Homeopathy is a con job???

In your article about "color therapy", you stated:

The reason that you haven't seen this type of treatment around lately is that fleecing in the medical profession has become far more technologically advanced. It shouldn't take much research, however, to find treatments that are similar in that they a) look or sound as though they might have a beneficial effect, and b) are not supported by one piece of scientific evidence. Try typing "homeopathy" into your favorite web search engine.

Aside from the fact that "color therapy" is not homeopathic medicine in the least, what makes you think that homeopathy itself is a sham? Are flu shots, the most common homeopathic practice, also more fakery?

JP

{Edit by Board Moderator: the link to the Mailbag article is http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcolorth.html }


[Note: This message has been edited by CKDextHavn]

[[Aside from the fact that "color therapy" is not homeopathic medicine in the least, what makes you think that homeopathy itself is a sham? Are flu shots, the most common homeopathic practice, also more fakery?]]

I would say it's a stretch to compare flu shots to homeopathy. Any immunization is usually a killed or otherwise inactive pathogen that safely stimulates the immune system to build a response to any exposure to that wild pathogen in the future. On the surface, homeopathy appears to do the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I understand about homeopathy, one drop of the "pathogen" is added to 100 or so drops of water. To STRENGTHEN the dose, a drop of THAT solution is then added to 100 more drops of water (or some other liquid).
The more times it is diluted, the stronger it is. Don't sound like science to me..
Jill

[[Aside from the fact that "color therapy" is not homeopathic medicine in the least,]]

No, of course it's not. I'm sure if you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never claimed that "color therapy" was homeopathic "medicine," I simply compared the two loosely.

[[what makes you think that homeopathy itself is a sham? Are flu shots, the most common
homeopathic practice, also more fakery?]]

I'll leave the flu shot discussion to Jill. I'll get back to you shortly on the larger question of homeopathy in general.

Rich

Another reason to call homeopathy a con job-it relies on testemonials. No double-blind studies have shown homeopathy to be any more effective than placebos.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Homeopathy is a scam. It's the closest you can get to printing your own money without outright counterfeit.
The "theory" behind it is: if you've got ailment X, and substance Y is toxic with symptoms that resemble ailment X, then a "homeopathic remedy" made of a dilution of substance Y will alleviate X. The stronger the dilution, the greater the effect.
Typically homeopaths administer dilutions so large that to ingest a single MOLECULE of Y would require drinking entire oceans of the stuff. Most "solutions" sold as homeopathic remedies are simply pure water. Getting a molecule of the diluted toxin in your bottle would be like winning the lottery ten times in a row.
When confronted with this fact, the typical homeopathic response is to claim that the dilutant (water) retains a "memory" of the toxin, this happening through the expert handling and preparation on the part of the homeopath.
I doubt they even go through the trouble of preparing solutions and diluting, since there is nothing in the final product except water. I suspect they fill their bottles directly from their kitchen sinks.

> I suspect they fill their bottles directly from their kitchen sinks.

They'd be better off with sea water. According to homeopathic theory, sea water ought to cure everything, since it contains trace amounts of every substance there is.

Look here:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

Quackwatch is a great site, BTW -- someone on this board posted a link for it a few weeks ago and I'm now addicted to it. Whoever it was -- Thanks! My daughter is disabled and I'm always being approached by people with wacky 'cures' or treatments. Quackwatch had helpful information about many of the most recent suggestions.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

QUESTION: re: homeopathy

When you use the adjective "homeophathic" as the noun "homeopathy" does one pronounce it as hoe-me-ah-pa-thee or homey-oh-pathy?

I pronounce it homey-oh-pathetic.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Homeopathy proponent Jacques Benveniste recently won a Pigasus award from the James Randi Educational Foundation. Benveniste was able to digitize the "memory" in homeopathic water and transfer it via the Internet from Paris to an ordinary bottle of water in Albuquerque.

JREF announces the Pigasus awards telepathically, and sends the Flying Pig trophy telekinetically.

(For those who don't know, JREF is an anti-quack group.)

-k-
Karen Lingel, PhD
Physicist and Penguinist

I Always thought "homeophathic", was the fear of Queers!!

(Sorry I could not resist)...

------------------
Hand a man a book on how to build ladders
and he will stand on it to reach something.

[Homeopathy is a scam.][I suspect they fill their bottles directly from their kitchen sinks.]

Actually, believe it or not, there is a protocol for the preparation of homeopathic
products, and it was registered with the U.S.
Congress in the early 19th Century. Its official name is "Homeopathic Pharmacoepia of the United States". If you pick up a container of the preparation, this is why there is a "H.P.U.S." marking on it.

[Look here:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html]

Dr. Barrett (who runs Quackwatch) and the Quackwatch site are valuable sources for much of the junk that offers itself as alternative medicine. Judging by the responses, homeopathy appears here to be considered among the junk.

However, if you look deeply enough into his site, you will notice a disturbing overenthusiasm in his dismissiveness toward
much alternative medicine. For example, he
has dismissed many herbal remedies which are equivalents of over-the-counter drugs (e.g.
Ma Huang/Ephedra, the natural source of
Sudafed), or of some treatments that do have
proven efficacy (e.g. acupuncture). It seems he simply won't allow in any evidence that counters his viewpoint.

I have my own personal experience and that of
people close to me that these remedies work,
including when I thought they wouldn't (no
placebo effect). Should they work? No, not
according to modern understanding of physics
and medicine. Do they? Yes. Why? Noone knows why the hell they do. I merely suggest giving them a try.

There was one study done in the early 90s
published in Lancet (the U.K. equivalent of JAMA) of homeopathic products. They did a double blind study of oscillococcinum, a homeopathic cold remedy. 90% of the children
who were given the remedy had their colds shortened and symptoms at least partially alleviated. The controls were unaffected,
and keep in minds the controls were given the placebo.

I wouldn't trust Quackwatch that much. In my experience, they are always correct, but very often correct for the wrong reasons.
Reading through the articles, it quickly becomes very obvious that many of the authors have very little research experience. It seems that the editor of the site accepts any article that agrees with the correct conclusions, no matter how sloppy the methods used to reach those conclusions are. Personally, I'd prefer that such articles not be made available. The faulty logic employed by many Quackwatch authors just makes the correct side look stupid.

Think of it this way: have you ever had an arguement, when someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about constantly agrees with you? Wouldn't you rather they just shut up and stop making your side look bad? Same basic concept...

-Bob

I think it may be unfair to say it's a con job, I think a lot of people involved genuinely believe in it. They are just diluted. I mean deluded.

C'mon, Rev, you're too nice. There are a lot of people that think they can win at three card monte or the ol' shell-and-pea game, or that they can buy the Brooklyn Bridge... that doesn't mean it isn't a con.

[[However, if you look deeply enough into his site, you will notice a disturbing overenthusiasm in his dismissiveness toward
much alternative medicine. For example, he
has dismissed many herbal remedies which are equivalents of over-the-counter drugs (e.g.
Ma Huang/Ephedra, the natural source of
Sudafed), or of some treatments that do have
proven efficacy (e.g. acupuncture). It seems he simply won't allow in any evidence that
counters his viewpoint.]]

I haven't visited the site in question yet, though it sounds like a good resource. Your point about herbal remedies seems valid, but I'm concerned about your statement about acupuncture. The most recent clinical study that I know of (which I read a blurb about on Dr. Dean Edell's website a few months ago) indicated that acupuncture appeared to have a slight edge over placebo in dealing with certain types of headaches, but had no edge over placebo for any other ailments. While it's impossible to conduct a standard double-blind study on acupuncture (it's fairly obvious whether or not somebody is poking you with needles), the study apparently made us of "sham acupuncture" for the placebo, and was reviewed.

[[I have my own personal experience and that of people close to me that these remedies work, including when I thought they wouldn't (no placebo effect). Should they work? No, not according to modern understanding of physics and medicine. Do they? Yes. Why? Noone knows why the hell they do. I merely suggest giving them a try.]]

A potentially harmless suggestion, and a potentially harmful one as well, depending on the situation.

[[There was one study done in the early 90s
published in Lancet (the U.K. equivalent of JAMA) of homeopathic products. They did a
double blind study of oscillococcinum, a homeopathic cold remedy. 90% of the children
who were given the remedy had their colds shortened and symptoms at least partially
alleviated. The controls were unaffected,
and keep in minds the controls were given the placebo.]]

If you're referring to the study which I saw (late 1994, I believe), it's apparent from the letters that Lancet published subsequently that many in the scientific community are not at all convinced that the study was executed correctly. It's also interesting to note that a pro-homeopathic website I visited had a link to a reprint of the study, but when I clicked on it I was notified that the article had been pulled at Lancet's request. While this may be due simply to Lancet exercising their copyright rights, I don't have a hard time believing that they became concerned over the accuracy of the study and didn't want their name being associated with a potentially faulty study in a forum where the concerns about the study were not also brought forth.

I did some quick research on homeopathy several weeks ago, right after seeing the first question in this thread, and I'm now more firmly convinced than ever that homeopathy -- true homeopathy, not herbal remedies or other alternative medicine remedies -- is absolutely worthless.

Rich

[[ I'm now more firmly convinced than ever that homeopathy -- true homeopathy, not herbal remedies or other alternative medicine remedies -- is absolutely worthless.]] VegforLife

I know, but what a great concept.. that one can dilute a substance and convince consumers that the diluted substance is even stronger and so costs more than the concentrated substance. Man, what a marketing job.
Jill

Do people's gullibility stem from the relationship to vaccines? I mean, after all, a vaccine is a diluted strand of the germs causing the disease, right? So the dilution gives some immunity?

Just wondering if the homeopathetics (pun) use that analogy...

CKDextHavn asks:Do people's gullibility stem from the relationship to vaccines? ... Just wondering if the homeopathetics (pun) use that analogy...
Yes, some do use that analogy (though, strangely, you will find some homeopaths who are against vaccination -- go figure. They basically ignore how vaccines work (and the fact that they are nothing like homeopathy) and just focus on the "dilute" part, because that makes it look like something in medical science actually supports their argument. It's homeopathetic.


