« Next Results

Forget Homeopathic Arsenic for Stress Reduction

stressDuring a recent talk on the relation between the body and the mind, I mentioned the newest anxiety-relieving craze, colouring books. Aimed at adults, these feature intricate patterns that provide quite a challenge for staying inside the lines. The contention is that focusing on the special patterns distracts the mind from anxiety and stress. Evidence is sketchy, but millions of colouring books are flying off the shelves, topping best-seller lists. That in itself says something about our society.

After my talk I was approached by a lady who claimed she had something better than colouring books to relieve anxiety and slipped a vial full of pills into my hand. She didn’t seem like a clandestine drug pusher so I thought I would look down and find some pills of lorezapam or maybe St. John’s Wort. Such was not the case. The label on the vial read “Arsenicum album 30C.”

No, she was not trying to poison me. These were homeopathic arsenic pills based on the curious notion that a substance that in large doses causes certain symptoms can, in homeopathic potency, repel the same symptoms. Since arsenic poisoning is associated with anxiety and restlessness, a person suffering such symptoms should find relief in a homeopathic dose of arsenic. In the bizarre world of homeopathy, potency increases with greater dilution, and a dose of 30C is said to be extremely potent. Such a pill is made by sequentially diluting a solution of arsenic a hundred fold thirty times and then impregnating a sugar pill with a drop of the final solution. At a dilution of 30C, not only is there no trace of arsenic left, there isn’t even a water molecule that has ever encountered any of the original arsenic.

Homeopathy is a scientifically bankrupt practice that was invented over two hundred years ago by German physician Samuel Hahnemann who was disenchanted with bloodletting and purging, common medical procedures at the time. He was a good man who searched for kinder and gentler treatments and homeopathy fit that rubric. Since knowledge of molecules was almost non-existent at the time, Hahnemann could not have realized that his diluted solutions contained nothing. Actually, the truth is that they did contain something. A hefty dose of placebo!

Now here is the kicker to this story. Hahnemann was quite accomplished in chemistry and actually developed the first chemical test for arsenic. In 1787 he found that arsenic in an unknown sample was converted to an insoluble yellow precipitate of arsenic trisulfide on treatment with hydrogen sulfide gas. When in 1832 John Bodle in England was accused of poisoning his grandfather by putting arsenic in his coffee, John Marsh, a chemist at the Royal Arsenal, was asked to test a sample of the coffee. While he was able to detect arsenic in the coffee using Hahnemann’s test, the experiment could not be reproduced to the satisfaction of the jury and Bodle was acquitted. Knowing that he could not be tried for the same crime again, he later admitted to killing his grandfather.

The confession infuriated Marsh and motivated him to develop a better test for arsenic. By 1836 he had discovered that treating a sample of body fluid or tissue with zinc and an acid converted any arsenic to arsine gas, AsH3, which could then be passed through a flame to yield metallic arsenic and water. The arsenic would then form a silvery-black deposit on a cold ceramic bowl held in the jet of the flame and the amount of arsenic in the original sample could be determined by comparing the intensity of the deposit with that produced with known amounts of arsenic.

The Marsh test received a great deal of publicity in 1840 when Marie LaFarge in France was accused of murdering her husband by putting arsenic into his food. Marie was known to have bought arsenic from a local chemist which she claimed was to kill rats that had infested the house. A maid swore that she has seen her mistress pour a white powder into her husband’s drink and Marie had also sent a cake to her husband who was travelling on business just prior to his becoming ill. The dead husband’s family suspected that Marie had poisoned him and somehow got hold of remnants of food to which she had supposedly added arsenic. The Marsh test revealed the presence of arsenic in the food and in a sample of egg nog, but when the victim’s body was exhumed the investigating chemist was unable to detect arsenic.

To help prove Marie’s innocence by corroborating the results of the investigation of the exhumed body, the defense enlisted Mathieu Orfila, a chemist acknowledged to be an authority on the Marsh test. Much to the defense’s chagrin, Orfila showed that the test had been carried out incorrectly and used the Marsh test to conclusively prove the presence of arsenic in LaFarge’s exhumed body. Marie was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. The controversial case captured the imagination of the public and was closely followed through newspaper accounts making Marie LeFarge into a celebrity. It would also go down in the annals of history as the first case in which a conviction was secured based on direct forensic toxicological evidence. Because of Mathieu Orfila’s role in the case, he is often deemed to be the “founder of the science of toxicology.” The Marsh test became the subject of everyday conversations and even became a popular demonstration at fairgrounds and in public lectures. This had an interesting spin off. Poisonings by arsenic decreased significantly since the existence of a proven, reliable test served as a deterrent.

As far as claims about relieving anxiety with homeopathic arsenic go, well, they cause me anxiety. I think I’ll flush those homeopathic tablets down the drain (no worry about arsenic pollution here) and buy a colouring book.

