Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not there?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not There?

Yesterday, we asked you your opinions on homeopathy. The sample size of responses was a little lower than we usually get, but of those who did reply, there was a clear trend:

  • A lot of enthusiasm for “Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective”
  • Near equal support for “It may help some people as a complementary therapy”
  • Very few people voted for “Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works”; this is probably because people who considered voting for this, voted for the more flexible “It may help some people as a complementary therapy” instead.
  • Very few people considered it a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience.

So, what does the science say?

Well, let us start our investigation by checking out the position of the UK’s National Health Service, an organization with a strong focus on providing the least expensive treatments that are effective.

Since homeopathy is very inexpensive to arrange, they will surely want to put it atop their list of treatments, right?

❝Homeopathy is a “treatment” based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself.

There’s been extensive investigation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. There’s no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.❞

The NHS actually has a lot more to say about that, and you can read their full statement here.

But that’s just one institution. Here’s what Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council had to say:

❝There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment❞

You can read their full statement here.

The American FDA, meanwhile, have a stronger statement:

❝Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations.❞

You can read their full statement here.

Homeopathy is a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience: True or False?

False and True, respectively, mostly.

That may be a confusing answer, so let’s elaborate:

  • Is it dangerous? Mostly not; it’s mostly just water. However, two possibilities for harm exist:
    • Careless preparation could result in a harmful ingredient still being present in the water—and because of the “like cures like” principle, many of the ingredients used in homeopathy are harmful, ranging from heavy metals to plant-based neurotoxins. However, the process of “ultra-dilution” usually removes these so thoroughly that they are absent or otherwise scientifically undetectable.
    • Placebo treatment has its place, but could result in “real” treatment going undelivered. This can cause harm if the “real” treatment was critically needed, especially if it was needed on a short timescale.
  • Is it a scam? Probably mostly not; to be a scam requires malintent. Most practitioners probably believe in what they are practising.
  • Is it a pseudoscience? With the exception that placebo effect has been highly studied and is a very valid complementary therapy… Yes, aside from that it is a pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “like cures like” principle, and there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “water memory” idea. On the contrary, they go against the commonly understood physics of our world.

It may help some people as a complementary therapy: True or False?

True! Not only is placebo effect very well-studied, but best of all, it can still work as a placebo even if you know that you’re taking a placebo… Provided you also believe that!

Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works: True or False?

False, simply. At best, it performs as a placebo.

Placebo is most effective when it’s a remedy against subjective symptoms, like pain.

However, psychosomatic effect (the effect that our brain has on the rest of our body, to which it is very well-connected) can mean that placebo can also help against objective symptoms, like inflammation.

After all, our body, directed primarily by the brain, can “decide” what immunological defenses to deploy or hold back, for example. This is why placebo can help with conditions as diverse as arthritis (an inflammatory condition) or diabetes (an autoimmune condition, and/or a metabolic condition, depending on type).

Here’s how homeopathy measures up, for those conditions:

(the short answer is “no better than placebo”)

Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective: True or False?

False, except insofar as placebo is a valid principle and can be effective.

The stated principles of homeopathy—”like cures like” and “water memory”—have no scientific basis.

We’d love to show the science for this, but we cannot prove a negative.

However, the ideas were conceived in 1796, and are tantamount to alchemy. A good scientific attitude means being open-minded to new ideas and testing them. In homeopathy’s case, this has been done, extensively, and more than 200 years of testing later, homeopathy has consistently performed equal to placebo.

In summary…

  • If you’re enjoying homeopathic treatment and that’s working for you, great, keep at it.
  • If you’re open-minded to enjoying a placebo treatment that may benefit you, be careful, but don’t let us stop you.
  • If your condition is serious, please do not delay seeking evidence-based medical treatment.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • No, COVID-19 vaccines don’t cause ‘turbo cancer’

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    What you need to know

    • COVID-19 vaccines do not cause “turbo cancer” or contain SV40, a virus that has been suspected of causing cancer.
    • There is no link between rising cancer rates and COVID-19 vaccines.
    • Staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines is a safe, free way to support long-term health.

    Myths that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer have been circulating since the vaccines were first developed. These false claims resurfaced last month after Princess Kate Middleton announced that she is undergoing cancer treatment, with some vaccine opponents falsely claiming Middleton has a “turbo cancer” caused by COVID-19 vaccines.