------------------
"We must fight any attempt on the part of the fringers and irrationalists to call to their side the force of the state. ... That we must fight to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov

Damn! I should have copywrited the word.
You are correct, of coursr, D.B. Borrowing scientific terminology is a long-held practice of the unproven-medicine sellers.

[[Do people's gullibility stem from the relationship to vaccines? I mean, after all, a vaccine is a diluted strand of the germs causing the disease, right? So the dilution gives some immunity?]]

Some people who support homeopathy seem to believe that homeopathic "medicine" was a precursor to immunization. In fact - except for in the most simplistic sense - they have practically nothing in common. Immunization works. Homeopathy doesn't.
Jill

wparker writes:I have my own personal experience and that of people close to me that these remedies work, including when I thought they wouldn't (no placebo effect) That's very disingenuous, wp. If you didn't harbor at least some vague suspicion that something would work, you wouldn't have taken it!

The placebo effect is far more subtle and complex -- as well as far more ubiquitous -- than you think!

(e.g. Ma Huang/Ephedra, the natural source of Sudafed)

Ma Huang/Ephedra contains ephedrine. Sudafed contains pseudoephedrine which is a stereoisomer (I forget whether it's an ordinary stereoisomer or if it's a diastereoisomer). The difference between them is in the configuration of the amine group. Both compounds exert a stimulatory effect on the central nervous system (CNS), and both have peripheral effects within the peripheral nervous system (PNS) such as drying out the mucous membranes- which is the basis of their status as cold remedies. Ephedrine has less of a PNS and more of a CNS effect than does pseudoephedrine, which is why ephedrine is sold at truck stops to keep truckers awake, and pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) is sold as the cold remedy. (Not that pseudoephedrine can't get you all jumpy and wired- believe me, it sure can if you take enough!)

There seems to be a common misconception among the proponents of alternative medicine that the "medical establishment" and the "giant pharmaceutical companies" are simply unwilling to concede that plants contain pharmaceutically active compounds in them. Which is silly, especially when you consider that pharmaceutical companies are always teasing new drugs from all kinds of plants around the world. But while plants may indeed be "all-natural", the problem is that they don't supply a fixed, certain dosage of pharmaceutically active material, they often contain unknown amounts of other alkaloids which aren't as researched, they don't come with warning labels, and they are unregulated.

For example, there are a lot of prescription and nonprescription drugs that have warnings on their labels: "Do not take this medication along with an MAO inhibitor". Now "MAO" is monoamine oxidase- it is a "cleanup" enzyme within the CNS and PNS that inactivates stray neurotransmitters that have leaked away from their synapses. MAO inhibitors were the first class of medications that were found to be useful in combatting depression. (As an historical footnote, there is an interesting story here. The first MAO inhibitors were imperfect, and suppressed not only "brain MAO", which is used in the CNS- thus treating depression, but also "body MAO", which is used by the PNS, and which should not be monkeyed with. Patients taking these first drugs suddenly had their cloud of depression lifted. A few of them got really happy, and decided to throw themselves little parties with their friends, complete with wine and cheese. Both wine and cheese contain tyramine. As a result of their body MAO being inhibited, the tyramine killed them. This was known as the "wine and cheese" effect. It was eliminated when CNS-specific MAO inhibitors were developed.)

The MAO inhibitors were succeeded by later classes of antidepressants such as the tricyclics, and after that, Prozac and the other SSRIs. Now they are rarely used. They are considered the antidepressant of last resort because of their side effects. In fact, if you are taking an MAO inhibitor, there are many drugs that you shouldn't take since they may induce seizures or cause other neurological complications.

But you can buy Saint John's Wort without a prescription. The label says that the St. John's Wort herbal tablets are a "dietary supplement". What they don't say is that Saint John's Wort is an MAO inhibitor.

------------------
"Who are all you people, and how did you get in my computer?"

Homeopathy is a recognized and widely used discipline in Europe. I know that relaying my personal experiences will cause people to say, "Well, you believed it would work, so it did." Uh huh. So why not just believe you don't have the ailment in the first place?

I developed a lymph node infection and was treated by a naturopath with homeopathic and herbal medicines. The infection was completely gone in three days. Pretty damned impressive to me. I use the phone a lot in my work, and use a homeopathic remedy to combat my occasional bouts of laryngitis. They work, and I don't care why or how.

The placebo effect is well established.

Homeopathy is based on magic, pure and simple. You want to believe that all your ails can be fixed by magic, go right ahead. Sooner or later, you'll be a candidate for the Darwin award.



------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

I dropped a brick on my foot when I had a headache, and the next day, my headache was gone! The brick must have cured me!


StormBorn wrote:

Homeopathy is a recognized and widely used discipline in Europe.

So is dowsing for E-rays.

[[The placebo effect is well established.]]

Yes, and I find it fascinating, since it demonstrates that the body in many cases possesses the ability to heal itself. I think the "placebo effect" is itself an amazing thing that needs much more study.

VegForLife asks:[[The infection was completely gone in three days. Pretty damned impressive to me.]]

How long would it have taken for the infection to go away without treatment?Oh, about 72 hours. ;)

Dr. Dean Edell quotes Penn & Teller (pretty funny, eh?) about alternative medicine in his new book, Eat, Drink, & Be Merry: "I understand that it seemed to work for your headache, but who was your control group?" and "Every malady does one of three things if left untreated:
1. It gets better.
2. It stays the same.
3. It gets worse.

After trying any bogus treatment:
1. It'll get better.
2. It'll stay the same.
3. It'll get worse."

(Incidentally, if you only read one health book in your entire life, I'd recommend it be Edell's.)


------------------
"A woman came up to me and said 'I'd like to poison your mind with wrong ideas that appeal to you though I am not unkind'" -- They Might Be Giants, "Whistling in the Dark"

[[I developed a lymph node infection and was treated by a naturopath with homeopathic and
herbal medicines.]]

"And" being a rather important word there (the second one, not the first). . .

[[The infection was completely gone in three days. Pretty damned impressive to me.]]

How long would it have taken for the infection to go away without treatment?

[[I use the phone a lot in my work, and use a homeopathic remedy to combat my occasional bouts of laryngitis. They work, and I don't care why or how.]]

I'm guessing that the box says something about "resting the voice as much as possible" as well, but I could be wrong. . .

Rich

I do think the so-called "alternative therapies" have their place, but that place is not really as an alternative to "traditional" medicine. Rather, certain ones might be used to supplement or enhance the effects of traditional therapy, whether that be surgery or medication or whatever.

For instance, I occasionally get RSI pains in my wrists, from typing a lot. When this happens I leave the computer, I take some aspirin, and sometimes I tape magnets to the pulse points in my wrists. Maybe the magnets don't do anything physically, but they seem to help eliminate the pain, and I appreciate that whether it's the placebo effect or not.

Of course, a magnet is a very benign example; whether it helps or not, it's unlikely to cause any additional harm. The same cannot be said for certain herbs, like the St. Johns Wort mentioned above. But if something can be shown to not be harmful, and it makes the patient feel better, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be tried.

I appreciate that whether it's the placebo effect or not.Yes, but that doesn't help advance the cause of science any. Same with your statement about trying anything if it's not harmful.

For one thing, there are other "harms" besides medical -- like monetary. Maybe your magnets didn't cost very much, but I know people who spend $50 a week or more on homeopathic remedies that are essentially water. Is it going to hurt? Not health-wise, but money-wise, yes.

But getting back to the science issue. If it's the placebo effect, then we need to know that to study it. Wouldn't it be much better to learn how to use that affect to help people rather than continuing to have them rely on nonsense that they think is helping them?

[[I do think the so-called "alternative therapies" have their place, but that place is not really as an alternative to "traditional" medicine. Rather, certain ones might be used to supplement or enhance the effects of traditional therapy, whether that be surgery or medication or whatever.]]

That's why the correct term, in this instance, is "complementary therapy."

IMNSHO, the term "complementary medicine" was only invented to get away from the stigma of "alternative medicine." The new in-vogue term is "integrative medicine," because people started figuring out that "complementary" and "alternative" were the same thing. Now Andrew Weil, one of the gurus of the alt. med. movement is trying to change terminology again when it comes to anecdotal reports (see the Great Debates thread on Discover magazine and Andrew Weil that I just started a few minutes ago).

It's kind of like the creationists who stopped using the oxymoronic term, "creation science" and started calling it "intelligent design theory" as a way to try to sneak it into schools.

Good thread. Down with pseudoscience!

Hey, Lawrence, don't know pseudoscience... without astrology, tarot readings, and creationism, where would get our laughs?

[[The new in-vogue term is "integrative medicine," because people started figuring out that "complementary" and "alternative" were the same thing.]]

I don't agree that alternative and complementary mean the same thing. "Alternative" means "instead of" and implies using drugs or herbs other than the ones generally proven to work or prescribed by your doctor. "Complementary" means "used along with" such drugs. These are different philosophies.
Jill

[[For instance, I occasionally get RSI pains in my wrists, from typing a lot. When this
happens I leave the computer, I take some aspirin, and sometimes I tape magnets to the
pulse points in my wrists. Maybe the magnets don't do anything physically, but they seem
to help eliminate the pain]] AuraSeer

Do they? Or is it the fact that you left the computer? Or is it the aspirin that you took? Or is it the additive effect of leaving the computer and taking the aspirin? Or of leaving the computer and taping on the magnets? Or of the aspirin and taping on the magnets? Or of leaving the computer, taking the aspirin, and taping on the magnets?

See, the anecdotal evidence that you gave isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that your pain decreased. Try this next time you experience RSI pain: keep typing, don't take any aspirin, and tape on some magnets. I can all but guarantee that there will be no decrease in the level of pain that you are experiencing (the only reason I can't guarantee it is that the act of taping on the magnets itself could have some slight impact, such as how you subsequently hold your hands due to the added bulk, as well as how tightly you tape them on, which could have an impact on the muscles, nerves and tendons in the area).