Dr. Joe Schwarcz

A cranky homeopath

ADHDThe Toronto Star published a letter from a physician in BC who was critical of my attacks on homeopathy. Below is his letter as well as my response.

Published on Mon Mar 16 2015
Re: Scientists skeptical of study on ADHD care, March 6

As a medical doctor, I use homeopathy on a daily basis to fill in gaps or improve on the conventional therapies I also use in family practice. There is no doubt that homeopathy works – even in children and in skeptical patients that are willing to give it a try (particularly if they have tried everything else without benefit); sometime even in patients’ pets. Sure, good interaction and placebo play a role, just as in any therapeutic encounter, but that does not explain the results I observe.When a group of “top” scientists declare that there is no evidence to support homeopathy, you cannot but wonder at their agenda. In fact, there have been several meta-analyses and governmental assessments that show homeopathy is effective (BMJ 1991, Lancet 1997, Eur J. Clin Pharmacology 2000, Swiss Federal Office for Public Health 2006).

There are numerous positive trials, many of fair to high quality. Medical doctors around the world have accepted homeopathy based on sound evidence and the personal experience that confirms it. In Belgium, for example, 4000 doctors prescribe homeopathic medicines routinely. Homeopathy is inexpensive, convenient, integrates well with conventional medicine, and patient satisfaction and safety are excellent. It is included in the national health schemes of Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, India and many other countries. The recent discovery of nanoparticles in homeopathic ultra-dilutions has undermined the “implausibility argument” or “I can’t understand how it works, therefore it can’t work.” This type of flat-earth thinking is not helpful in promoting better healthcare and has no place in medical practice or research.

The main reason pseudo-scientists become quack-busters and criticize therapies such as homeopathy is fear. Perceived as a threat to their world-view, they use the labels “unscientific” or “implausible” to defend themselves against the barbarians at the gate. It is not really an issue of evidence or science. It’s a subconscious defense mechanism that cannot be overcome, even if the research is piled up to the ceiling. It may be disguised as defending the public, but as Shakespeare says: “The lady doth protest too much.” The potential benefits of homeopathy demand research such as Dr. Heather Boon’s ADHD study at University of Toronto, and we should not let fixed thinkers get in the way of progress in medicine. In fact, the criticism here should be levelled at McGill University for permitting its Office for Science and Society to exist and Dr. Joe Schwarcz to continue to “interpret science for the public.”
Dr. Stephen Malthouse, past president, Canadian Complementary Medical Association, Denman Island, B.C.

Dr. Stephen Malthouse’s ungracious letter requires a response. “There is no doubt that homeopathy works,” he maintains. That may be his opinion but not that of the vast majority of the scientific community. That point was effectively driven home last week by a report from Australia’ s National Health and Medical Research Council that concluded “there is no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions.” It was the most damning analysis of homeopathy ever compiled.

Dr. Malthouse trots out the tired old refrain that a discovery of some anomalous property of water undermines the argument that homeopathy is implausible. Nobody has ever maintained that homeopathy is implausible because water cannot have anomalous properties. That is a straw man argument if there ever were one. Homeopathy is implausible because it is based on the precept of ghostly images supposedly imparted to water by sequential dilutions and succusions having a healing effect.

Dr. Malthouse goes on to suggest that “it is not really an issue of evidence or science.” It most assuredly is. The science of homeopathy is non-existent, just like the molecules it is supposedly based upon. And the evidence is in for anyone who cares to look at the 225 well-designed studies that formed the basis of the Australian report. As far as Dr. Malthouse’s boorish remark that the McGill Office for Science and Society should not exist, his letter is a shining example of why there is a continuing need to interpret science for the public in an evidence-based fashion, which is exactly why the Office was established.

Joe Schwarcz




When is enough, enough?

homeopathyOn the “The Current,” the CBC’s national morning show, Dr. Heather Boon, Dean of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, and I had a chance to express our views on the proposed study she is organizing to investigate the homeopathic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in conjunction with the Riverdale Homeopathic clinic. This was stimulated by a letter I had written to Dr. Boon, co-signed by some ninety physicians and scientists, asking what was to be gained by such a study and expressing surprise that someone with training in pharmacy would attach any credibility to the bizarre concept of homeopathy.

Dr. Boon got the ball rolling by stating very clearly that she does not believe that homeopathy has any scientific basis, and that the goal of the study was to explore why people believe in homeopathy and to try and understand the complex interaction between homeopath and subject. I was glad to hear her say that she does not believe in the mythical behaviour of non-existent molecules, but when I looked at the details of the study as registered, the number one purpose stated is “to determine if there are any specific effects of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of ADHD.” Also, in a previous paper in which she discusses at length the homeopathic studies recorded in the scientific literature, she opines that “physical experiments have demonstrated a variety of possible mechanisms for the transmission and preservation of therapeutic properties in highly diluted solutions.” While some experiments have shown that water has some anomalous properties, no experiment I know of has shown the transmission of any sort of therapeutic effect.

The purpose of scientific research is to advance our state of knowledge, hopefully with spinoffs that will benefit the public. But funding for scientific research is not unlimited, indeed it is becoming harder and harder to come by. So decisions have to be made on the allocation of both money and effort. Factors that need to be taken into account include previous studies of the subject as well as scientific plausibility. For example, there would be no point in studying pendants that claim to neutralize electromagnetic radiation because this makes no sense according to principles of physics. Ditto for jars that claim to magnetize water in order to turn it into a healing solution, or for hollow wax candles that claim to remove ear wax, freeing up (nonexistent) energy channels in the body. That brings us to studying the effect of absent molecules, namely homeopathy. This two hundred year old practice has been put through the mill numerous times. Literally hundreds of studies have examined the possibility that solutions diluted to the extent that they contain no remnant of the original solute can still retain some sort of memory and deliver therapeutic benefits. How such memory, should it exist, has anything to do with healing disease is never addressed.

Plausibility is an important consideration because it prevents us from wasting scarce resources on projects that do not have a reasonable chance of producing a useful outcome. The basic tenet of homeopathy, that the potency of a substance is increased by dilution, in other words, the “less is more” phenomenon, flies in the face of what is known about the mechanism of drug action, and more specifically is incompatible with chemistry’s “law of mass action” that relates the rate of a chemical reaction to the masses of the reacting substances. If the mass of a reactant is essentially zero, as it is in a homeopathic solution, its rate of reaction with any substance in the body would also be zero. Dr. Boon has commented that conventional medications are designed based on plausibility and that the research often does not produce the desired results. I think the suggestion is that therefore we should not dismiss theories based on implausibility. While it is true that scientific plausibility does not guarantee success, implausibility, such as exemplified by the “principles” of homeopathy, virtually guarantees failure.

When confronted with the weakness of their arguments, homeopaths attempt to cloak themselves in the respectability of science by searching out references in the literature that deal with the anomalies of water. Indeed, there are some mysteries about just how water molecules associate with each other, and some interesting data about patterns that they can form. But these arrangements last only picoseconds and in no way have anything to do with justifying homeopathy. Sometimes homeopaths try to buttress their claims by lassoing the concept of hormesis, the notion that some substances at very low concentration have a greater effect than at larger concentrations. This is not pertinent because the concentrations at which hormesis is observed are far, far greater than that found in any homeopathic solution. Homeopaths also like to fling about sciency words like “nano,” “quantum” and “clathrate” as they grope to rationalize the irrational.

So it is really no surprise that the vast majority of proper, randomized, controlled, double-blind trials have concluded that the effects of homeopathy can be explained by the placebo response, without any need to invoke ghostly imprints of solute molecules. Homeopaths do not accept this conclusion and counter by pointing to the few studies that show a positive effect, no matter how marginal, as well as to the numerous anecdotal accounts of patient satisfaction. But studies of homeopathy show a huge publication bias, meaning that only positive findings, likely due to chance, get published. Less than 5% of studies in alternative journals show a negative effect while mainstream medical journals feature negative results with regularity.When challenged about the lack of evidence for their arguments, unfortunately some homeopaths tend to resort to name calling and denigrating comments about conventional medicine. They also call for more research on questions that have been repeatedly answered.

Should a university answer the call for more studies? This now takes us back to the original question we posed to Dr. Boon. Obviously she feels there is something to be gained from exploring why people believe in homeopathy and whether any benefit, should there be one, can be attributed to the interaction between the subject and the homeopath. Our view is that this issue has been thoroughly investigated, and given the scientifically irrational tenets of homeopathy, little can be gained from yet another study. Dr. Boon’s reasoning that her study will put homeopathy to the test and “will search out the truth” and perhaps “provide the best evidence yet that homeopathy doesn’t work,” is less than compelling. After the plethora of studies already carried out that have failed to resolve the issue in the eyes of believers in homeopathy, this one will? Not a chance. Doing the same experiments over and over again, hoping for a different result, is not the hallmark of good science. Admittedly, Dr. Boon’s study is well designed, but if a study isn’t worth doing, it isn’t worth doing well.

There is also a potential downside to such a study. And that is the implicit legitimization of homeopathy as a consequence of a prestigious university and a highly reputable investigator being involved. That is especially bothersome when the clinic where the study will be carried out offers a number of questionable practices including homeopathic “nosodes” as alternatives to vaccination, ear candling, cupping and cranial sacral therapy.

After 200 years of often acrimonious battles between homeopaths and their critics, the only conclusion arrived at with confidence is that no study will resolve the differences. It is time to say enough is enough and dedicate funds to projects that have a better chance of a favourable outcome. Homeopaths will have to accept that the majority of the scientific community will not be swayed by the notion of nonexistent molecules producing a therapeutic effect, and we in turn have to accept that no matter what we do, homeopathy will be kept alive by a blend of bizarre ideology, a potent placebo response, scientific illiteracy, and the popular myth that anyone who opposes homeopathy is in the pocket of Big Pharma.

Dr. Joe Schwarcz

Why Yet Another Study of Homeopathy?

homeopathy ADHDThis post needs a bit of a background. A few weeks ago we noted that the Dean of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto was organizing a trial on using homeopathic preparations for the treatment of ADHD. A letter to the Dean asking how a Faculty of Pharmacy would get involved in studying something that is dismissed by the vast majority of the scientific community seemed appropriate. Eventually this letter was signed by more than ninety scientists and physicians and was sent off. There was no reply. In our view, not only is this a waste of funds, it adds an aura of respectability to a scientifically bankrupt notion. This is especially disturbing now in face of the measles outbreak since the private clinic where the study is to be carried out is a supporter of “nosodes,” the homeopathic “alternative” to vaccination. The original letter sent to Dr. Boon is reproduced below the following opinion piece that appeared in the Montreal Gazette.

Academic Freedom Comes With Academic Responsibility

Academic freedom is sacrosanct in universities. Researchers must be free to pursue their ideas, be they conventional or peculiar. But academic freedom also includes the freedom of others to question those ideas, and scholastic consideration dictates that those questions be addressed, especially when they are posed in a courteous letter signed by ninety scientists and physicians from around the world, including two Nobel Laureates.
The letter in question was sent to Dr. Heather Boon, Dean of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto and focused on a study she was organizing to investigate the use of homeopathic preparations in the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Those of us who signed the letter, along with the vast majority of the scientific community, believe that numerous studies have concluded that the effects of homeopathy do not extend beyond a placebo response. The letter sought Dr. Boon’s views on why a Faculty of Pharmacy was organizing a trial that legitimizes homeopathy, a practice that has no scientific plausibility.
Homeopathy is not an umbrella term for alternative modalities. It is a very specific practice that originated before the dawn of the scientific era when little was known about disease or chemistry. Samuel Hahnemann, a well-meaning German physician, concluded that a substance that causes symptoms in a healthy person cures those symptoms in a sick person if it is sufficiently diluted. His process involved thumping the solution into a leather pillow between dilutions, and finally using a drop to impregnate a sugar tablet that would then serve as a “homeopathic medicine,” the term deriving from the Latin for “similar” and “disease.”
Hahnemann could not have realized at the time that the final solution did not contain a single molecule of the original substance. Today, homeopaths have to contend with chemical knowledge and have proposed that the curative effects are to be explained by the sequential dilutions leaving an imprint on the solution, although they appear to be at a loss to explain how such an image is transferred to a sugar pill or how a molecular ghost can have healing properties.
Stymied by the implausibility of nonexistent molecules having therapeutic potential, homeopaths point to papers in the scientific literature demonstrating a larger than placebo effect, as well as to the millions around the world who use homeopathy with satisfaction. Neither of these is surprising. Toss a hundred coins into the air and count heads and tails. Maybe 45 heads, 55 tails. Maybe 48 tails 52 heads. But do this a hundred times, and one event may come out 30 heads and 70 tails. If this is the only one reported, the impression would be that the coins were not fairly weighted. So it is with studies of homeopathy. Just by chance alone, some results will indicate efficacy. That’s why we look at all the studies and come to the conclusion that we are looking at a placebo response, which of course is valuable and should not be dismissed. Indeed, couple the placebo response with the fact that homeopathic treatments are administered by caring people who spend a lot more time with patients than physicians can, and that they mostly target self-limiting conditions or diseases that have their ups and downs, and you have a formula for satisfaction.
ADHD is a serious condition that merits serious research. Apparently the University of Toronto researchers carried out a pilot study involving homeopathy that seemed to indicate benefit. That study, however, was unblinded, devoid of randomization, had no control group and relied on a subjective outcome, making any data derived from it essentially meaningless. Even if we were to attach some importance to the claimed reduction of symptoms, the effect was about half of that seen with conventional medication, making the homeopathic treatment clearly inferior. Furthermore the proposed study would use individualized treatments for each subject as determined by a homeopathic consultation, so at best the results would be ambiguous in terms of making any recommendation.
The study is actually to be carried out at the Riverdale Homeopathic Clinic, a private institution that also offers ear candling, cranial sacral therapy and “nosodes,” which are homeopathic versions of vaccines. No public funding is involved; support comes from a foundation dedicated to alternative medicine. Nevertheless, one wonders why with various nutritional and biofeedback treatments with significant potential for helping with ADHD needing exploration, a scientifically insolvent notion is being pursued. One also wonders why a Dean of Pharmacy at a major Canadian Institution did not take the time to respond directly to repeated requests for her comments on a contrary opinion expressed by a large number of notable scientists and physicians.