    Here’s what we know: “Turbo cancer” is a made-up term for a fake phenomenon, and there is strong evidence that COVID-19 vaccines do not cause cancer or increase cancer risk.

    Read on to learn how to recognize false claims about COVID-19 vaccines and cancer.


    Do COVID-19 vaccines contain cancer-causing ingredients?

    No. Some vaccine opponents claim that COVID-19 vaccines contain SV40, a virus that has been suspected of causing cancer. This claim is false.

    A piece of SV40’s DNA sequence—called a “promoter”—was used as starting material to develop COVID-19 vaccines, but the virus itself is not present in the vaccines. The promoter does not contain the part of the virus that enters the cell nucleus, so it poses no risk.

    COVID-19 vaccines and their ingredients have been rigorously studied in millions of people worldwide and have been determined to be safe. The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society agree that COVID-19 vaccines do not increase cancer risk or accelerate cancer growth.

    Why are cancer rates rising in the U.S.?

    Since the 1990s, cancer rates have been on the rise globally and in the U.S., most notably in people under 50. Increased cancer screening may partially explain the rising number of cancer diagnoses. Exposure to air pollution and lifestyle factors like tobacco use, alcohol use, and diet may also be contributing factors.

    What are the benefits of staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines?

    Staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines is a safe way to protect our long-term health. COVID-19 vaccines prevent severe illness, hospitalization, death, and long COVID.

    The CDC says staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines is a safer and more reliable way to build protection against COVID-19 than getting sick from COVID-19.

    For more information, talk to your health care provider.

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • Gooseberries vs Lemon – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing gooseberries to lemons, we picked the gooseberries.

    Why?

    Both have their merits, but ultimately, it wasn’t close:

    In terms of macros, gooseberries have notably more fiber, for about the same carbs and protein, winning this round.

    In the category of vitamins, gooseberries have more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, and E, while lemons have more of vitamins B9 and C, yielding a 5:2 win for gooseberries.

    Looking at minerals, gooseberries have more copper, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while lemons have more iron, so that’s a clear 7:1 victory for gooseberries here.

    In other considerations, gooseberries have more polyphenols, so that’s another point in their favor.

    Adding up the sections makes for an overwhelming overall win for gooseberries, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Sharp Tastes, Sharp Brain?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • How To Read Your DEXA Scan (Before It’s Too Late) 

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Dr. Vonda Wright walks us through it:

    Down to a “T”

    Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans measure bone mineral density and can help identify fracture risk.

    This bone mineral density (before we get to working out T-scores) is reported in grams per square centimeter. Dr. Wright describes approximately 1 g/cm² as a generally healthy value, although interpretation depends on the measurement site (e.g. hip vs spine vs somewhere else, and even where specifically within those), and can also depend on the individual—bone density alone is not the sole factor in fracture risk; bone structure matters too, and DEXA scans aren’t as good with that, even when a trabecular score (a measure of bone structure quality) is offered.

    If you do get a trabecular score though, then for what it’s worth, the range you’d like to be in is something like 1.0–1.3.

    One thing that a lot of people don’t think about is that bone health should be monitored before old age because peak bone density is reached around age 30, and substantial bone loss can occur during perimenopause and menopause, if we’re not careful.

    Now, about the T-score: the T-score compares bone density with that of a healthy 30-year-old of the same sex as you, and the number of the T-score represents standard deviations from the norm. Higher or positive scores indicate greater bone density, while lower scores indicate reduced bone density:

    • Above −1: considered to be within the bounds of normal bone density, though really you want 0 or higher
    • −1 to −2.5: indicates osteopenia
    • −2.5 or lower: indicates osteoporosis

    There is also a Z-score: this is mathematically the same thing and is calculated in the same way, but instead, it compares it to the average for people the same age and sex as you. Dr. Wright considers this less important than the T-score. We agree. After all, we want to be healthy, not “average health for our age”!

    And, bone density can absolutely be maintained, unless you have some very specific disorder that prevents you from doing so, so it’s not something that’s inevitable with passing years.

    Dr. Wright gives her own example; in the video, she compares her 2023 and January 2026 DEXA scans. Her lumbar-spine T-score was 1.7, and she enjoyed a 9% increase in spinal bone density. Her left femoral-neck T-score was 0.1, left total-hip T-score was 1.2, right femoral-neck T-score was 0, and right total-hip T-score was 1.

