guessing it means.)

If someone has read or used this book, I'd love to hear some comments.

Guess I'm a horrible parent who is grateful that Tylenol etc. is available to treat fevers and the like. I can't imagine what parents went through before these evil medicines were available, and a simple fever could escalate with severe and lasting consequences. I think the site has adopted an agenda I did not detect before as many of the selections tend to appeal to a very narrow group of 1960s devotees.

Use a knife, something gets cut.
Use antibiotics, microbes die.
Cool tools should work like this.

Use a homeopathic remedy, nothing demonstrable happens. Every attempt to prove repeatable effectiveness while controlling for bias has had this result. We will always end up to the final point of trusting or distrusting the research. I am honest and trustworthy, yet I am blinded to the interventions in my studies for the very reason that well-intentioned people can easily incorrectly interpret results without malice aforethought. That includes me. The results speak for themselves. That's not "scientism," although paradigms in effect do influence studies done and how they're interpreted. Nonetheless, all it would take is one single clear-cut, blinded, repeatable demonstration of effectivenes, and homeopathy There's not one, and I believe there will never be one; I'll keep looking honestly at the data, though. No homeopathy for reasonable people until then.

Herbalism, acupuncture, and other holisic therapy can indeed work, and if that's what's in this book instead of homeopathy, then it's fine for this venue.

Since one of the authors is an MD, the all the rants about SCIENCE being ignored seem misplaced. I find the theory behind homeopath too unlikely to bother with, but it's no more unlikely than germ theory or antibiotics seemed not so long ago. But it appears that this book is mostly about practical home remedies using traditional herbs, etc, some of which are the basis for "scientific" pharmaceuticals.

The hysteria this post generated is interesting in how it displays one belief system going up against another. One poster says "I'll stick to rigorously tested and controlled medical SCIENCE", presumably because alternative ideas are unproven. Which medical science is that, I have to wonder: the science that's in the headlines today, or the ones from last week that today's science dismisses? The SCIENCE that gave us thalidomide, hormone replacement "therapy", megadose vitamins, and all the gold-priced pharmaceuticals that don't work much bette than sugar pills? The science that still hasn't a clue as to why sugar pills work at all?

Yeah, I'm well aware and appreciative of all the medical marvels we're forunate enough to enjoy in this century. About the only thing I belive in is the scientific method. But science as faith is no more useful as any other kind of blind faith. Alternative views are the very heart of science. Those who react to them like high priests of a "rationalist" religion reveal the fragility of their own beliefs more than they contribute to a defense of science.

Nobody has said anything about the book yet because that one word makes the whole thing suspect.

If, as Mr. Oblivion ( :) ) says, the book is using the word Homeopathy as a synonym for 'herbal medicine', then they appear not to know what they're talking about . If they're using the term correctly, then they're promoting harmful bunk.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me what anyone's experience with the actual book is: I would want to double- or triple-check ANY of its claims, so it'd be better to get the information from a different source in the first place.

By the way, the word 'acupressure' adds to the problem, for exactly the same reason: it is proven bunk.

And to those who've had a positive experience with Homeopathy or Acupressure: congratulations, you're a successful user of the Placebo Response, which, far from what its name may imply, actually can have healing effects. See http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all for more details.

Since one of the authors is an MD, the all the rants about SCIENCE being ignored seem misplaced. I find the theory behind homeopath too unlikely to bother with, but it's no more unlikely than germ theory or antibiotics seemed not so long ago. It appears that this book is mostly about practical home remedies using traditional herbs, etc, some of which are, after all, the basis for "scientific" pharmaceuticals, and subjects of intense searches by big pharma to find the secrets of shamanist healers and turn them into outrageously priced pills.

The hysteria this post generated is interesting in how it displays one belief system going up against another. One poster says "I'll stick to rigorously tested and controlled medical SCIENCE", presumably because alternative ideas are unproven. Which medical science is that, I have to wonder: the science that's in the headlines today, or the ones from last week that today's science dismisses? The SCIENCE that gave us thalidomide, hormone replacement "therapy", megadose vitamins, and all the gold-priced pharmaceuticals that don't work much bette than sugar pills? The science that still hasn't a clue as to why sugar pills work at all?

Yeah, I'm well aware and appreciative of all the medical marvels we're fortunate enough to enjoy in this century. About the only thing I believe in is the scientific method. But science as faith is no more useful than any other kind of blind faith. Alternative views are the very heart of science. Those who react to them like high priests of a "rationalist" religion reveal the fragility of their own beliefs more than they contribute to a defense of science.

Glad to see so many folks fighting against the woo here. If that homeopathic stuff worked so great we wouldn't need science-based medicine and doctors, would we?

What if I were to tell you homeopathy might simply be based on undiscovered science? Whoa chew on that for a little bit.

Davey points out that one of the authors is an MD, and conventional medicine does seem well represented, as consulting a doctor is recommended in one of the short excerpts above. I'd like to reiterate that homeopathy (however the word is being used in this context) is one component of a multifaceted approach this book presents, and, as Kevin pointed out, I'd like to hear specific experiences/impressions from readers who've consulted this book, or others like it.
Does anyone have personal experience with this book, or the one Tom mentioned, How to Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor? --es

I predict that this comment thread will be long remembered by Cool Tool readers -- along with the William Gibson Aviator Briefcase comment thread.

It is doubtful that any sensible person is going to have experience with this book.

Seems to be some ignorance here of what science is. Science is not big pharma or a philosphy or anything like that. It's a simple process wherein you create a hypothesis, and then you test it. It tries to account for our plentiful ignorance and propensity towards numerous biases. Science self-corrects. It most definitely gets things wrong from time to time, but slowly and surely we figure things out.

What's the "alternative" to that process? Making shit up and convincing ourselves it works?

While I would withhold judgment on the book because I don't know specifically what it is advocating with regards to homeopathic treatment, it is nevertheless disconcerting seeing this bogus snake oil being sold to gullible parents for use on their kids.

It is the height of irresponsibility to advocate the use of unproven (or worse, proven ineffective) medical treatments, especially on children. The whole concept of homeopathy is frankly embarrassing.

Even going beyond the homeopathy side since it seems we don't know if this is talking about actual homeopathy (plain water) or "natural cures" like white willow (aspirin). Why is a doctor promoting acupressure? This entire gook makes no sense for a person to trust their child to.

This book could prove very dangerous for some children. I hope that it provides ample warnings for parents about the risks of allergies inherent in herbal medicines, and the warning signs they should watch for.

The recommendation of echinacea particularly worries me, because asthma specialists (and trained herbalists, for that matter), recommend that asthmatics not use this herb, because it can end up causing immunosuppression for them. I really wish this book hadn't appeared on this site.

@ Mantelli: Would it logically follow that it's very dangerous that this book lists the benefits of Penicillin (which it does, Tylenol, too, GLO) because there are children who are allergic?

Debunking is one of my favorite results of the thoughtful commenting that takes place on Cool Tools (the other is a dialogue that develops the subtle tonal grays of a topic, as with the Red Ryder), even if it goes against the research I've done turning a reader recommendation into a post, but criticizing a book without firsthand knowledge--or based on a single component--doesn't make for a productive debate.--es

Pants that let you put a lot of crap in your pockets: cool tool.
Book that puts crap in your head: crap.

@elon: Actually I would say this book is dangerous. Not so much for the allergy side but because of what it contains. Because it mentions medicines that actually work (Penicillin and Tylenol) along side medicines that do not, it makes it hard for a person who does not know any better to tell the difference. A more glaring example would be if the Grays Anatomy book were to say that women had one more rib than men. If I were to read that I would believe it because the rest of the book was right. Being wrong about an extra rib isn't life threatening but being wrong about what to do when your child gets sick, is.

I'd like to recommend another book for Cool Tools:
"Flim Flam" by James Randi
It contains a number of well written chapters on the subject of how people are being taken in by pseudoscience and conmen.

Available here: http://www.amazon.com/Flim-Flam-Psychics-Unicorns-Other-Delusions/dp/0879751983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254338303&sr=8-1

@qwerty017:
Can you point to a medicine that doesn't work that this book recommends? Have you spent any time reading this book?

I have great faith in my physician, but he sometimes advises treatments that go against what I feel are best for me. I don't then conclude that he's dangerous. I'm capable of critical thinking and filter his advice according to my knowledge and personal preferences. From what I've seen of this book--and I have a copy next to me at the moment--it's a tool that a discerning individual could utilize to his benefit, and that of his child. --es

At the very, very least, the site moderators should remove the subtitle "Best Medical Reference for Parents", don't ya think? I think that "An Alternative Medical Reference for Parents" would be more appropriate.

rob: "What if I were to tell you homeopathy might simply be based on undiscovered science? Whoa chew on that for a little bit."

Its is doubtful, but possible. But it is up to the proponents to show #1 that it works, and eventually #2 how it works. Currently there is no known physical mechanism that could account for it. At the very least, #1 should be done before recommending it to children. That means an double-blind randomized controlled trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial), not a collection of anecdotes.

elon: "Can you point to a medicine that doesn't work that this book recommends? "

Well, just looking at the cover I would say homeopathy and accupressure (with herbs and nutritional supplements being highly suspect). As stated by many others here, no efficacy beyond placebo.

I would not buy this book for review as I would not want to enrich anyone involved with it.

@not_qwerty017: Thanks. You said exactly what I was going to say.

@KK: Should I make a tinyurl of the google books link for this book? If it screwed up something on the back end when I posted it I'm sorry.

Every study of an herbal treatment that the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine that US taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund on the whim of some woo-minded (and woo-funded) senators has been negative. There is no evidence. Accupuncture/pressure - negative. No difference between using "real needles" and sham needles. Echinachea - negative. Gingko biloba - negative. And yet the apologists and true believers keep pushing them, and a gullible public keeps buying them.