Dear Dr. Boon

The following originates from the McGill University Office for Science and Society and has been signed by scientists and physicians from the international community. We are all devoted advocates of academic freedom and support the right of researchers to pursue any field of study they feel has merit. But we also feel that it is fair to ask colleagues questions about how a particular study they are engaged in may contribute to the bank of scientific knowledge. It should be emphatically stated that those who have added their name to this letter, including two Nobel Laureates, in no way wish to interfere with your research. Everyone is just interested in your response to the concerns expressed here.
Those concerns deal with the trial we understand you are organizing to investigate a homeopathic approach to the treatment of ADHD. First, let us point out that the McGill Office for Science and Society accepts no funds from any vested interest; our only allegiance is to the scientific method and to evidence-based science. It makes no difference to us whether any substance, including homeopathic products, is regulated or not, as long as the decision is arrived at through proper scientific evaluation rather than emotion, “they say” or pressure from vested interests.
Along with the majority of scientists, we find the notion of nonexistent molecules having a physiological effect through leaving some ghostly impression in water that is then transferable to a sugar pill simply untenable. Even if some sort of “memory” effect prevailed, there is no reasonable explanation for how it could affect biology. Furthermore, after all the sequential dilutions and succussions, the original impurities in the solvent would be more extensively present in the final solution than any component from the original homeopathic source. After evaluating the scientific literature, including a comparison of 110 homeopathic studies with 110 conventional studies for a number of disorders and outcomes, the most likely conclusion is that any benefit attributed to homeopathy can be ascribed to a placebo response.
Generally, scientists look askance at homeopathy, but don’t bother much with it because they consider it to be harmless folly. Unfortunately, this is not the case when homeopaths recommend “nosodes” as alternatives to vaccination, or attack the use of antibiotics for infections, or offer unproven treatments for ADHD.
The reason for this extensive email is to solicit your rationale, given your training as a pharmacist, for the study you are carrying out. Is the motivation a concern that parents are wasting money and possibly sacrificing effective treatment by resorting to homeopathy for ADHD, and that the study may clarify the situation? Or is there a belief that there may be some factor other than a placebo response involved? In that case, what mechanism may be operative?
You allude to the results of a pilot study that warranted this further research. That study, however, was unblinded, devoid of randomization, had no control group and relied on a subjective outcome, making any data derived from it highly questionable. You also note that the reduction of symptoms found in the pilot study was about half of that seen with conventional medication, making the homeopathic treatment clearly inferior.
Basically, as you have gathered, we are curious about why, given the need to investigate natural therapies that may actually have a potential for benefit, and faced with a scarcity in funding, a Department of Pharmacy is interested in investigating a subject that has been addressed extensively in the literature and has been found wanting both in evidence and plausibility. There is also a concern that just the mounting of such a study by a highly reputable researcher at a top notch university will be used by homeopaths to justify diverse aspects of their practice, including steering patients away from evidence-based treatments.
Looking forward to your comments,
Joe Schwarcz
Director, McGill Office for Science and Society

David Harpp
Macdonald Professor of Chemistry
Tomlinson Chair in Science Education

Ariel Fenster
Associate Director, McGill Office for Science and Society
Harold Kroto
Francis Eppes Professor of Chemistry
Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
The Florida State University

Roald Hoffmann
Professor of Chemistry
Cornell Unversity

David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
Chief, Breast Surgery Section
Wayne State University School of Medicine
Managing Editor, Science-Based Medicine

Phil Gold CC, OQ, MD, PhD, FRSC, MACP, FRCP(C)
Douglas G. Cameron Professor of Medicine,
Professor of Physiology and Oncology,
McGill University
Executive Director Clinical Research Centre
McGill University Health Centre

Nahum Sonenberg, FRS
McGill University
Department of Biochemistry
Goodman Cancer Research Center

Brian Alters, PhD, FAAAS
President, National Center for Science Education
Chapman, Harvard, McGill Universities

Mark Crislip MD
President, Society for Science-Based Medicine

Geoffrey C. Kabat, Ph.D
Cancer Epidemiologist, Dept. of Epidemiology and Population Health
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.

David Colquhoun FRS
Professor of pharmacology
University College London, UK

Hon. Kelvin K. Ogilvie, C.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.C.I.C., H.col.

Professor Richard M Sharpe FRSE, College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine
University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Paul A. Offit, MD
Professor of Pediatrics
Division of Infectious Diseases
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Richard G. Margolese
Professor of surgical oncology
JGH, Montreal

Timothy Caulfield, LLM, FRSC, FCAHS
Canada Research Chair in Health Law & Policy
Trudeau Fellow and Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health
Research Director, Health Law Institute, University of Alberta

Leonard W Fine PhD
Senior Fellow and Scientific Program Officer
Science Foundation Arizona
Professor of Chemistry Emeritus
Columbia University

Haim Abenhaim, MD, MPH, FRCSC
Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Maternal Fetal Medicine Specialist
Associate Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Jewish General Hospital, McGill University

Steven Novella, MD
Assistant Professor of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine
Executive Editor, Science-Based Medicine

Daniel Lalla, MDCM FCFP
Faculty Lecturer, McGill Family Medicine
Rural site Director, Cowansville Medical Clinic
Physician, BMP Hospital and CHSLD de Cowansville

Seymour Mishkin MDCM, FRCP(C)
Assoc. Prof of Medicine McGill
Senior Physician Royal Victoria Hospital (MUHC)

Richard J. Munz,
Emeritus Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering
McGill University

Dennis Geist
President, Charles Darwin Foundation

Mark Roper MD
Director of the Division of Primary Care at McGill University Health Centre

Bruce M. Shore, Psychologist
Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology
Fellow of the American Educational Research Association

Janine Mauzeroll,
Associate Professor
Chemistry Department
McGill University

Jacques Derome, FRSC
Emeritus Professor
McGill University

Charles Roth
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
McGill University

John J. Jonas, O.C., C.Q., FRSC, Ph.D.
Birks Professor of Metallurgy Emeritus
Materials Engineering, McGill University

Arie Benchetrit, MD.
Cosmedica Clinic
1, rue Holiday, suite 813
Pointe-Claire, Qc., H9R 5N3

Kosta Steliou, Ph.D.
Chairman & CEO, PhenoMatriX, Inc.
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry Research Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology Professor, Cancer Center, Boston University School of Medicine

David S. Rosenblatt, MD
Holder, Dodd Q. Chu and Family Chair in Medical Genetics
Professor, Departments of Human Genetics, Medicine, Pediatrics, and Biology
McGill University

Josh Bloom, Ph.D.
Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science
American Council on Science and Health
New York, NY

Edith Zorychta, PhD
Associate Professor,
Departments of Pathology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
Director of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies,
Department of Pathology
McGill University

John Richardson, MDCM, FRCP(C), PhD
Departments of Pathology, Neurology and Neurosurgery,
Miranda Fraser Chair in Comparative Pathology
McGill University

Olivia Jensen
Professor, Geophysics
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
McGill University

Yoni Freedhoff MD
Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute
Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa

Terry Polevoy, MD, FRCP(C)

Ivan Rohan MD
Director of Continuing Medical Education
Department of Family Medicine
McGill University

Henry Leighton, Professor Emeritus
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
McGill University

James Fresco PhD
Professor of Chemistry (retired)
McGill University

Harriet A. Hall, MD
Co-Editor, Science-Based Medicine

Christopher Labos MD CM, MSc, FRCPC

George B. Kauffman
Professor of Chemistry
California State University, Fresno
Fresno, CA 93740-8034

Lorne Trottier, M. Eng
Co-founder Matrox Corporation

Richard Koestner
Professor of Psychology
McGill University

Jack Hoffman
Pharmacist, Montreal

Mark Yaffe MDCM
Professor, Department of Family Medicine
McGill University

Michael Rosengarten B. Eng. M.D.
Adjunct professor of medicine McGill University

Linda Reven
Professor of Chemistry
McGill University

Youla Tsantrizos
Professor of Chemistry
McGill University

Jeffrey L. Derevensky
Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology
Professor, School/Applied Child Psychology
Professor, Psychiatry

J. (Quim) Madrenas, MD, PhD, FCAHS
Canada Research Chair in Human Immunology
Professor and Chairman
Department of Microbiology & Immunology
Director, Microbiome and Disease Tolerance Centre
McGill University
Executive Director, CIHR Human Immunology Network

Lee Wohl BPharm, MBA
Clinical pharmacist, Montreal

Stephen Barrett M.D.

Steven R. Shaw, Ph.D.
McGill University
Director, Resilience, Pediatric Psychology, and Neurogenetics Connections Lab
Editor, School Psychology Forum

Alvin Shrier PhD
Hosmer Chair and ProfessorDepartment of Physiology
Director, Cell Information Systems
Bellini BuildingMcGill University Life Sciences Complex

John Harrod
Professor of Chemistry (Emeritus)
McGill University

Scott Bohle
Professor of Chemistry
McGill University

John M. Dealy, FRSC
Professor Emeritus
Department of Chemical Engineering
McGill University

Abraham Fuks MD
Professor of Medicine
McGill University

Prof. Alan McHughen, D.Phil.
University of California,
Riverside, Ca.

David Ronis
Professor of Chemistry
McGill University

Ann Wechsler
Professor of Physiology
McGill University

James P. Snyder
Director of Biostructural Research
Emory University
Atlanta, GA

Sondra Sherman, BSc. BFSc. PDt. CDE
Certified diabetes dietitian educator

Jann Johnson Bellamy, J.D.
Tallahassee, Florida

Jonathan Toker PhD
Toker Engineering,
Los Angeles, CA

Ilene Gilbert P. Dt. (Private Practice)

Deborah Schwarcz MDCM, CCFP-EM
Family and Emergency Physician
McGill University Health Center

Hanadi Sleiman
Professor of Chemistry
Canada Research Chair in DNA Nanoscience, Tier I

Masad J. Damha,
James McGill Professor of Chemistry
McGill University

Karl Schwarz MD, MSc, FRCS(C)
Plastic surgeon, Montreal

Dr Alyce Fischer
Dental Surgeon

Leon Glass, FRSC
Isadore Rosenfeld Chair in Cardiology
and Professor of Physiology
McGill University

Miriam Salamon BSc MD CCFP FCFP
Faculty Member, Department of Family Medicine
University of Ottawa

Gabriella Coleman
Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy
Department of Art History & Communication Studies
McGill University

Alan G. Marshall
Robert O. Lawton Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Chief Scientist, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Program
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory
Florida State University

April Colosimo, Associate Librarian, McGill University

Karen Harpp
Associate Professor, Colgate University

Carmen E. Rexach
Professor, Mt San Antonio College, Walnut, California
member, Infectious Diseases Society of America

Normand Voyer, Chemist, OCQ, FCIC
Professor of Bioorganic Chemistry
Laval University
Director of PROTEO

David Zlotnick MDCM
Director Tarem
Jerusalem, Israel

Lisa Zlotnick MDCM
Jerusalem, Israel

Kevin M. Folta
Professor and Chair, Horticultural Sciences Dept.
University of Florida

Dr. David King
Senior Lecturer | Evidence-based Practice
School of Medicine
The University of Queensland

Karine Auclair
Professor of Chemistry
McGill University

How can a pharmacist believe the unbelievable?

pharmacistHow can anyone trained as a pharmacist, with courses in chemistry, biology, and physiology believe that ghostly impressions of molecules imprinted onto sugar can cure disease? Michelle Boisvert, a Quebec pharmacist, not only believes in the power of non-existent molecules, she runs HomeoCan, a company dedicated to selling “drugs” that contain no active ingredient. She has now had a run-in with the Quebec Order of Pharmacists resulting in her being fined $17,000 and being kicked out of the Order. This has a troublesome angle. She wasn’t kicked out because she is dispensing nonsense, but because she was using her position as a pharmacist to promote a commercial product.

Truth be told, you cannot be kicked out of the Order for selling homeopathic products because they are legal in Canada. But any pharmacist who dabbles in this medical oddity is either unethical or frighteningly scientifically illiterate. I know that many people defend homeopathy justifying it based on its popularity. Well, science is not a popularity contest, it is evidence-based. And the evidence is that “drugs” that contain no active ingredients cannot have any efficacy. Unfortunately many people are confused about what homeopathy is and think that it is just an umbrella term for “natural” or “alternative” practices. It is not that. Please do take a few minutes to read this excellent article that clarifies the practice of homeopathy by colleague Dr. Harriet Hall.


Dr. Joe Schwarcz

Ebola scams are sickening

ebolaWe’ve seen it before. A medical crisis emerges and the scam artists crawl out of the woodwork. Fearful citizens pop open their wallets and fork out hard-earned money for nonsensical “cures.” When it comes to a disease for which science cannot offer an effective treatment, quacks quickly rush in to fill the vacuum. This is just what is happening with Ebola. Claims about preventing infection, and even treating the disease, range from the laughable like eating organic dark chocolate to the totally inane recipe from a Norwegian homeopath for preparing a remedy from the body fluids of an Ebola victim. Homeopathy is based on the scientifically bankrupt notion that a substance capable of causing symptoms in a healthy person can cure those symptoms in an ill person if it is sufficiently diluted. This is nonsensical at any time, but handling the body fluids of an infected person is not a recipe for a cure, it is a recipe for disaster.

One would think that reasonable homeopaths, if such a term is ever applicable, would not support this absurd regimen. But homeopaths certainly have supported other “remedies” for Ebola, such as those concocted from various types of snake venom. Why? Because snake venom can cause intense bleeding, so in the perverse world of homeopathy, in an extremely diluted version it should be a remedy to stop hemorrhaging, a classic sign of Ebola infection. Of course the treatment is useless, but at least the only person at risk is the one collecting the snake venom. And that is unlikely to be the homeopath.

Homeopathic remedies are not the only ones being touted as effective tools in the battle against the Ebola virus. “Nanosilver” is also a hot item thanks to some clever pseudoscientific promotional lingo. Silver has been shown to have antimicrobial properties, begins the sales pitch, and then goes on to describe how silver is used in water purifiers and is even woven into socks to reduce odour caused by microbes. True enough. But deodourizing socks is a long way from destroying the Ebola virus in the body. Colloidal silver can, however, do something. It can cause an irreversible condition known as argyria in which skin colour is permanently altered by deposits of silver. Essential oils from plants won’t fare any better than silver in dealing with the Ebola virus. “Thieves oil,” a blend of cinnamon, rosemary, clove, eucalyptus and lemon oils, is hyped by some as an infection preventative. Seems like an appropriate name for a product that takes money and offers nothing in return.

Other plants, such as bitter kola, astragalus and elderberry are also said to contain compounds that can destroy the Ebola virus and are promoted by some hucksters as a treatment. They clamor for testing such herbal remedies and complain that while untested pharmaceutical products such as Zmapp are being fast-tracked, there is no will to test herbs. Yes, Zmapp is being fast-tracked because it has a plausible chance of working, backed by the solid science of monoclonal antibodies. Vague claims of herbal preparations “boosting immunity” will not do. The immune system is a complex network of organs, specialized cells, antibodies, vitamins, hormones and various other molecules. Nobody knows just what should be boosted to help fight the Ebola virus. This is not to say that herbal remedies have no potential. Honeysuckle tea, for example, has recently been shown to contain a “microRNA” that interferes with messenger RNA and is capable of silencing two genes that flu viruses need to replicate.

In Africa, there have been cases of desperate Ebola victims seeking out healers who claim to have herbal cures. There is at least one account of such a healer actually having exacerbated the problem when infected people came to be healed and ended up inadvertently spreading the disease including to the healer, who reportedly then died of Ebola.

Perhaps the greatest publicity for a supposed preventative has been garnered by vitamin C, a substance that in most minds is associated with health and justifiably so. An extreme deficiency of this vitamin causes scurvy and more mild deficiencies can lead to an increased release of the stress hormone cortisol from the adrenal glands. Cortisol raises blood sugar, suppresses the immune system and decreases bone formation. But none of this means that it can treat an Ebola infection. Yet that is the obvious implication of a product that has seen a meteoric rise in sales recently. The cleverly named Ebola-C sells for $34.95 for 60 tablets of vitamin C, 500 mgs per tablet. This is about ten times the price of no-name brands available everywhere. There is zero evidence that Ebola-C has any effect on the prevention or treatment of an Ebola infection.

The brains behind this marketing scam is New York businessman Todd Spinelli who claims to have gotten the idea from Dr. Oz. Well, I’m not one to come to the rescue of a guy who has dispensed a truckload of questionable advice, but in this case he did not claim that vitamin C could prevent Ebola infection. He did have a show on Ebola that included a segment in which he talked about stress and how vitamin C could reduce the negative effects of cortisol but he did not link this to Ebola. Of course it may be true that Spinelli heard him prattle on about vitamin C on the same program as his Ebola discussion and that sparked a marketing idea.
Some promoters of vitamin C supplements have rationalized that Ebola and scurvy have similarities in that both conditions are associated with excessive bleeding. Since vitamin C treats scurvy it may have an effect on an Ebola infection as well, they suggest. This is like arguing that since brain tumours are associated with headaches, they could conceivably be treated with aspirin. Makes no sense.

Even vitamin C supplement advocates, and there are many in the medical community, agree that small doses of oral vitamin C are ineffective in the battle against viruses. But some claim that massive intravenous doses, of the order of 30-50 grams a day, can wipe out viruses and should be tried on Ebola victims. They base this on baseless reports that large doses of vitamin C have cured victims of polio, Yellow Fever and Dengue Fever. Of course since intravenous vitamin C hasn’t been tried on Ebola patients, it is impossible to say categorically that it will not cure Ebola, but given what we know about infectious diseases, it’s a good bet that the only result of intravenous vitamin C would be diarrhea. Not the best thing for a dehydrated patient.

Joe Schwarcz

Interview with SETI Institute

I was interviewed for Big Picture Science. My part is at about 37 minutes in but I think the whole program is interesting!


Click Image to listen to Interview with SETI Institute: 









Dr. Joe Schwarcz

Oh..The Irony!

DuchyPrince Charles has properly derided global warming deniers, calling them a “headless chicken brigade.” He went onto say that it was “baffling that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything-until, that is, it comes to climate science.”

Now, this is coming from a man who believes in the ultimate absurdity that is homeopathy and through his Duchy Originals Company sells a range of herbal remedies devoid of evidence.

Charles grew up with nonsense. “When I was very small, I remember so well my grandmother having her wonderful leather pouch with all these homeopathic glass phials in it. It was such a feature of my life and as I got older I became more and more aware of the effectiveness of homeopathy and indeed of complementary medicine generally.’ And this man talks about relying on science. Why accept the science on climate change and not on homeopathy? Bizarre. Charles also promotes a ridiculous herbal “detox” remedy. Someone is in need of a mind detox.

Joe Schwarcz
« Next Results
Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.