    For more on all of this plus visual illustrations, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    21% Stronger Bones in a Year at 62? Yes, It’s Possible (No Calcium Supplements Needed!)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • 3 bathroom items you shouldn’t really share, according to an expert

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Imagine you’re away from home but forgot to pack your towel, razor or toothbrush.

    Should you use other people’s?

    Here’s why it’s probably best not to make a habit of it.

    Peng Liu/Unsplash

    Microbes can stay active for a while

    Many disease-causing bacteria, viruses or fungi live on cloth, plastic and metal objects in your bathroom. These so-called pathogenic microbes can remain viable on these surfaces for extended periods. That is, they’re able to cause infection for days, months or years.

    For example, the fungus Aspergillus can remain viable for more than a month on cloth and plastic. Some bacteria can survive on these surfaces for years. And many viruses can remain viable for hours to months on some materials such as ceramics, metals, cloth and plastics.

    But what is the risk from particular items such as used towels, razors and toothbrushes?

    Scientists haven’t run randomised controlled trials (the gold standard study design) to determine the risk. This would be when one group in a study is chosen at random to, say, shave their legs with someone’s used razor, and the infection rates of known pathogens compared with those randomised to a control group who didn’t.

    But there are other studies that give us some clues.

    Can I share towels? If you play footy, maybe not

    Less robust studies suggest an increased risk of picking up a skin infection from used towels.

    One report from the United States was of an outbreak of antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus aureas (or Staph, for short) in a group of high-school football players. Players who shared a towel were eight times more likely to pick up an infection.

    Staph can cause the skin condition impetigo. But in rare cases it can lead to life-threatening septic shock and organs failing.

    In this case, the risk of transmitting Staph was probably elevated due to potential cuts and grazes from playing a contact sport.

    Another study, also from the US, followed 150 households for 12 months. Each household had a single child infected with Staph.

    When household members shared towels, the risk of Staph transmission increased significantly.

    You might think that microbes are washed off in the shower. While washing with soap and water reduces the number of microbes on the skin it does not completely eliminate them. And the warm, moist conditions of the average bathroom encourage microbial growth.

    Even if you don’t develop an infection, becoming colonised by pathogens (when there is no damage) can be problematic.

    That’s because you may be exposed to antibiotic resistant species, increasing the risk of developing antibiotic resistant infections later. These are more time consuming and expensive to treat.

    How about a toothbrush? Think of the viruses

    Microbes can remain viable on hard objects, such as toothbrushes. And toothbrushes can cause gums to bleed. So sharing them is discouraged as this can transmit blood-borne viruses such as hepatitis C.

    Not everyone who is in a risk category for hepatitis C infection has been tested. And people can be infectious without having symptoms.

    Anything that has come into contact with saliva (such as your toothbrush) may also transmit pathogens. These include herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), which causes cold sores, and Epstein-Barr virus, which causes glandular fever.

    A person with no signs of HSV-1 infection can still shed viruses and cause infection.

    One review found toothbrushes were contaminated with potentially pathogenic species of bacteria such as Staph, E. coli and Pseudomonas. HSV-1 was also found in sufficient numbers to cause infection. This virus can remain viable for two to six days on plastic objects.

    Surely a razor’s OK? Not if you hate warts

    Microbes can remain viable on hard objects such as razors too. And it’s hard to avoid nicks when using a razor. So there’s a risk of transmitting blood-borne viruses if you share.

    Razors, towels and other personal hygiene items can also spread human papillomaviruses that cause warts. So it’s no wonder dermatologists recommend each person has their own items.

    Who’s at risk?

    If you have cuts or grazes, this provides a portal of entry for microbes, putting you at increased risk of infection. Remember those footy players who shared towels.

    Reduced immune function also increases the risk of infection. We see this in:

    • babies, whose immune system is still developing
    • elderly people, whose immune function declines in later life
    • people taking immune suppressing medications, such as cancer drugs, oral corticosteroids and drugs taken after an organ transplant
    • people with type 2 diabetes, because increased blood glucose levels damage the function of immune cells and associated molecules.

    However, the overall risk of contracting an infection is low on any one occasion. And if you’re sharing a towel, razor or toothbrush with a partner, you’ll be in regular close contact and sharing microbes anyway.

    But it’s still a good idea to avoid making a habit of sharing other people’s used bathroom items.