As David pointed out, physical damage is only one possible side effect of bogus "therapies." Financial damage is another, as noted, as is emotional damage. Just ask anyone who has seen a relative throw thousands at alternative approaches to cancer, whether combined with traditional approaches or not, only to see the disease take them anyway.

Rich

Jill, I know the words themselves don't mean the same thing. I'm talking about the methods and the science behind them. Whether you use homeopathy, for example, instead of actual medicine or alongside it, homeopathy itself remains medicinally worthless. That's what I was talking about when I said they were the same thing. And I still stick by my premise that the term "complementary" started to be used more because "alternative" had gotten somewhat of a bad name than because of any precision of word meaning, though that may have played some part in it.

>>Just ask anyone who has seen a relative throw thousands at alternative approaches to cancer, whether combined with traditional approaches or not, only to see the disease take them anyway.<<

People spend a lot on chemo and die anyway. We can only conclude that chemotherapy is not effective.

Medicine has some pretty serious methodological problems.

[[Jill, I know the words themselves don't mean the same thing. I'm talking about the methods and the science behind them. Whether you use homeopathy, for example, instead of actual medicine or alongside it, homeopathy itself remains medicinally worthless. That's what I was talking about when I said they were the same thing. And I still stick by my premise that the term "complementary" started to be used more because "alternative" had gotten somewhat of a bad name than because of any precision of word meaning, though that may have played some
part in it.]]

Ah, okay, I see what you mean, and I agree with you. It's the term "medicine" here that's really questionable, then. I review medical records of people with HIV, and I see first hand what happens when one uses "alternative medicine" as opposed to combination therapies including antiretrovirals and protease inhibitors. Their viral loads go up and their white blood cell counts go down. Almost invariably. The fact, too, is that there is no Physician's Desk Reference to tell doctors what undesirable side effects can be had from using "complimentary medicines" along with these proven AIDS drugs. It's hard to tell someone with a chronic, incurable disease not to try herbs along with their other meds, if even for the placebo effect, though.

[[People spend a lot on chemo and die anyway. We can only conclude that chemotherapy is
not effective.]]

No, given the survival rates that are known through clinical study, we can only conclude that chemotherapy has a specific probability of working in a specific case, which in no way implies that survival is guaranteed. This can be contrasted with the "evidence" that any quackish alternative therapy will work, which usually consists of no clinical study at all, and scant anecdotal reports.

Please note: I am not "against" alternative approaches in general, although, at this point, I am completely convinced that homeopathy is probably the biggest scam, whether ill-intentioned or not, to be foisted on the population of the world, and I am sorry to see said population embrace it so readily. I am all for trying to find new ways to combat illness, etc. I am also for verifying that these new ways work via reproducible clinical tests before claiming that they work.

Rich

Tominator said:People spend a lot on chemo and die anyway. We can only conclude that chemotherapy is not effective.If that's what you think this is all about, you are seriously misguided.Medicine has some pretty serious methodological problems.Would you care to share them with us? And is this some way to defend alternative medicine?

Jill said:I see what you mean, and I agree with you.Good! :)It's the term "medicine" here that's really questionable, then.Yup. As Dr. Relman, the past editor of one of the medical journals, has said, there really is no such thing as "alternative medicine;" there is only medicine that works, and medicine that doesn't.I review medical records of people with HIV, and I see first hand what happens when one uses "alternative medicine" as opposed to combination therapies including antiretrovirals and protease inhibitors.One of the biggest proponents of alt. med. here in town is the local AIDS support group. This really kind of frosts me, because what these people need are more scientific advances, not sorcery.The fact, too, is that there is no Physician's Desk Reference to tell doctors what undesirable side effects can be had from using "complimentary medicines" along with these proven AIDS drugs.One reason is because a new wonder herb seems to pop up every few months. It would be tough for a desk reference to keep track. < sigh >
It's hard to tell someone with a chronic, incurable disease not to try herbs along with their other meds, if even for the placebo effect, though.Agreed -- it is difficult. And I don't want to see doctors put in a position where a patient is afraid to say, "Hey, I'm using this herb," because then the doc has no chance to spot potential interactions or side effects. But at the same time, doctors should let the patient know (in a kind way) what he thinks of this type of, well, crap.

David B. said (in response to me):

quote: Medicine has some pretty serious methodological problems.

Would you care to share them with us? And is this some way to defend alternative medicine?

To respond to the first question:
- causality. Bodies are complex systems which are usually opaque to our questioning. Treatment success is judged by outcome. Favorable outcomes reinforce the theory that prompted the treatment, often without direct testing of the theory.
- causality (again). If A causes B, the occurrence of A is inevitably followed by B. Treatments are said to cure a disease, even when the treatment works less than 100% of the time.
- the placebo effect. The most reliable effect known, and the greatest fudge factor ever.

To the second question:
Given that the discussion is about a body of knowledge that medical doctors claim expertise in, it is only fair to judge their claims in light of their performance. Doctors have been so wrong, so often it's hard to take them all that seriously. To wit:
- phrenology
- bleeding
- frontal lobotomy
- treating the weapon
- AZT (? Kary Mullis)
- hell, doctors don't even know why we hurt after exercise (see the thread about whether it's easier going up stairs or down).

Given the difficulty of the subject and the poor track record of "establishment" medicine, it's not that hard to believe they might be wrong about something again.

Sorry for making the same points, David (although it would appear that they need to be made multiple times). I think we were replying at the same time, because your reply wasn't visible when I was composing my reply.

Rich

Hey, no prob. Maybe if he reads 'em twice, it will help.

Tominator said:causality. Bodies are complex systems which are usually opaque to our questioning. Treatment success is judged by outcome. Favorable outcomes reinforce the theory that prompted the treatment, often without direct testing of the theory.Of course favorable outcomes reinforce the theory that prompted the treatment. But that doesn't mean scientific medicine uses those alone. That's why there are placebo trials and double-blind tests. Sometimes it is difficult, because of ethical considerations, to directly test a theory. But I don't see how you can consider this a "serious methodological problem" -- at least not without some concrete examples.
causality (again). If A causes B, the occurrence of A is inevitably followed by B. Treatments are said to cure a disease, even when the treatment works less than 100% of the time.Again, some concrete examples would help. I don't know who is "saying" that a treatment "cures" a disease, so it's hard to comment. I don't think anybody would say, for example, that chemotherapy "cures" cancer. It may kill off the cancer and send it into remission. The person may even -- if he's lucky -- never see the cancer again. But if that's the kind of thing you're talking about, I think you need to clarify exactly what you're talking about. And, again, it doesn't sound like a "serious methodological problem."
the placebo effect. The most reliable effect known, and the greatest fudge factor ever.And your point is what? The placebo effect occurs much more often in alternative medicine than in scientific medicine -- because the tests of scientific medicine are specifically trying to weed out that effect.
Given that the discussion is about a body of knowledge that medical doctors claim expertise in, it is only fair to judge their claims in light of their performance.Whose claims are we judging? I thought this thread was about homeopathy (specifically) and alt. med. (generally). Do you normally try to prove that apples aren't sweet by claiming that oranges are sweeter?

Alternative medicine claims need to be judged based on their successes or failures.
Doctors have been so wrong, so often it's hard to take them all that seriously.
To wit:
- phrenology
- bleeding
These two first. Phrenology was never taken seriously by most doctors. If you're actually interested, I'd suggest you read the following two articles; one about phrenology in general, and the second about a doctor who was there at the time and what he had to say about it: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n09/index.html and http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v07/n02/index.html . Also, do you really want to point to the early 19th century for your examples of how horrible modern medicine is? The same question goes for bleeding.
-frontal lobotomyAgain, how long ago was this?
- treating the weaponHuh?
- AZT (? Kary Mullis)You're gonna cite Kary Mullis for your source? Give me a break! The man thinks he was abducted by space aliens in the form of glowing raccoons!
- hell, doctors don't even know why we hurt after exercise (see the thread about whether it's easier going up stairs or down).I haven't seen the thread, but I didn't know this was a real stumper, and I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for it. In any event, if that's the best you can do (and from this list, it looks like it is), I wouldn't exactly call this a stellar debating technique.
Given the difficulty of the subject and the poor track record of "establishment" medicine, it's not that hard to believe they might be wrong about something again.You have yet to prove that there is a "poor track record" (unless you're planning to count the early 19th-century as "modern").

But, again, all of this is tangential to the point at hand. If all you're going to do is argue that modern scientific medicine has been wrong in the past, that isn't much of an argument. And it certainly doesn't prove anything about the claims of alternative medicine. You are basing your argument on a logical fallacy, claiming that because you think somebody was wrong before, it is likely they are wrong now. Sorry, but unless you can do better, you've pretty much done nothing to advance your cause.

[[Bodies are complex systems which are usually opaque to our questioning.
Treatment success is judged by outcome. Favorable outcomes reinforce the theory that
prompted the treatment, often without direct testing of the theory.]]

Please give an example of a different method of judging treatment success. Is the fact that your friend John's next door neighbor's grandmother's second husband went into remission after he took homeopathic remedy evidence of the efficacy of the remedy? How would you more accurately judge the efficacy of a treatment than by running a double-blind test with a control group and all that, and then observing the results? Is it perfect? No, doubtless there are minor variables that are playing a role in the test that nobody has thought of yet. But if you know of a better way, I'd like to hear it.

[[Treatments are said to cure a disease, even when the treatment works less than 100% of
the time.]]

The way the press reports medical breakthroughs notwithstanding, I don't think this statement is accurate. I don't think that treatments are said to "cure" a disease, I think that they are generally believed to be effective against a disease. Individual results will always vary.

[[the placebo effect. The most reliable effect known, and the greatest fudge factor ever.]]

So much more reason to have products tested through well-designed double-blind studies before touting them as "cures" for anything.