Several woo-minded posters here have pointed out the errors and tragedies that medicine has committed over the years, such as Vioxx and Thalidomide. Yet the scientific process identified the problems and the use of those treatments was stopped. In the case of Vioxx, certain individuals with corporate interests did try to suppress this process, but they lost. Yet despite dozens of new formulations and uses every year, homeopathy apologists cannot point to any homeopathic treatment that has been stopped because it was found to be ineffective. They wouldn't want to go down that road as everything would be lost for them! The same applies to naturopathy. Every time there is a negative study of one of their treatments, excuses start flying: "the dose was wrong", "the formulation was wrong", "the [random insignificant subspecies of flower] was wrong". There is never a moment of insight that maybe, just maybe, it doesn't work. Their treatments are based on faith. Their customers come to them on faith. The defenders on this forum are based on faith. And while both science and faith can be abused by individuals, only science has an inherent self-correction mechanism to escape this abuse.

Kevin, there is enough woo on Oprah and Larry King and other TV shows and mainstream media. There is certainly more than enough on the internet already. Although this site is based upon individual's experiences with a tool, I read this site because I expect that individual to have and describe enough of their background for me to know why s/he knows what s/he is talking about, that other tools have been tried, and why they were inadequate and/or the reviewed tool is superior. Unfortunately, being a parent doesn't make you an expert on being a parent. I see no reason why I should trust Alfroza. The whole thing reads like an Amazon review, possibly even planted by the authors or publisher. By publishing this review, you have lent your credibility to this pseudoscience. And you are one of the last people who needs to be told that on the internet, as in life, all you have is your credibility. Please, review the evidence for yourself. The links above to sites like whatstheharm.net and sciencebasedmedicine.org can provide all the evidence. I urge you to disavow this review and prevent any more infiltration of woo onto your site. Otherwise, the whole point of this otherwise great site is lost.

"Many childhood health problems can be treated effectively and gently with homeopathy." p. 37

"Homeopathic remedies come in different potencies…In other words, as the concentration of medicinal substance is reduced buy dilution, the remedy becomes increasingly potent." p. 35

Homeopathic ER ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBBoC-wO6QE ) from that Mitchell and Webb Look

Elon - It appears you disregarded my comment because I hadn't read the book, and, as you point out, the book actually mentions Tylenol (apparently in the context of allergies, per your comment). My comment re Tylenol was directed mainly at the narrative about the book above, which I did read: The authors say they found this book "because we were tired of having to resort to Tylenol and/or Ibuprofen. . ."

It's great that your critical thinking skills are so strong and you can discern what your physician tells you to do, and then make your own decisions. There are many parents in the world who refuse standard medical care for their children (often on religious grounds), or believe opinions about the perils of psychiatry or vaccines from celebrities etc etc. Not everyone is as discerning as you.

All placebos, including homeopathy, are effective to some degree, so they can't be dismissed.

(See the current Wired article http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect)

I went to the Amazon link, clicked on "search inside this book", then on "surprise me." It took me to page 142 on the first click.

There, I found a section on homeopathy, which included such recommendations as:
- Give Kali bromatum 30x or 9c to the restless child who is constantly doing something with his hands.
- One dose of Medorrhinum 200x or 1m will help the child who is irritable, agitated, and in a hurry.

This is not "herbal medicine incorrectly labeled as homeopathy." These are full-blown, Hahnemann-style homeopathic ultradilutions; the kind that have no evidence for their efficacy (not to mention no possible mechanism for use). The 30x and 200x solutions, in particular, contain no molecules of the original substance (the oft-cited "memory effect" of water is bogus and irrelevant).

This review should be pulled, and the readers deserve an apology. The book is all the more dangerous for mixing real medicine with pseudoscience--the latter is given a fake air of credibility due to proximity. I genuinely hope no child is harmed by this book, but as the above link to whatstheharm.net demonstrates, that hope is far from guaranteed.

@Kevin Kelly:
So Kevin, you're advocating a modern form of witch doctoring? Don't dismiss it because if people believe it has an effect it has an effect? You don't think it would be beneficial to discourage people from believing in superstition, or at least redirect it towards real medicine that has a chance BEYOND placebo of being effective? This does not appear to be a well thought out position.

Note that one of the authors of this book has her own herbal products company:

McZand Corp., based here, was purchased by Botanical Laboratories Inc. in Ferndale, Wash., on May 19; financial details were not disclosed. Under the terms of the partnership agreement, Botanical Laboratories will manufacture the herbal products while Janet Zand will continue to assist in the formulation and marketing of the Zand and Herbs for Kids brands.

One article said sales for Zand in 2000 were roughly $7 million.

@DiscomBob asks, "So Kevin, you're advocating a modern form of witch doctoring? Don't dismiss it because if people believe it has an effect it has an effect?"

That is correct. Ask any doctor who has a clinical practice about that.

The dogpile on homeopathy is tedious. Y'all sound like a bunch of self-righteous blowhards, do you realize that? Give it a rest, people. You already have made it known how clever and righteous you are, you can stop repeating yourselves now.

Incidentally, although homeopathy has never worked for me, I see no problems in the excerpts from the book given above. The first place I noticed "homeopathy" being touted was in the comments.

Ah, you lost me at "Homeopathy".

Not only has homeopathy never been proven to work, it also flies directly in the face of a *lot* of well understood and well researched science.

Heck, even the Federal Government's National Institutes of Health agency on this stuff, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) points out that homeopathy is junk (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/).

I'll be the first to admit that we can't explain everything, and the big pharmaceutical companies are evil and loathsome. I think our society would be significantly healthier if no one ever used any drug advertised on TV again. However, the homeopathy is at least as bad, and as scary as it is to think about it, even less logical and rational.

It seems to me that the term "homeopathy" is being too broadly applied here. If I eat chicken soup when I have a cold, I don't expect the substances of the chicken soup to attack the cold. What I do expect is that the chicken soup will warm me, make me feel comfortable, maybe calm me so I can sleep or at least rest so my body's built in defenses can do what they are supposed to do to fight the cold (now there's a Cool Tool). Creating the conditions under which one's body can do its thing is, in my mind, a valid approach to many illnesses that Western medicine would throw a pill at.

To suggest that a "homeopathic" substance can accomplish the same thing as, say, an antibiotic is ludicrous and, like many commenters suggest, possibly dangerous.

The discussion here seems to be happening on the two extremes of a continuum without recognizing that there is some middle where the ideas discussed in the book and 'science' meet.

1. Homeopathy has not been proven efficacious.
2. The fact that a physician has endorsed the book doesn't mean it is scientifically based.
3. Anecdotes are not evidence. And a bunch of anecdotes are not scientific data.
4. In response to Kevin's post above, the fact that a placebo has a given effect in a given circumstance doesn't grant immunity to the scientific claims against individual homeopathic remedies cited above.

As a side note, Kevin I hope that you don't simply prescribe homeopathic remedies because of the placebo effect.

@Charlie: Its because I am right and want others to know the truth. I can't stand lies so when I see one I must call it out.

@JM: Actually what you are doing is called naturopathic. Completely different than homeopathic. Homeopathic = water. Naturopathic = everything else that hasn't been proven to cure a disease since then it would be called medicine.

Great song about this is called Storm by Tim Michin. You can find it on youtube. Also, if you want to read the book just do a search for the title on google books. They have the whole thing there except for the AIDS part and some other minor sections.

I am not a believer in Homeopathy, so that is why I personally am unlikely to ever buy this book. But I think many of my fellow non-believing commenters here would benefit from an old-fashioned, science-based, Xanax (in other words, "take a chill pill").

"At the first sign that your child may be developing a cold, begin giving her an Echinacea and Goldenseal combination formula."

Google it.

Echinacea appears to do nothing to help treat cold in children. It doesn't help them feel better or get better quicker. But it does cost money, and can have side effects.

Homeopathy is the (tongue in cheek) discipline of adding a substance to water, stirring and then halving until there is no measurable substance left just the "essence of".

If this worked then (for all you folks in California, the 'essence" of the sewer treatment plant that your water just came from would still be in (it)- enjoy.

There is an urban legend that "Folks from around the world come to the U.S. for diagnosis because we are the best in the world at it, but then go home for treatment because we (the U.S.) rank very low in cure, and somewhere around 17th in longevity.

I hold that conventional medicine/doctors can only do two things but practice three. Set a bone, commit surgery, and prescribe the devil's potions.

And the devil's stooge's, which if you've read many of the above comments, are many; go from website to website leaving their poison comments, stating that herbal remedies do not work and that only drugs and procedures approved by the American Medical Association work.

Homeopathy is nothing more than New Age Spiritualism taken over by the Snake Oil Salesmen of the world (Can I sell you this water for medicine?)

Herbal Medicine has been and still is practiced all over the world and there have been many respected and honorable men who have proven that a diet of whole foods (non-conventionally grown) in moderation, exercise, coupled with medicinal herbs and a mindset steeped in humility and thankfulness to the Most High will give you a healthy three score and ten before you pass as the flowers of the fields do.

@thom

Nice use of the straw man argument there. BTW, praying is equally ineffective when treating illness.

@Kevin Kelly

Sorry I can't find the study, but actually there was a study recently that found that if you did nothing and told people you were doing nothing you got as good results as for giving them a placebo.

Hence, at least in some cases, the "placebo" effect is just the random chance of people getting better results on what's being measured by themselves. Most experiments and tests don't have a control for the placebo effect - they have two test groups - a group that gets the real pill and a group that gets the sugar pill. They should have a third group, one that gets nothing.

There may be some cases where there is a real placebo effect, but the evidence suggests it's over stated.

@Charlie(#51)

You wrote: "The first place I noticed "homeopathy" being touted was in the comments." Did you not look at the cover of the book? At the very top it states: "Safe and Effective ... Homeopathy ..."

This book is neither smart medicine nor a cool tool.

@ Jeremy: Sorry I can't find the study, but actually there was a study recently that found that if you did nothing and told people you were doing nothing you got as good results as for giving them a placebo.

I'd be interested in seeing the results of this study if you do find it, because it actually bolsters Kevin's argument more than it does yours. If you quit thinking in terms of the "Placebo Effect" and instead think of "Positive Thinking", you'll understand what he's getting at.

The mind is the key to healing the body; if a person wants to get better, is active in their recovery, or even mentally at peace, that person has a greater chance to improve than a person who has given up, who doesn't care, or who has no hope.

Besides, it wasn't so very long ago that leeches and blood-letting were the number one prescribed method of treatment by leading doctors, and penicillin was the alternative. When you get a prescription, have you forgotten that you also get a print out that lists all the side effects, warnings and possible hazards from taking that scientifically proven pill? And those pills don't cure you; they just ease the symptoms a little.

I'd much rather take an herbal supplement that you say has no effect versus a Federally mandated pill that comes with a warning that it may cause death; or worse, narrow mindedness!!!

"All placebos, including homeopathy, are effective to some degree, so they can't be dismissed."
Guys you're being trolled. By the site owner no less!

@CR Banks "And those pills don't cure you; they just ease the symptoms a little."

This is provably false, using an example from your comment. Taking Penicillin for an infection doesn't just "ease the symptoms a little". It cures the infection, by killing the bacteria causing it. In contrast to homeopath, we know how it works, we know when it doesn't work, and we have moved on to better treatments. When has "alternative medicine" ever given up a treatment because it was shown to be ineffective?

The reason we went from leeches and blod-letting to Penicillin is Science. People started trying to prove what causes disease, instead of just "knowing" it was misaligned humors, or whatever.

BrerScientist

"The reason we went from leeches and blod-letting to Penicillin is Science."

Actually, we are back to using leeches. And maggots. Still no "blod-letting" but who knows...

http://www.livescience.com/health/050419_maggots.html

Here's a better book. Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care - 7th Edition. There's a reason it is the best selling baby care book. There's a reason it's been standard-of-care for over 50 years.

As for the rest. Homeopathy=junk - by any scientific AND rational standard.
Naturopathy - nice name for using natural medicine. Some of it is great. Some not. But since nobody studies it properly we don't always know which bits are which.

Real medicine - pretty reliable if you get a good pediatrician and actually listen to their recommendations instead of watching some pill-pushing pharmaceutical company's ad on TV and getting seduced into believing their 'quick and easy' fix works.

By the way - I get annoyed by how people don't take the few seconds it would take to simply look and see if a medical study is in fact conducted by a set of real medical researchers or clinicians versus a drug company. Real research is still real research. To get some idea what isn't, see the very funny Doc Gurley's BOGUS Awards - at www.docgurley.com

Though it has been said many times already, I feel compelled to express my own revulsion at this nonsense being on Cool Tools. Homeopathy is not cool. It is not a tool.

If you like homeopathy, I encourage you not to take the word of anyone commenting here, but to investigate it yourself. There is plenty of information available. It's worse than ineffective, it's an exploitative scam.

Cool Tools has gone downhill and this is the death knell. I haven't always agreed with the choices but this is just absurd. It's turned into a shopping column. Only a few of the items are interesting or even best-in-class. This particular book of absurdities has no place here. I find it hard to believe that Kevin Kelly approves of this.

It's distressing to hear so many be so glib about this, though I am quite reassured to see so many countering the pseudoscience. We do not need to "take a chill pill." These BS treatments cause physical and financial harm to many who are too credulous or just ignorant. http://www.whatstheharm.net (no, I am not affiliated, just a shameless fan)

It is also interesting to see the defenders of the poor-old-martyr alt-medicine create such ridiculous straw-man and false dichotomy arguments. Because, obviously, if one is wont to point out the sham and scam that is alt-med, they are gung-ho in support of all pharmaceutical companies and believe modern medicine never makes mistakes. That is sarcasm, for those who cannot tell.

A person who holds a rational position can tell you exactly what sort of evidence will change his mind. For those who cling to irrational ideas, there is no evidence that will convince them they are incorrect. In their mind, all contrary evidence is wrong, no matter how irrefutable.

@Kevin Kelly "All placebos, including homeopathy, are effective to some degree, so they can't be dismissed."

Since placebos are based someone's perceptions rather than any particular ingredient, under the right conditions anything at all could be an effective placebo. If someone believes a pill relieves pain, it's a placebo. If someone believes a shelf bracket relieves pain, that's a placebo. Coins, otters, rivers, mountains... literally any object, feature, or creature on or off Earth could induce a placebo effect.

So if placebos are "effective to some degree" and anything at all could be a placebo, is "everything" up for inclusion in Cool Tools?

This is a bad road to follow. I appreciate the desire to keep an open mind. But homeopathy and its accompanying "woo" have been about as discredited as anything can ever scientifically be. Seeing it defended by the site owner as a legitimate tool is kind of dispiriting.

And for those who've raised the argument of what science is or is not... The scientific method is indeed a tool. At its root lies logic and reason. Any argument that strives for coherence appeals to logic and reason. So it's always interesting seeing someone try to argue, i.e. use reasoning, to undermine the scientific method.

Brer Scientist:

Name another substance other than antibiotics, that actually cure you. Antibiotics does not "cure", it eases the symptoms so that your own body can reject the disease and complete the cure.

Y'know, I'm sure my small voice'll get lost in this mess, but I want to point out a small number of simple things.

1- That you invoke "science" over and over again doesn't make your thinking scientific. No, not even if you capitalize the word.

2- Shouting alternative medicine down because doctors (who have a vested interest in the results) say no is no smarter than listening to the wizened herbalist.

3- Someone else already said so, but it bears repeating: Those who just condescendingly whine about placebo effects and a lack of "science" sound just as stupid and closed-minded as the dopes who believe that pyramidal shoe-magnets will give you super-powers.

4- It's possible that the placebo effect works so well because we spend too much time trying to "fix" problems than letting them run their course.

5- Herbalism might not work, but it does less harm than vaccines accidentally laced wiith live bird flu (Baxter) or HIV (Bayer), for example.

John,

Your entire post is condescending. Irony?

Herbalism (and other alt-meds) does significant harm. That you think the level is lesser than harm caused pharmaceutical companies in no way invalidates the argument that alt-med is harmful.

Many of those who have criticized homeopathy have offered rational reasons why. If you refute those reasons, why not address specific concerns instead of resorting to ad-hominim attacks?

Engaging in debate is not "whining," it is how science works. I think, based on your point number 1, that you have little understanding of what science is and isn't.

Just joining in the dogpile against homeopathy and other pseudoscience. "Alternative medicine" is a misnomer -- there is only medicine, and that which produces no clinical effect -- nonmedicine. "Alternative medicine" is nonmedicine. It is a deep shame that this point of view is not embraced on this otherwise great blog. *Sigh.* Keep your slimy pseudoscience off my kids, please.

Count me in as another disappointed and alarmed reader. There is no "alternative medicine" - if something works, it becomes part of regular old medicine, and if it doesn't, it's irrelevant. Believe it or not, medical researchers actually do spend their time looking for ever more effective treatments. If these altie nostrums worked, Pharma would find a way to sell them.

Here is the article I talked about;

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/344/21/1594

The analysis found that in the trials it looked at, there actually was no placebo effect and the what was attributed as a placebo effect was just the chance of people getting better regardless of what they were given or believed.

@John. Claims about people being "close minded" are always hilarious, especially with the implication that the author of the claim is open minded, while those who disagree are close minded. The thing about science is that it's openly published. If you disagree with the science, you can look through the specific details of the experiments and point out the errors.

Homeopathy is easy to test scientifically. Just measure the recovery rates of many people with an ailment and the methods of treatment they used.

Here is a link to a news report about an article published in the peer reviewed medical science journal The Lancet doing just that (sorry, I'm too lazy to look for the primary source).

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1446132.htm

So apparently it's close minded of me to believe the results of a rigorous scientific analysis over a few anecdotes.

I disagree with your definition of "close mindedness." I think it's close minded to continue to hold a belief when it's contradicted by the actual evidence. If a new study is done, testing how well homoeopathy works and conclusively finds that it does work, under my definition, as an open minded person, I'll have to accept that at least in some cases it might work.

On the other hand, if we use your definition of "close mindedness" and the assumption that you're open minded, if we imagine we live in a world where homoeopathy really doesn't work, what amount of hypothetical evidence could convince you that it really doesn't work? Studies checking the medical outcomes of people who are treated with homoeopathy doesn't convince you, so what would? Is it really "open minded" to believe that something might work, when all the evidence shows fairly conclusively that it doesn't? Or in fact, do you hold a view that is irrespective of the evidence? Views that don't change no matter what evidence is presented don't meet my definition of "open minded" and indeed I'd call that dogmatic.

Jeremy; thanks for posting the link to that clinical study. Interesting.

@Jeremy: "if we imagine we live in a world where homoeopathy really doesn't work, what amount of hypothetical evidence could convince you that it really doesn't work?"

That's easy. The hundreds of thousands of people, in the US alone, who use homeopathy would not get better, would not get the relief they sought, and they would not be cured. But, and now here's the kicker Jeremy, they do -- for whatever reason.

Here are your own words Jeremy, "Or in fact, do you hold a view that is irrespective of the evidence? Views that don't change no matter what evidence is presented don't meet my definition of "open minded" and indeed I'd call that dogmatic."

So tell me, Jeremy, who is the one being dogmatic? You can quote scientific fact until you're blue in the face, but these people have gotten the results they sought. To me, that says homeopathy does work.

off topic but there is an hilarious rant about homeopathy and
other pseudo-treatments by Dara O'Briain here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo&feature=player_embedded

There's a serious problem with homeopathic preparations as placebos. If they work because of a placebo effect, then one should view them as effective because they are, in fact, placebos, and not because there's an iota of truth to the theoretical basis for homeopathy.

You want me to take homeopathy seriously? Prove it works better than control. Do research using its theory that confirms it. Prove its safety when treating actual disease. Compare it to methods that arise out of amply confirmed medical, pharmacological, biological and chemical studies, and show it's at least as good.

Don't pretend to me that there's anything forward-looking, philosophically benign or progressive about it, while simultaneously touting the utterly absent positive effects it has on human health and supporting a billion-dollar business based on crap.

James and Jeremy, my reply was a bit snippier than it probably should've been, and I apologize for that. It was a little condescending intentionally, because I think the irony does make the point well, but wasn't as careful as it should've been.

My point, however, was that the overwhelming majority of posts here can be distilled down to "homeopathy isn't Science," and that's that. With an occasional claim of closed-mindedness from either side of the debate. That's not compelling or instructive, and it undermines the entire argument by casting it as if our knowledge of the body (or the universe) is now finally perfect.

It's "expert worship," really. It's the idea that things are true if and only if they were told to you buy someone wearing a labcoat and having a diploma hanging on the wall. Science isn't about orthodoxy or following the leader, it's about investigating and especially TRYING things, preferably for yourself, and drawing conclusions from it..

Notice that nobody here other than the reviewer has bothered to read or investigate the book. This is all purely hypothetical bickering on what may or may not have been written by the authors, and in fact, implying that the book itself is irrelevant because of a single word in tiny text on the cover. That's about as unscientific and, yes, closed-minded as you can get.

Or, at least, it's about as open-minded as saying that a treatment must work because some kajillion-year-old text mentions it in passing.

The truth doesn't need advocates or defense. However the world works it'll keep working that way whether you or I believe it.

Specific example, here: In response to "bah, it's a placebo," our gracious host points out that the placebo effect has its name because it DOES help people. People then jump on him for...not rejecting the book or the principle out of hand, as far as I can tell.

Again, I apologize for my tone, but what's been happening here isn't a discussion and it isn't science. It's a bunch of people proclaiming which private corporations (keep in mind that the AMA isn't exactly unbiased, nor are those selling "dilute" herbal supplements) they choose to believe unswervingly, insisting that anybody who believes otherwise is ignorant. That may have passed for science a thousand years ago, but doesn't get us anywhere today.

I'm not sure if it's ominous or appropriate that one of my reCaptcha words is "argument."

The fear of the unknown is palpable here. I really thought Cool Tools readers were a little more grown up. Homeopathy works. We are just not happy that the why is understood.
Stick with it KK.

Nope. Nobody's afraid of the unknown. What I'm angry about is nonsense masquerading as truth. There is no credible evidence whatever that homeopathy works. There is ample reason to assume it wouldn't. And science isn't 'expert worship'. It certainly requires rigor, and more than anecdote. Nor is science, medical or otherwise, as rigid or complete to its practitioners as is suggested. Within a short time of the discovery of H. pylori, an entire, long standing medical and surgical paradigm was abandoned, including by people who made an excellent living doing ulcer surgery. Within a few years of the NSABP study of 1985, many abandoned mastectomy for early breast cancer. An embrace of homeopathy by even the most hidebound physician awaits only demonstration that it works better than water, placebo and tincture of time.

I neither 'fear the unknown' nor need to 'grow up'. I am angered by people making billions of dollars a year off an unproven method with a nonsensical theoretical base, who often in the next breath reject or dismiss actual, proven medical techniques, perhaps decline to vaccinate their children against massive evidence, and then cloak themselves in entirely undeserved virtue while asking me to open my mind.

@CR Banks.

You merely saying that homoeopathy works does not convince me that it does. If it does work for thousands of people, then it should be easy to quantify that and say that for a given illness x% of people got better y faster than those who received no treatment or science based medical treatment.

Of course as is evidenced by the study I posted and many others, when people have looked at the success of homoeopathy in comparison with no treatment or other treatments, they've found that x is 0.

It's important to realise that most people naturally get better from most illnesses. I had the flu recently, didn't have any treatment and still got better. It would be easy to attribute getting better to all kinds of things that I happened to do while being sick, but the reality is that my immune system destroyed the virus and would have no matter what remedies I used, in about the same length of time.

So it's easy to make the mistake of getting sick, taking some snake oil cure, getting better and then thinking the snake oil was what cured you. The fact that thousands of people think homoeopathy works doesn't mean it really works, and when we quantify just how much it works with large studies comparing people who have homoeopathic treatment with no treatment or other treatments, we find that actually resorting to homoeopathy gives a person no better chance and speed of recovery than merely doing nothing at all.

@John - I suggest you read the article I posted. It's not clear that placebos actually work at all, or even exist. Studies in the past that have included a no treatment group as well as a placebo group found no difference in results.

The thing that really baffles me is that not only does the science show that homoeopathy doesn't work, but just using common sense says that it couldn't possibly work. Water doesn't have any kind of memory. How could it? And all the water that we drink has been recycled for millions of years. Why does it have a "memory" of the tiny amount of whatever chemical was put in it, but not all the other chemicals that the water has come in contact. Keep in mind the level of dilution in homoeopathic treatments is about equal to literally a single drop in the ocean. All the water in the treatment has, in fact, not come in contact with the chemical (or at least not this time around). It really is, obviously, just water.

Scientific studies show that using homoeopathy makes people no more likely to recover from an ailment than having no treatment. Our understanding of physics, biology and chemistry show that homoeopathy couldn't work. The question of whether it works or not was answered a long time ago.

Why the vicious and sustained attack centered on the word Homeopathy here? It seems from the cover picture above to be one of many methods, including conventional treatment that is shown. As Kevin mentions has anyone actually read this book and got anything to say based on that?

I agree with jeremy's post, and add that the book's acceptance of homeopathy as 'one of many methods', on an equal footing with actually tested and proven ones with a sound logical and scientific base, suffices for me to define a book telling me how to take care of my child as useless, misleading, possibly harmful, and to note the plethora of other books (Spock and Brazelton occur immediately) which see no need to suggest unproven remedies. I see no further reason to read the book, which unambiguously declares itself, on its cover, no less, by so doing. And, of course, 'homeopathy' isn't merely a word.

It's worth noting that Hahnemann first advanced the notions of homeopathy around 1800. At this point, chemistry didn't exist. The orthodox physician's drug cabinet was filled with useless or dangerous remedies, as well as helpful ones, and the dose of actual active ingredient was highly variable. Leeches were used for pneumonia. The germ theory of disease was decades in the future, as were what to us would be even the most rudimentary notions of hygiene. Hahnemann's methods--which involved, basically, water and time--in such an environment may well have, in some cases, been superior to those of what then was orthodox, 'allopathic' medicine. Further, a basic part of the homeopathic method was (and remains) a detailed, thorough history taking from the patient, something which, under current conditions, is, alas, increasingly rare in an MD's office. And absent chemistry, biochemistry, pathobiology, genetics and physiology as we know them, Hahnemann's ideas at the time were hardly to be dismissed peremptorily by his orthodox medical colleagues.

Since, of course, progress has been made. Much of the old pharmacopeia was discarded by William Osler, who demanded that it be shown to actually work--an early push for evidence-based medicine. Foxglove has been replaced with digoxin. Thyroid hormone has replaced dessicated glands harvested from cattle. Investigators have enlarged, discarded, extended the knowledge base. Since then, too, not a single therapeutic, chemical, biological, pharmacological or clinical advance has arisen from homeopathy. Not one. Meanwhile, chemistry, biology and physics have progressed to the point where propositions tested amply and repeatedly over a hundred years, and are nowhere contradicted by experimental result, are completely incompatible with homeopathy's theoretical base, and there is no evidence that it works.

As has been said any number of times, prove it works and physicians will embrace it, and rather quickly. Say it is entitled to a faith-based acceptance that contradicts current knowledge, without proof that it works, while railing against the intolerance of those who disagree, and there simply is nothing to work with in further discussion. Homeopathy, on all current evidence, is a billion-dollar scam that diverts people from actual medical needs, both their own and society's. I'll attack it until someone proves, with the same rigor demanded of actual medicine, that it works at all. It merits attack.

ProfWombat you are the man! (With Jeremy a close second.) I only wish I could write as succinctly and clearly about this subject as you do.
Thx!

John, you can't reason with these people, they can't hear you over the voices in their heads.

DiscomBob: thank you

> What if I were to tell you homeopathy might
> simply be based on undiscovered science?

If homeopathy works, it would be much more than undiscovered science. It would mean that many of the fundamental things we hold to be true about physics, chemistry, and physiology are wrong.

There is a rule in science: if a new idea contradicts established facts, you need to work that much harder to prove your new idea. If your evidence contradicts established scientific truths, your community of scientific peers has a responsibility to examine your ideas with even greater scrutiny. Science is hard. You aren't allowed to complain when your facts don't hold up - you are supposed to go back to work proving your idea, or you move on to another idea.

One more point: if homeopathy worked, don't you think the pharmaceutical industry would be delighted to get in on that action? What would stop them from producing homeopatheic remedies? They are cheap enough to make - they're 99.999% water.

I've looked at Cool Tools a few times and wondered if good advice might be available here. With the recommendation of this book, I see that the editors either have no filter, or are really, really dumb. I can't believe a book promoting dangerous nonsense like homeopathy is being promoted as "Best medical reference for parents"

So long, Cool Tools

Of course homeopathy works! Tis a miracle created by our God!