    Thea van de Mortel, Professor Emerita, Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Eating Disorders: More Varied (And Prevalent) Than People Think

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Disordered Eating Beyond The Stereotypes

    Around 10% of Americans* have (or have had) an eating disorder. That might not seem like a high percentage, but that’s one in ten; do you know 10 people? If so, it might be a topic that’s near to you.

    *Source: Social and economic cost of eating disorders in the United States of Americ

    Our hope is that even if you yourself have never had such a problem in your life, today’s article will help arm you with knowledge. You never know who in your life might need your support.

    Very misunderstood

    Eating disorders are so widely misunderstood in so many ways that we nearly made this a Friday Mythbusting edition—but we preface those with a poll that we hope to be at least somewhat polarizing or provide a spectrum of belief. In this case, meanwhile, there’s a whole cluster of myths that cannot be summed up in one question. So, here we are doing a Psychology Sunday edition instead.

    “Eating disorders aren’t that important”

    Eating disorders are the second most deadly category of mental illness, second only to opioid addiction.

    Anorexia specifically has the highest case mortality rate of any mental illness:

    Source: National Association of Anorexia Nervosa & Associated Disorders: Eating Disorder Statistics

    So please, if someone needs help with an eating disorder (including if it’s you), help them.

    “Eating disorders are for angsty rebellious teens”

    While there’s often an element of “this is the one thing I can control” to some eating disorders (including anorexia and bulimia), eating disorders very often present in early middle-age, very often amongst busy career-driven individuals using it as a coping mechanism to have a feeling of control in their hectic lives.

    13% of women over 50 report current core eating disorder symptoms, and that is probably underreported.

    Source: as above; scroll to near the bottom!

    “Eating disorders are a female thing”

    Nope. Officially, men represent around 25% of people diagnosed with eating disorders, but women are 5x more likely to get diagnosed, so you can do the math there. Women are also 1.5% more likely to receive treatment for it.

    By the time men do get diagnosed, they’ve often done a lot more damage to their bodies because they, as well as other people, have overlooked the possibility of their eating being disordered, due to the stereotype of it being a female thing.

    Source: as above again!

    “Eating disorders are about body image”

    They can be, but that’s far from the only kind!

    Some can be about control of diet, not just for the sake of controlling one’s body, but purely for the sake of controlling the diet itself.

    Still yet others can be not about body image or control, like “Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder”, which in lay terms sometimes gets dismissed as “being a picky eater” or simply “losing one’s appetite”, but can be serious.

    For example, a common presentation of the latter might be a person who is racked with guilt and/or anxiety, and simply stops eating, because either they don’t feel they deserve it, or “how can I eat at a time like this, when…?” but the time is an ongoing thing so their impromptu fast is too.

    Still yet even more others might be about trying to regulate emotions by (in essence) self-medicating with food—not in the healthy “so eat some fruit and veg and nuts etc” sense, but in the “Binge-Eating Disorder” sense.

    And that latter accounts for a lot of adults.

    You can read more about these things here:

    Psychology Today | Types of Eating Disorder ← it’s pop-science, but it’s a good overview

    Take care! And if you have, or think you might have, an eating disorder, know that there are organizations that can and will offer help/support in a non-judgmental fashion. Here’s the ANAD’s eating disorder help resource page, for example.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Asparagus vs Bamboo – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing asparagus to bamboo, we picked the asparagus.

    Why?

    Both are great! But asparagus does distinguish itself on nutritional density.

    In terms of macros, bamboo starts strong with more protein and fiber, but it’s not a huge amount more; the margins of difference are quite small.

    In the category of vitamins, asparagus wins easily with more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B9, C, E, and K. In contrast, bamboo boasts only more vitamin B6. A clear win for asparagus.

    The minerals line-up is closer; asparagus has more calcium, iron, magnesium, and selenium, while bamboo shoots have more manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. That’s a 4:4 tie, but asparagus’s margins of difference are larger, and if we need a further tiebreaker, bamboo also contains more sodium, which most people in the industrialized world could do with less of rather than more. So, a small win for asparagus.

    In other considerations, asparagus is much higher in polyphenols, especially quercetin, and thus wins this round too.

    Adding up the sections shows clearly that bamboo shoots, but asparagus scores, and wins the day. As ever, do enjoy either or both, of course, but if making a pick, then asparagus has more bang-for-buck nutritionally.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Don’t Be Bamboozled By Bamboo! ← including how to eat bamboo, for those unfamiliar with such, as we have been asked about it 🙂

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: