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 lobotomy

Again, how long ago was this?

- treating the weapon

Huh?

- 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.