[[Given that the discussion is about a body of knowledge that medical doctors claim
expertise in, it is only fair to judge their claims in light of their performance.]]

Of course. And bringing up a few examples of mistakes that have been made along the way in no way takes away from the volumes of successes that have been realized, as I'm sure you'd agree.

[[To wit]]

I see I was wrong about the likelihood that you'd agree.

[[Given the difficulty of the subject and the poor track record of "establishment" medicine,]]

Once again, a few examples of mistakes along the way in no way implies a "poor track record."

[[it's not that hard to believe they might be wrong about something again.]]

Ah, finally we agree. Yet another excellent reason for well-designed double-blind studies.

Rich

Of course favorable outcomes reinforce the theory that prompted the treatment. But that doesn't mean scientific medicine uses those alone. That's why there are placebo trials and double-blind tests. Sometimes it is difficult, because of ethical considerations, to directly test a theory. But I don't see how you can consider this a "serious methodological problem" -- at least not without some concrete examples.

One that comes to mind is the initial "bran reduces cholesterol" studies. I forget some specifics (like where it was done), but the basics were:
- there was a theory that eating bran would reduce cholesterol
- a (suitably stringent) study was undertaken with wheat (i think) bran
- results were positive
- a followup study (at Louisiana State) on rice bran confirmed the first

This follows the usual rules of a good study:
- an initial theory prompts investigation (or vice versa)
- an experiment is performed to test the theory
- the experiment is repeated
Yet the whole thing fell apart. In this case it was simple - people were eating less junk food and more bran. Of course their cholesterol went down.

This is a fun tale of a Gettier counterexample, exactly the sort of thing that happens in complex systems.

I don't know who is "saying" that a treatment "cures" a disease, so it's hard to comment.

Most anybody who goes to see a doctor? When (for example) one is prescribed antibiotics for an infection, certainly the point is to eliminate the infection and hence cure the patient. Or are you claiming that doctors only "treat", and not cure?

Whose claims are we judging? I thought this thread was about homeopathy (specifically) and alt. med. (generally). Do you normally try to prove that apples aren't sweet by claiming that oranges are sweeter?

Just that when examining claims (in this case that alt. med. is bunk) one should consider the source.

Phrenology was never taken seriously by most doctors.

http://skepdic.com/phren.html claims that "Phrenology was praised by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Mann and the Boston Medical Society" and "It remained popular, especially in the United States, throughout the 19th century".

As for frontal lobotomy: http://public.carleton.edu/~vestc/text/loboback.html or http://public.carleton.edu/~vestc/pages/brief.html

Treating the weapon (I forget the exact term) was the practice of applying salve to the weapon that caused the wound. Umberto Eco writes of it in _The Island of the Day Before_.

Kary Mullis has one more Nobel than the two of us put together, I'd bet. No guarantee of correctness, of course, but this is pretty near his area.

about exercise:
I haven't seen the thread, but I didn't know this was a real stumper, and I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for it.

So read the thread. There's a nice cite for the article.

You are basing your argument on a logical fallacy, claiming that because you think somebody was wrong before, it is likely they are wrong now.

Please provide the true axioms of medicine/science and the appropriate valid inference rules, stated in an unambiguous formal language (preferably one that supports a naive realist/correspondence theory of perception). I would be interested in seeing your deduction. Until said proof materializes we are better off using "winter rules" - acting reasonably. And being reasonable includes being (especially) skeptical of claims made by an organization that has been wrong before.

Actually, I think homeopathy is a bunch of junk, too.

[[we are better off using "winter rules" - acting reasonably. And being reasonable includes being (especially) skeptical of claims made by an organization that has been wrong before.]]

Now you're starting to sound more reasonable yourself. However, I would add to your statement above, "and even more skeptical of an organization that has never been proven right before and makes claims anyway."

I mean, wouldn't you agree that one should be more skeptical of an organization that has been right 50 out of 100 times than you should be of an organization that has been right 90 out of 100 times? And shouldn't you be more skeptical of an organization that has been right only 10 out of 100 times? And shouldn't you be even more skeptical of an organization that has never been proven right at all?

Rich

Tominator2 said: "Given the difficulty of the subject and the poor track record of "establishment" medicine, it's not that hard to believe they might be wrong about something again."
If it appears that medicine has a "poor track record", it's because in science, therapies that are ineffective are abandoned. Medicine has been wrong in the past, some therapies are probably wrong now, and more wrong therapies will be tried in the future. The important point is that doctors do not eternally cling to bad methods; as science staggers onward the quality and effectiveness of medical care improves. Understanding deepens, the knowledge base broadens, and more effective methods are proposed.

Bleeding was accepted practice because doctors at that time poorly understood physiology; as new knowledge was gathered it became increasingly clear that bleeding is ineffective. The technique then eventually fell into disfavor.

The difference between "establishment" medicine and "alternative" medicine is that real medicine continues to seek knowledge and will always discontinue a practice that is proven not to work (albeit sometimes grudgingly; doctors are unfortunately human too). "Alternative" medicine resists studies that may prove them to be wrong and ineffective methods continue to be used even AFTER being proved wrong. Alternative medicine is far more likely to be wrong in the first place because there is little or no scientific basis for it, and much more likely to continue to be wrong because ineffective methods are not abandoned.

Given those facts, I would much rather put my "faith" in mainstream medicine.

Might as well close this one; Holly has said it all. Or maybe not...Holly, why do you think that alternative medicine goes on using proven ineffective methods? Because they have no standard for "proven"?

Holly, why do you think that alternative medicine goes on using proven ineffective methods?

My answer would be, "ask P. T. Barnum."

Rich

"Do you have arthritis, or are you just happy to see me?"

Rich

Ha ha! :)

[[One of the biggest proponents of alt. med. here in town is the local AIDS support group.This really kind of frosts me, because what these people need are more scientific advances, not sorcery.]]

I understood the AIDS activist support for "alt. therapy" when there were few effective therapies available from Western Medicine. That is no longer the case.

I'll tell you what frosts me; when AIDS organizations pressure the government (Public Health Department) to provide "alternative medicine" to people living with HIV/AIDS at taxpayers' expense. Who decides which herbal remedies get picked up by the state formulary, and who profits from selling them? What would such decisions be based on?

Is someone here questioning the efficacy of AZT as an HIV therapy? It is not especially effective as a mono-therapy (except at preventing transmission from mother to baby.. it works extraordinarily well at that, when the mother is treated during pregnancy), but probably mainly because of the continued mutation of the virus. It is still sometimes a drug of choice to be used in combination therapy, as are other, more recently developed anti-reverse transcriptase drugs.
Jill

"Holly, why do you think that alternative medicine goes on using proven ineffective methods?"
People who use alternative (here meaning unproven or disproven) therapies, and I would wager many of those who provide such therapies, honestly believe they work. As long as people are willing to pay money for such things they'll persist.

The only thing wrong about this picture is that the belief in the efficacy of alternative therapies is not grounded in science, and only those scientific studies showing the therapies work- no matter how badly researched- will be given any notice. I am NOT claiming that science is perfect, but it's the best method we have for discovering truth.

I met a man who told me the only sure cure for arthritis is to put a potato in your pocket. When the potato "turns to stone", he said, your arthritis will be gone. Obviously this man has no concept of causality or any clue about the scientific method. He absolutely believes this therapy works and I doubt any scientific study could shake his belief.

I think the only reason alternative medicine hasn't embraced the Potato Theory of Arthritis is because potatoes are so cheap. If they were 20 bucks a pound, half the people in America would have potatoes in their pockets.

Or, in other words, "ask P.T. Barnum". ;)

I was considering not bothering to add a reply, since, as KayT noted, Holly pretty much said it all. But since Tominator was responding to me, I guess I should add in the rest of my $0.02.

Tominator said:Yet the whole thing fell apart. In this case it was simple - people were eating less junk food and more bran. Of course their cholesterol went down.And your point is what? That some scientists made a mistake and other scientists caught it? Well, that's what the scientific method is all about! How often have you seen an alternative medicine practitioner make a mistake in a study that was caught by another alt. med. practitioner? I can't recall ever seeing anything like that. They usually band together, circle the wagons against science, and ignore any methodological problems at all.
I said:I don't know who is "saying" that a treatment "cures" a disease, so it's hard to comment.You responded:
Most anybody who goes to see a doctor?So now you're switching from criticizing the doctors and scientist to criticizing those who are patients?When (for example) one is prescribed antibiotics for an infection, certainly the point is to eliminate the infection and hence cure the patient. Or are you claiming that doctors only "treat", and not cure?It depends on what the problem is. I was thinking more along the lines of cancer; you were apparently thinking more along the lines of an ear infection. But the main problem was that you were so vague in your staement that I didn't really know where you were going.
Just that when examining claims (in this case that alt. med. is bunk) one should consider the source.Ok, what are you considering to be the source? The AMA? Doctors in general? All scientists? What?
http://skepdic.com/phren.html claims that "Phrenology was praised by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Mann and the Boston Medical Society" and "It remained popular, especially in the United States, throughout the 19th century".I never said it wasn't popular -- I said doctors in general had not accepted it. Just because some famous people and one group may have does not mean "doctors in general" did. In any event, as I noted, if the best example of the failures of modern medicine come from almost 2 centuries ago, that's not exactly a stellar example.
Kary Mullis has one more Nobel than the two of us put together, I'd bet. No guarantee of correctness, of course, but this is pretty near his area.Actually, it's not really near his area. His area was in chemical reactions -- it was a technological advance. Was it an important one? Yes, but I also think it's important to realize that he is, well, nuts.
Until said proof materializes we are better off using "winter rules" - acting reasonably.Yes -- acting reasonably. In this case, acting reasonably means using the scientific method, double proper medical tests whenever possible, etc. It certainly doesn't mean simply saying, "Oh, well, doctors have been wrong before so they're probably wrong again."
And being reasonable includes being (especially) skeptical of claims made by an organization that has been wrong before.What "organization" are we talking about here? I didn't realize we were talking about an "organization" at all.
Actually, I think homeopathy is a bunch of junk, too.I'm glad to hear it. So then why are we having this discussion?

Holly was asked:"Holly, why do you think that alternative medicine goes on using proven ineffective methods?" And she responded:People who use alternative (here meaning unproven or disproven) therapies, and I would wager many of those who provide such therapies, honestly believe they work. As long as people are willing to pay money for such things they'll persist.Well said. I would also add that many people who use such methods are desperate. A recent 48 Hours dealt with this for people with terminal diseases (with a bit less skepticism than they should have). One thing that was notable about that show was the number of people who underwent standard treatment plus an alternative treatment, and when they were cured gave credit to the alternative one instead of the standard one. This is fairly common. "Oh, yes, I did have 9 months of chemo and radiation for my cancer, but I know it was this root the herbalist gave me that did it!"

Overall, I think that alternative medicine continues to exist because people, in general, don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

It may be worth noting that Tominator2's example of bleeding as a therapy doesn't at all belong to the current medical paradigm, but rather to a long-abandoned one (humors theory). Unless we are going to accept evidence against chiropractic as also discrediting homeopathy, I think that this example must be discarded.


(Actually, bleeding is the accepted therapy in a very limited number of cases. But it's not a panacea.)


Tominator also offers the bran study as an example of a good study that gave an incorrect result. In fact, it's a poorly designed study; a good study would have not permitted the substitution of bran for LDLs in the diet (there seems to be only a modest link between dietary cholesterol and systemic cholesterol). The conclusion to be drawn, then, is not the Havard Law of Animal Physiology ("Under carefully controlled conditions, the organism will do as it damned well pleases"), but rather the difficulty of designing a good study, particularly one that includes bran or other soi-disant natural components.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

<< This is fairly common. "Oh, yes, I did have 9 months of chemo and radiation for my cancer, but I know it was this root the herbalist gave me that did it!" >>

Belief in the real is scarey. Belief in the real includes large elements of unknown, out-of-control activies (like cancer cell appearance and reproduction.) It is far, far easier to believe in the miraculous: a deity's intervention, a magical ceremony, a magic root, whatever. Belief in a potato-stone helps keep the world plain and simple; far more simple than trying to understand something as complex as arthritis, how joints work, etc.

[[And your point is what? That some scientists made a mistake and other scientists caught it? Well, that's what the scientific method is all about! How often have you seen an alternative medicine practitioner make a mistake in a study that was caught by another alt. med. practitioner? I can't recall ever seeing anything like that. They usually band together, circle the wagons against science, and ignore any methodological problems at all.]]

Good points, David B. One reason new "breakthrough" medical studies (oat bran, et al) are later discounted is that the popular media rushes to publicise preliminary findings and oversimplifies the results before such studies are confirmed. Often if you go to the original medical journal article (later being written up in Redbook magazine), you'll see the disclaimers that the popular press leaves out. Then you're stuck with the public perception that "yesterday cholesterol was bad for you and today it's good for you. Oh well, looks like nobody knows what they're talking about."

I also think that Western Medicine (establishment AMA types) have to accept some of the historical blame for the huge rise in popularity of bogus health specialties. Doctors have often talked down to patients, not treated them sensitively or holistically, been patriarchal and intimidating, lousy bedside manner and all that. Overused drugs and ignored complaints of side effects, etc. etc. It left a huge gap in people's need for comprehensive health care that was quickly filled by herbalists with magic claims, touchy feely crystal healers, and others who treated patients with respect, listened to them, and acted like they cared. I think a lot of MDs are coming around, but there's still a lot to be done.

Someone asked, "Why Homeopathy?" Especially why people will cling to it when shown that it's not what it was claimed to be. Here are a few reasons:

1. Poor scientific education. When people think that getting chilly is the cause of colds and that antibiotics will cure a cold; well, sure, they'll be suckered in by any old homeopathic nonsense. As long as people believe in good luck, bad luck, horroscopes, and plentiful miracles; homeopathy will be a welcome guest.

2. Science ain't easy. It can certainly be a difficult subject for a person of average intelligence. Homeopathy can sometimes be very simple -- 'Here, take X and you'll feel less pain.'

3. Science ain't perfect. There are still diseases and symptoms that science can't fix. Homeopathy holds out what science can't -- hope. Sure, it's a false hope that is supported at times by placebo and denial, but it is still hope for someone in pain or dying who will now vainly 'try anything.' Homeopathic remedies cluster around the things that science has mastered yet.

4. Placebo effect. Many of the homeopathic cures target symptoms that are subjective and easily influenced by the placebo effect. E.g., sex, as the old saying goes, is 90% mental. So, if ginseng makes you horny, and you believe it... sure, it's going to improve your sex now that you're more confident.

5. Denial. Once you've bought into a belief, you're loathe to let go of it and acknowledge that you wasted a lot of resources. People don't want to feel dumb, used, or embarrassed. And so, once they invested themselves in the homeopathic con job, they ignore all the contrary evidence. And so, even if they still feel the arthritic pain after taking Superdiluted-X, they won't admit it, not even to themselves. They actually believe that they're not in pain. Homepathics will say, "Hey, that means it works!" I say, "Hey, pretending there's no pain doesn't mean that it's not having an effect on their mood, and certainly doesn't mean that they have been cured -- in fact, it can lull them into a false sense of security which then allows the underlying disease to continue to worsen unchecked."

Peace.

in reply to David B.

And your point is what? That some scientists made a mistake and other scientists caught it? Well, that's what the scientific method is all about!

My point is that a medical study that conrformed (as far as anybody could tell at the time) to all the rules, still got the wrong answer.

as far as phrenology's popularity goes, see:
http://www.edunltd.com/empire/article/castesystem.htm

about Kary Mullis:
Actually, it's not really near his area.

He's a competent chemist, and I would imagine capable of finding a study in the literature if one did exist.

His area was in chemical reactions -- it was a technological advance.

He's a biochemist, and his work includes DNA chemistry.

What "organization" are we talking about here? I didn't realize we were talking about an "organization" at all.

The medical "Establishment". You know - "them". If we're to treat all alternative therapies as a group, it's only right to treat all non-alternative therapies likewise.

So then why are we having this discussion?

The original question was "Is homeopathy a con job?". The answer was "Of course". When asked how they knew, the answers were: "Everyone knows it is"; "We're doctors and we say so"; and "Any studies that show otherwise are due to the placebo effect". I merely wished to point out that medicine is hard and doctors can be wrong. If alternative treatments are wrong at least they're in good company.

I've just re-read most of this thread, and none of those answers appeared, though the "placebo effect" was mentioned several times. I did say early on that, after doing a small amount of research, I was more firmly convinced than ever that homeopathy is worthless. And Slythe posted this about two months ago: "Another reason to call homeopathy a con job-it relies on testemonials. No double-blind studies have shown homeopathy to be any more effective than placebos." But that's about all I saw in the way of responses to the question, "Is homeopathy a con job?"

My direct response to that question would be similar to slythe's: "Yes, homeopathy is a con job, because despite it's existence for well over 100 years, there have so far been no well-designed and well-executed reproducible double-blind studies which have shown that any homeopathic remedy has worked on a specific illness better than a placebo."

Rich

[The Ryan]

VegForLife
Member posted 06-23-99 05:40 PM

“The most recent clinical study that I know of (which I read a blurb about on Dr. Dean Edell's website a few months ago) indicated that acupuncture appeared to have a slight edge over placebo in dealing with certain types of headaches, but had no edge over placebo for any other ailments. While it's impossible to conduct a standard double-blind study on acupuncture (it's fairly obvious whether or not somebody is poking you with needles), the study apparently made us of "sham acupuncture" for the placebo, and was reviewed.”


Actually, there’s a lot one can do. For instance, is it really necessary to have a trained professional give the acupuncture? If acupuncture is mostly the placebo effect, it seems like some guy off the street should be able to do as good a job as someone with years of training. Also, does acupuncture actually have a significant effect? If so, then perhaps it should be recommended, even if it is a placebo effect. After all, if the placebo works, you might as well use it.


JillGat
Moderator posted 06-26-99 10:28 PM


“Do people's gullibility stem from the relationship to vaccines? I mean, after all, a vaccine is a diluted strand of the germs causing the disease, right? So the dilution gives some immunity?
Just wondering if the homeopathetics (pun) use that analogy...”

I think this is one the main problem with homeopathy. Vaccines (which I suppose are sort of a type of homeopathy) work, so that is seen as proof that all homeopathic remedies work. People are looking at an analogy and mistaking for a proof. Vaccines work by stimulating the immune system. Has anyone shown any mechanism through which other forms of homeopathy would do something similar? And would we want them to? I’ve heard of homeopathic remedies for allergies. But allergies result when the immune system is overstimulated. How would stimulating it more help?

StormBorn
Member posted 07-15-99 12:18 AM

“So why not just believe you don't have the ailment in the first place?”

Because people don’t have that fine a control over their unconsciousness. I imagine that there are some acrophobic people that become very agitated if they have nothing but glass between them and a several hundred foot drop, but put wood between them and the drop and the fall, and they're fine. So why can’t they just imagine wood to be covering the glass? Because they just can’t. Placebo have an analogous effect: they keep patients from worrying about their sickness "looking" at their problem (because they think it's being taking care of) and so their stress levels go down and their immune systems become stronger.

AuraSeer
Member posted 07-17-99 02:13 PM

“Of course, a magnet is a very benign example; whether it helps or not, it's unlikely to cause any additional harm. The same cannot be said for certain herbs, like the St. Johns Wort mentioned above. But if something can be shown to not be harmful, and it makes the patient feel better, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be tried. “


If you believe that magnets help you, even though you know of no mechanism for such a thing, why don’t you believe that magnets might harm you? After all, if magnets have the power to affect the body, why is a beneficial effect more probable than negative? Hasn’t there been speculation that electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer? (Not that I’m convinced of that phenomenon, either).

Tominator2
Member posted 07-21-99 09:14 AM

“If A causes B, the occurrence of A is inevitably followed by B.”

Pregnancy rarely follows sex, so according to your definition, sex doesn’t cause pregnancy.


“Doctors have been so wrong, so often it's hard to take them all that seriously. “

I’m not basing my beliefs on faith in doctors; doctors are certainly capable of being wrong. It’s the scientific method that I trust. The examples you cited were never supported by the scientific method. (Except AZT, and having one someone with disputed expertise claim that a tested drug is ineffective doesn't convince me).

Tominator2
Member posted 07-22-99 03:06 PM

“Yet the whole thing fell apart. In this case it was simple - people were eating less junk food and more bran. Of course their cholesterol went down.”


Tominator2
Member posted 07-26-99 04:22 PM
“in reply to David B.
quote:

And your point is what? That some scientists made a mistake and other scientists caught it? Well, that's what the scientific method is all about!

My point is that a medical study that conrformed (as far as anybody could tell at the time) to all the rules, still got the wrong answer.”

They didn’t get the wrong answer; consumption of bran, when accompanied by a decrease in consumption of high cholesterol food, lowers cholesterol. It’s just that that answer was misinterpreted. Any time you hear something like this, think about what it means. Is olive oil healthy? Well, compared to more saturated oils, it is. But compared to no oil at all, it isn’t.


"Phrenology was praised by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Mann and the Boston Medical Society" and "It remained popular, especially in the United States, throughout the 19th century".

Truth is not a popularity contest. If you want to claim that phrenology was accepted as scientific fact, find a study supporting it.


Holly
Member posted 07-23-99 09:19 AM
(in response to Tominator2
“Bleeding was accepted practice because doctors at that time poorly understood physiology; as new knowledge was gathered it became increasingly clear that bleeding is ineffective. The technique then eventually fell into disfavor.”

Doctors have recently realized that in many situation, bleeding is useful. It’s just that this process was applied indiscriminately, which is exactly the problem with homeopathy. Homeopathy takes the principle of dilution, which works for vaccines, and applies it to every other problem. It’s that whole “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” problem.

David B
Moderator posted 07-25-99 07:14 AM

“quote:

Actually, I think homeopathy is a bunch of junk, too.

I'm glad to hear it. So then why are we having this discussion”

Because it’s important to know not only whether homeopathy is a con, but also how we know it’s a con. Our educational system does a poor job of explaining the scientific method, and if Tominator2 and others haven’t been convinced of its importance, then we should try clarifying the issue. By making sure that we give rational principles in support of our claim that homeopathy is a con, Tominator2 is making sure that we don’t fall into the trap that homeopathic proponents have fallen into; that is, believing that truth is the same thing as what “seems” true.


------------------
-Ryan
" 'Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.' " -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

[Czarcasm]

Ditto. :).

[JillGat]

Not sure what happened in that long post of Ryan's copied from the board, but the following quote was NOT mine:

[[JillGat
Moderator posted 06-26-99 10:28 PM

“Do people's gullibility stem from the relationship to vaccines? I mean,
after all, a vaccine is a diluted strand of the germs causing the disease, right? So the dilution gives some immunity?
Just wondering if the homeopathetics (pun) use that analogy...]]

I'm pretty sure that quote was from Ckdexthavn. Anyway, nothing before or after [[JillGat Moderator posted 06-26-99 10:28 PM]] in that post was by me.
Jill

[VegForLife]

Actually, there’s a lot one can do. For instance, is it really necessary to have a trained professional give the acupuncture? If acupuncture is mostly the placebo effect, it seems like some guy off the street should be able to do as good a job as someone with years of training.

That's pretty much what I meant when I referred to "sham acupuncture."

Also, does acupuncture actually have a significant effect? If so, then perhaps it should be recommended, even if it is a placebo effect. After all, if the placebo works, you might as well use it.

For reasons stated elsewhere in this thread, I disagree with this approach in general. I think it should be used as an absolute last resort.

Vaccines (which I suppose are sort of a type of homeopathy)

While I agree with your point, I really think this is inaccurate, because vaccines are not a type of homeopathy. For a vaccine (correct me if I'm wrong, Jill), a pathogen is diluted (or de-activated?) and introduced; for a homeopathic remedy, a pathogen is diluted to the point that no molecules of the original pathogen remain intact in the diluted mixture, the mixture simply retains a "memory" of the pathogen. I think the difference is substantial enough that the two should never be directly compared, even when qualified by a "sort of," lest anyone get the impression that they are related in more than the most superficial way (I mean, lemonade is lemon juice diluted with water, but you wouldn't say that a vaccine is a sort of lemonade).

Rich

[Markxxx]

I don't believe homoepathic is legitimate but I did buy some homeopathic medicine for stress and it did work for me. It must be a plecebo effect. Don't know but I'd buy it again. And yes I DO NOT believe in homoepathy I think it is not logical at all.

[gene]

Speaking of quack therapies...has anyone heard of any study that evaluated the effectiveness (or the contrary) of psychoanalysis?
It seems to me that psychoanalysis is not:
(A) scientific
(B) specific
(C) provable
Also, people who have done it say that it goes on forever and is very expensive!

[JillGat]

[[a pathogen is diluted (or de-activated?) and introduced; for a homeopathic remedy, a pathogen is diluted to the point that no molecules of the original pathogen remain intact in the diluted mixture, the mixture simply retains a "memory" of the pathogen. I think the difference is substantial enough that the two should never be directly compared, even when qualified by a "sort of," lest anyone get the impression that they are related in more than the most superficial way]]

Right, Veg. A vaccination is an inactived pathogen that causes the body to develop antibodies to protect against the real thing, if exposed. This is not the principle of homeopathy, which claims that the more the formula is diluted the stronger it is.

[The Ryan]

JillGat
Moderator posted 08-16-1999 01:22 AM

Not sure what happened in that long post of Ryan's copied from the board, but the following quote was NOT mine:

I quoted you quoting Ckdexthavn, and somehow got mixed up. Sorry.
VegForLife
Member posted 08-16-1999 12:32 PM

While I agree with your point, I really think this is inaccurate, because vaccines are not a type of homeopathy. For a vaccine (correct me if I'm wrong, Jill), a pathogen is diluted (or de-activated?) and introduced; for a homeopathic remedy, a pathogen is diluted to the point that no molecules of the original pathogen remain intact in the diluted mixture, the mixture simply retains a "memory" of the pathogen. I think the difference is substantial enough that the two should never be directly compared, even when qualified by a "sort of," lest anyone get the impression that they are related in more than the most superficial way

Well, I have a different impression of what the definition of “homeopathy” is. For instance, eating local honey to prevent allergies because the honey contains dilute amounts of the allergens seems like homeopathy to me. Is there a standard definition?

(I mean, lemonade is lemon juice diluted with water, but you wouldn't say that a vaccine is a sort of lemonade).

I don’t think that this is a good analogy. A better one would be “Diluting a virus is good, therefore diluting lemon juice is good”. In this case the statement is true, but it’s not a good principle to rely on.

JillGat
Moderator posted 08-27-1999 08:01 PM

Right, Veg. A vaccination is an inactived pathogen that causes the body to develop antibodies to protect against the real thing, if exposed. This is not the principle of homeopathy, which claims that the more the formula is diluted the stronger it is.

That’s one way of wording the principle. But another wording would be “the weaker the cure, the better”. Vaccines would be supported by that principle, although the principle is not supported by vaccines.


------------------
-Ryan
" 'Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.' " -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

[fyslee]

Markxxx wrote:
I don't believe homoepathic is legitimate but I did buy some homeopathic medicine for stress and it did work for me. It must be a plecebo effect. Don't know but I'd buy it again. And yes I DO NOT believe in homoepathy I think it is not logical at all.


Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? Deliberately doing something you know is illogical is the first step in losing touch with reality. It just happens so gradually that you won't be aware of it.

You've already begun using the primary rationalization used to resolve the existing conflict between two mutually exclusive ideas: "it did work for me".

So be careful Markxxx, you've already got one foot in the mire!

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

E-mail - healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro. - http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files - http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

***********************************************************************************

[fyslee]

The following is copied from Doctor Robert Imrie, DVM, who has done
a great job of compiling this information:

"Lest there be any doubt about the scientific evidence for and against
the efficacy of homeopathy, here is an overview of the literature. Much
of the following research was conducted by practitioners and staunch
proponents of homeopathy."


Homeopathy Abstracts (Medline):

GENERAL

"Up to now, no research has categorically proven that homoeopathy has a
specific pharmacological action, consequently it is not a proven scientific
therapy." Rev Med Suisse Romande 2000 Feb;120(2):171-7 [Is homeopathy a
scientific therapy]? [Article in French] Mudry A
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10748705&dopt=Abstract


"There is a lack of independent replication of any pre-clinical research in
homoeopathy. In the few instances where a research team has set out to
replicate the work of another, either the results were negative or the
methodology was questionable." Forsch Komplementarmed 1999
Dec;6(6):311-320 [Independent Replication of Pre-Clinical Research in
Homoeopathy: A Systematic Review]. [Article in German] Vickers AJ
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10649002&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three
standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific
knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the
fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the
small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided
convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against
particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint,
homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the
principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for
the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of
operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a
scientific discipline." Ann Ital Med Int 1999 Jul-Sep;14(3):172-84 [No
title available]. [Article in Italian] Federspil G, Vettor R
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10566183&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence
that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less
positive results." J Clin Epidemiol 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6 Impact of study
quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Linde K,
Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10391656&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"[...] we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is
clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." Lancet 1997 Sep
20;350(9081):834-843 Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo
effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Linde K, Clausius N,
Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9310601&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"The therapeutic principles of homeopathy are based on insecure hypotheses
and on the patient's information of improved behaviour. Thus, homeopathy
does not agree with the present natural science." Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena)
1996 Apr;90(2):97-101 [Homeopathy from the viewpoint of the clinical
pharmacologist]. [Article in German] Haustein KO
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8686344&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"The review of studies carried out according to current scientific criteria
revealed--at best--a placebo effect of homeopathy. Until now there is no
proven mechanism for the mode of action of homeopathy. Sometimes so-called
"alternative medicine" prevents effective curative measures." Padiatr
Padol 1992;27(2):37-41 [Clinical medicine versus homeopathy]. [Article in
German] Kurz R
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1603601&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


ARTHRITIS

"Forty-four patients with active Rheumatoid Arthritis were entered into a
6-month double-blind trial comparing homeopathy and placebo. [...] There
was no statistically significant difference between groups." Scand J
Rheumatol 1991;20(3):204-208 A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the
effectiveness of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Andrade LE, Ferraz MB,
Atra E, Castro A, Silva MS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2068543&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


ASTHMA

"There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of
homeopathy in asthma." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000, Homeopathy for
chronic asthma. Linde K, Jobst K A
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10796532&dopt=Abstract


GASTROINTESTINAL MOTILITY

"This work does not confirm the role of either Opium or Raphanus in the
restoration of transit following abdominal surgery." Chirurgie
1990;116(4-5):404-8 [Homeopathy for the restoration of transit after
abdominal surgery]. [Article in French] Fingerhut A
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2096041&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"It is concluded that the trial failed to demonstrate any effect of Opium
or Raphanus on the resumption of intestinal peristalsis after digestive
tract surgery. Nor did it confirm the activity of ultra-molecular dilutions
claimed for this type of drugs." Presse Med 1989 Jan 21;18(2):59-62
[Evaluation of 2 homeopathic products on the resumption of transit after
digestive surgery. A multicenter controlled trial]. [Article in French]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2521722&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


PAIN - HEADACHE

"Both the homeopathy and placebo groups had reduction in attack frequency,
pain intensity and drug consumption, with a statistically non-significant
difference favouring homeopathy. " Br Homeopath J 2000 Jan;89(1):4-7
Homeopathic treatment of migraine: a double blind, placebo controlled trial
of 68 patients. Straumsheim P, Borchgrevink C, Mowinckel P, Kierulf H,
Hafslund O
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10703903&dopt=Abstract


"It is concluded that the trial data available to date do not suggest that
homeopathy is effective in the prophylaxis of migraine or headache beyond a
placebo effect." J Pain Symptom Manage 1999 Nov;18(5):353-7 Homeopathic
prophylaxis of headaches and migraine? A systematic review. Ernst E
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10584459&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic
treatment." Cephalalgia 1997 Aug;17(5):600-4 Double-blind randomized
placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine. Whitmarsh
TE ; Coleston-Shields DM ; Steiner TJ Princess Margaret Migraine Clinic,
Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9251877&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


PAIN - MUSCULOSKELETAL

"Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness following
long-distance running." Clin J Pain 1998 Sep;14(3):227-31 Homeopathic
Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness after long-distance running:
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Vickers AJ, Fisher P,
Smith C, Wyllie SE, Rees R
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9758072&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"OBJECTIVE: To pilot a model for determining whether a homoeopathic
medicine is superior to placebo for delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS).
[...] CONCLUSION: The study did not find benefit of the homoeopathic
remedy in DOMS." Br J Sports Med 1997 Dec;31(4):304-307 Homoeopathy for
delayed onset muscle soreness: a randomised double blind placebo controlled
trial. Vickers AJ, Fisher P, Smith C, Wyllie SE, Lewith GT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9429007&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


PAIN - POST-SURGICAL

"OBJECTIVE--To examine whether homoeopathy has any effect on pain and other
inflammatory events after surgery. [...] CONCLUSIONS--No positive evidence
was found for efficacy of homoeopathic treatment on pain and other
inflammatory events after an acute soft tissue and bone injury inflicted by
a surgical intervention." BMJ 1995 Jun 3;310(6992):1439-1442 Effect of
homoeopathy on pain and other events after acute trauma: placebo controlled
trial with bilateral oral surgery Lokken P, Straumsheim PA, Tveiten D,
Skjelbred P, Borchgrevink CF.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7613277&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


RESPRIATORY INFECTION

"Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of homeopathy in
influenza and influenza-like syndromes." Cochrane Collaboration Abstract,
September 7, 1999: Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and
treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Vickers AJ, Smith C.
http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/ab001957.htm


"CONCLUSION--Individually prescribed homoeopathic medicines seem to add
little to careful counselling of children with recurrent upper respiratory
tract infection in reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of
antibiotics, and need for adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy." BMJ 1994 Nov
19;309(6965):1329-32 Effect of homoeopathic medicines on daily burden of
symptoms in children with recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. de
Lange de Klerk ES, Blommers J, Kuik DJ, Bezemer PD, Feenstra L.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7866080&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


WARTS / POST-OPERATIVE OUTCOME

"CONCLUSIONS: Statements and methods of alternative medicine--as far as
they concern observable clinical phenomena--can be tested by scientific
methods. When such tests yield negative results, as in the studies
presented herein the particular method or statement should be abandoned.
Otherwise one would run the risk of supporting superstition and quackery."
Arch Dermatol 1998 Nov;134(11):1368-70 A double-blind, controlled clinical
trial of homeopathy and an analysis of lunar phases and postoperative
outcome. Smolle J, Prause G, Kerl H.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9828870&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"CONCLUSION: There was no apparent difference between the effects of
homoeopathic therapy and placebo in children with common warts under the
conditions of this study." Dermatology 1996;193(4):318-20 Homoeopathic
versus placebo therapy of children with warts on the hands: a randomized,
double-blind clinical trial. Kainz JT, Kozel G, Haidvogl M, Smolle J.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8993956&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b


"CONCLUSION: The homeopathic treatment was no more effective than the
placebo treatment of plantar warts." CMAJ 1992 May 15;146(10):1749-53
Homeopathic treatment of plantar warts. Labrecque M, Audet D, Latulippe
LG, Drouin J.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1596811&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b



Here are Dr. Imrie's websites:

NCRHI Alt Med Advisory Page
http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/> <http://www.ncahf.org/

The Entirely On-Line Alt Med Primer
http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/Primer2.htm

The Alt Med Book Review Page
http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/Review.htm

[dpr]

Homeopathy is God's way of thinning the flock.

[fyslee]

Here are some of my own homeopathic insights ;-) from the previous millenium (I DO understand how it works! That's why I'm just a little sarcastic):

THE MEMORY OF WATER

Homeopathic musings........

Does homeopathic water "remember" its origins?

A lot of it has been through the gastrointestinal tracts of a lot of people. Thereafter a lot of toilets and sewage treatment plants, before finally ending up as pure, distilled water, ready to be brainwashed into forgetting its past. First then is it prepared to selectively remember only its contact with the active, healing substances it was brought into contact with for a short time in the apothecary's lab.

Is homeopathic water actually reincarnated piss? Can a regression therapist help it remember its past lives? What tales could it tell? Of course it probably will remember passing through a famous historical person and actually being in a royal toilet! Homeopathic water isn't just ordinary water. It comes with a royal pedigree.

Does the longer passage time for men than for women (men therefore succuss the water looonger than women) result in accounts from reincarnated piss of its origins from famous men, more frequently than from famous women? (I'm assuming that more succussing results in longer and better memory-retention.)

But what happens if the water has amnesia? If it has a defective memory function, how will it then be able to remember its contact with a healing substance? Again, it'll need to go into therapy. Maybe then the regression therapist can help it recall its birth and other traumatic experiences. Can water be psychotic or neurotic? Maybe psychotherapy is what's needed. Can water have split or multiple personalities? We're really getting in deep water here!

This all sounds quite hypothetical. If, if, if.... Like Roger Whitaker sings, "If's an illusion". Just like homeopathy. And illusions can be powerful things. Just like faith, they can move mountains - mountains of money!

It's been said that there's more between heaven and earth than meets the eye. Maybe. But most of it is free fantasy. And when free fantasy gets run through the alt. med. spinning wheel, it becomes an elaborate, sometimes enticingly beautiful fabric, which can be sold. It's no longer free. Now fantasy costs! And since nobody in their right mind would dream of paying for fantasy, their cognitive dissonance plays them a trick. They excuse themselves for doing something so dumb, with the rationalization: "It worked for me. That's proof enough".

Another singer, Enya, has recorded a great CD called "The Memory of Trees". Maybe she should record one called "The Memory of Water".... ;-)

We need to get Cosby, Seinfeld, etc. to work up a series of homeopathic jokes!

Sorry folks, but sometimes I just have a hard time keeping a straight face when thinking about homeopathy.... ;-) It just proves that the more non-sensical and illogical something is, the more readily it gets swallowed by otherwise intelligent people.


John Stone replied with the following comment:

I once saw the calculation .... but am too busy at the moment to recreate
it, but in every cup of water (8.4 x 10^24 molecules) there is at least one
molecule that has passed through the body of every famous person that ever
lived --- Jesus, Aristotle, stc --- which is one more molecule than what
it is claimed to contain ... think about that the next time you go to communion


And Robert Imrie followed with this one:

I see a sketch wherein a cigar-smoking, spectacle-wearing, goateed,
lab-coat-clad Sigmund Fraud look-alike is conducting a "psyco-analytical
session." His "patient," an eight-ounce tumbler full of tap water, is
resting on an over-stuffed Victorian couch. A couple of "homeopathic
detector electrodes" lead from the tumbler to a computer/monitor setup next
to the good Doktor Professor. Dr. Fraud pensively presses his fingertips
together and asks "Und, how long vood you say you've been suffering from
zis 'memory loss'? The computer monitor crackles with homeopathic static,
and the tumbler's answer prints out across the screen. Eventually, the
good Doktor Professor pulls a gold pocketwatch from a vest pocket and
swings it in front of the tumbler assuring it that it's "getting
shleeeeepier und shleeeeepier." He then proceeds to employ post-hypnotic
suggestion to implant false memories, because, as we all know, "false
memories are better than no memories at all -- even for a glassful of water."

And one last quote:

"Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It's completely safe to drink." -- Peter Dorn

[SILENT-BOB NOT REALLY]

:wally

[SuaSponte]

Silent Bob didn't say:


:wally


That settles it. Everyone shake hands and make up.

:: Grins Ducks and Runs ::

Sua

[snifter]

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that they wish there was more input by "the other side", that is, an actual homeopath. Here is a site and "bio" of one I found on the internet, very, um, "unique" lady. Maybe she can be persuaded to contribute to the discussion?

http://www.askahomeopath.net/Personalbio.htm

[Ringo]

First two sentences from the page snifter linked:

Dr. Alva Irish was born in Liberty, Texas, the heart of Petroleum country. You could push a gas pipe into the ground, hook it to a gas heater, and light it to heat your home.

I believe everything this woman has to say... :rolleyes:

She also seems to hold a lot of those degrees that nobody else has ever heard of.

(Not knockin' you, snifter, I realize you linked it for the humor.)

[Tom Arctus]

Originally posted by snifter
Maybe she can be persuaded to contribute to the discussion?

Seeing as she charges $25 for telling the sex of a bird or reptile from a feather or scale (http://www.askahomeopath.net/fees.htm), I imagine we'd have to take up a collection if we wanted to hear from her . . .

[Chay Lynn]

Hi, I have been lurking a little and find your posts to be interesting. ( and some funny ) I don't use homeopathic remedys. I don't buy anything that has a disclaimer on the bottle stateing that the product has not been proven to be effective for the very ailment I intend to buy it for. I believe that *natural* means an herb picked in the woods, not something that has been processed with preservatives added. Having said that I believe that we are being * processed and chemically treated * to death , and can understand to a degree why so many gravitate to anything that has a * natural * claim involved. I do have a question : I have read both the pro side and con side of homeopathy and the con side has two claims. One , that it is completely void of anything other than water and two that it can be dangerous ( excluding the use of homeopathy in place of scientifically proven. ) Such as black kohash causing kidney problems , and efhedra causing death. Are some comprised of nothing more than educated water and others not ? Thanks for your reply in advance.

[Musicat]

Chay Lynn, welcome to the SDMB! You probably didn't realize you were resurrecting a year-old thread, but your question certainly deserves an answer.

First, you may be confusing homeopathy with "natural" or "unprocessed" supplements often passed off as folk medicines.

Homeopathy (http://skepdic.com/homeo.html) is based on Samuel Hahneman's 1769 "law of similars," that what causes X can also cure X. (Ex: If BobWort makes your skin yellow, then BobWort can cure jaundice.) The disease/cure substance is diluted greatly on the theory that the less of the active substance there is, the more potent it is. This challenges the known characteristics of most chemicals and compounds, and the law of similars has validity only in "eye of newt, toe of frog" magic potions.
from a homeopathic-favorable site, http://nz_homeopathy.tripod.com/Homoeopathy.html
Homeopathic remedies cannot cause side effects and you cannot become addicted to them. This is because only a very minute amount of the active ingredient is used in a specially prepared form.
Other folk medications and supplements do not necessarily rely on dilution. Many are harmless, some are not. (http://www.seniormag.com/caregiverresources/articles/supplementcaution.htm) In either case, if they are not legally marketed as medicine (in the U.S.), then they cannot legally make any curative claim, since such claims have not been sufficiently proven to the FDA.

It can be shown using Avogadro's Number, that many of the homeopathic dilutions are so extreme that it is highly unlikely that a single molecule of the active substance exists in the solution. (http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/homeopathy_atoms.html) (That certainly explains why they "cannot cause side effects and you cannot become addicted to them," doesn't it?) This forces proponents to postulate that:
Either some magical phenomena is at work here, or water has a memory of the substance's properties, retained perpetually after the substance is no longer present.
I think you can see the problem with these postulates. Giving magic the credit not only returns us to the Dark Ages and before -- and you know how good medicine was back then -- or gives us absolutely nothing that can be tested scientifically.

The "memory" theory has never been proven, either, and can be considered pure fantasy. It raises the question: If water retains the memory of all substances that pass thru it, why doesn't a simple glass of sea water cure everything?

[Chay Lynn]

Hi Musicat , Thank you ! You did clear that up for me . I was just adding a few folk remedies to homeopathic ones, I guess , and confused myself. ;>) Sorry to drudge up old issues ; I have some catching up to do. Everything that I have read is interesting and thought provoking. I do appreciate your response.

[rzajac]

Originally posted by
Homeopathy proponent Jacques Benveniste recently won a Pigasus award from the James Randi Educational Foundation. Benveniste was able to digitize the "memory" in homeopathic water and transfer it via the Internet from Paris to an ordinary bottle of water in Albuquerque.

Karen Lingel, PhD
Physicist and Penguinist

I was curious about this and ran around the Inet looking for refs.

I found a contradition: Benveniste says Randi et.al. found only one in five of the supervised trials failed. Randi seems to imply that, once supervision raised methodological concerns and the addressing of those concerns produced changes in experimental procedure, the alleged phenomina was consistently irreproducible.

Wait a minute, not so fast.... I also found an interesting account at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~daood/paulc.htm , in which the writer (who seems to favor the "memory" model) echoes the Randiian version of events.

The question is: Does _Nature_ often publish findings whose discovery methods fail to meet methodological standards (e.g., a proper double blind)?

[Basileus]

I was reading some people seeming to say that homeopathic medicine is "unscientific". I frankly do not necessary agree with the North American concept of what is "science". The term science comes from the Latin scientia i.e. knowledge. What you are calling science is Empiricism. Have empiricists have tried to dismiss faith and healing in the past and then found they could not. The medical community dismissed acupuncture and then later accepted it.
Now, I do think that much of allopathic or conventional medicine is valid, but let us face it many people have had some bad experiences. For example, I once had chronic fatigue and they would run all these tests and nothing! I was at my wits end and I did not really know what homeopathy was, and it was like my last hope. There was no placebo affect. I wanted something to work. But nothing seemed to work. I also know that after a month my chronic fatigue began to go away. I also know I had lots of strange dreams after taking the remedy and I was not told by the homeopath I would have all these cleansing type dreams, and when I related them to her it made sense to her.
I also found that the way I reacted is I actually would feel energetic vibrations in some portion of my brain. How does one explain that away. I had no expectation of sensing that. I remeber once taking a strong homeopathic remedy and certain old memories that I had long forgotten just came to the surface. It was kind of neat. I also do know my allergies have been reduced. I have found homeopathy, for me, to be more affective than acupuncture.

Many of the "scientific" medicines have gone through trials and scientific evidence only to kill people and have been withdrawn. It is hard to be use Empirical science to justify homeopathy since that kind of narrow "science" which is contrary to the Platonic-Aristotelian concept of science dismisses a certain kind of human experience and homeopathic remedies are chosen based on the individual rather than given en masse like allopathic medicines. In sum, both approaches have their positive.
Many allopathic doctors are also homeopaths. By the way, in Germany and France many doctors do when when they see it is appropriate prescribe homeopathic remedies. I have seen them work, over and over again and treat things I wasn't looking to treat as a positive side-effect.

Basil

[CurtC]

Even more effective as acupuncture, huh?

Basileus, why do you suppose that homeopathy keeps failing when people actually write the results down and add them up? There's nothing "North American" about keeping records and tabulating, and that's all that's required to show that homeopathy doesn't work.

[Quint]

My gal came home today with a homeopathic "treatment" for the flu. It's called oscillococcinum (http://www.homeowatch.org/history/oscillo.html), and with a name like that it's bound to work! One problem... the product monograph states "Does not cause drowsiness, or any known effects." :smack:

[Saltire]

Basil,

Did anything else in your life change between the time you were suffering from alergies and fatigue and now? Are you getting more or less exercise? Are you eating anything different? Have you moved to a different place (or even just to a different building)?

The problem is that your ailments are of the type that can be affected by many factors. There's no way to determine exactly what caused your condition to improve. You are assuming it was due to the distilled water (face it, that's all any homeopathic treatment is) you were taking, but it could have been any of a thousand other changes that caused it.

The only way to prove it was homeopathy that helped is to treat a large number of people and compare their results with untreated persons. That way, all the random, uncontrolled factors tend to cancel out, and the treatment is the only change in common among all the subjects. When this method is followed, improvement in the condition is seen in the same percentage of both the treated and untreated subjects.

This indicates that the improvement in those subjects couldn't have been the result of the treatment, but was due to one of those random factors that was not studied. The same as your improvement was due to something that you weren't doing intentionally as an attempt at a cure. It was not due to the water your homeopath gave you.

Also, understand that when we refer to science around here, it has a very specific meaning: the application of the scientific method. Science is not knowledge itself, it is a technique for gathering and testing knowledge. In fact, it seems to be the only effective and reliable way of building knowledge available to us.

It is somewhat imprecise, in a way, to say homeopathy is unscientific. A pedant would only apply that term to knowledge-gathering systems, I suppose, and homeopathy doesn't seem to qualify. Rather, homeopathy has not been proven scientifically.

It would even be correct to say it has been disproven scientifically.

[epepke]

For example, he
has dismissed many herbal remedies which are equivalents of over-the-counter drugs (e.g.
Ma Huang/Ephedra, the natural source of
Sudafed), or of some treatments that do have
proven efficacy (e.g. acupuncture). It seems he simply won't allow in any evidence that counters his viewpoint.

You know, I have to laugh when advocates of "alternative treatments" make statements like this. Ephedra is not the natural source of Sudafed. It is a natural source of ephedrine. Sudafed is Pseudo-ephedrine, an isomer of ephedrine.

[Rod Schmidt]

If it's the placebo effect, then we need to know that to study it.

Yes, I would like to study the placebo effect.

What are we going to use for a control?