homeopathy

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

(adding the link in here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000225.html - Jill)

From Cecil’s mailbox (writer asked me to post it to the message board):

To: cecil@chireader.com

    Your ignorance of homeopathy is encyclopaedic. Your opinion of it boils down to, "If I don't understand how it works, it can't work." By this logic, rockets can't fly to the moon in your reality because you don't understand the physics of how they can do it. Well, I have recently heard a M.D. share your view, proving anyone can be stupid, even with 12 years of medical education. FYI, D. Hom.s--doctors of homeopathy--take the same basic medical education as M.D.s; the difference is that they use absolutely harmless remedies instead of toxic pharmaceuticals. 40% of doctors in such countries as England, France and Germany are homeopaths rather than allopaths; they use absolutely harmless remedies instead of toxic pharmaceuticals. there are numerous degree-bestowing homeopathic colleges. The British royal family, with all their wealth and their pick of the best of medical care, choose to use homeopaths rather than allopaths. You can hardly expect this to be the case if based on mere "placebo effect." If that were the case, all remedies would work equally well...which they don't. A "wrong remedy"--wrong for the patient and/or the condition, or the wrong potency--does not work at all; in classical homeopathy the art is in selecting the right remedy in the right dilution for the specific patient. Do you think vast numbers of highly-trained physicians and their patients would continue to use this modality if it were not valid, provable and effective?

I have used it. When the right remedy is used, it works. I have used homeopathy most successfully for many years. I am off to a M.D. Homeopath next week for a serious condition for which allopathy can offer no tenable solution.
I have enjoyed your column in the past. I have appreciated your many well-researched replies. In this case, however, instead of giving us “the straight dope,” you have come off sounding like a straight dope.
You are welcome to your opinion; you are welcome to use whatever medicine sounds good to you; but you owe homeopathy an apology for the totally unwarranted bum rap you gave it.

You may–and should!–print this!

JD Rabbit

[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]

2

Dear Cecil,
Never do you display ignorance more profoundly or completely than when you deal in matters of health. I suspect that the reason for this is that you rely upon conventional scientific wisdom and the pronouncements of sciomedical dogma, both of which a have historically been shown to be rife with politics and proven repeatedly to be wrong about many things, to reach conclusions which resonate with a rather conventional mentality. The error- and omission-filled ramble on homeopathy is a brilliant example.

  1. A little bell should have gone off in your head indicating that the persistence and prevalence of homeopathy is unlikely to have arisen simply from the placebo effect. If so, it would be the only long-lived health modality in history to do so.

  2. Though Hahnemann fully developed homeopathy, he did not invent or found it. It’s based on principles that go back to ancient Vedic literature and which existed in Greek medicine.

  3. The Law of Similars (if understood more than superficially) couldn’t be more unlike the principle behind the Frankensteinian practice of vaccination (which has certainly never been demonstrated to be safe and effective, though it has been linked with infectious disasters and been shown to be dangerous to health) was invented by a moron (Jenner) who thought that injecting the running pus from sick cows into the human bloodstream was a marvelous idea on the face of it.

  4. Regarding homeopathic dose, you state that the less you use, the better it works. This is a misstatement on several levels. First, it simply isn’t true because it’s possible to use too great a potency in a given situation. The potency must correspond with conditions. Since there is by intent no chemically identifiable substrate, or solute, in any remedy, the conventional notion of “less” virtually cannot apply in the first place. Different potencies of the same remedy can be used for different purposes. Your non-sequitur of not using any is beneath even your self-righteous condescension, even for the pathetic attempt at humor that it may be.

  5. There are three “scales,” not two.

  6. You say that “at 30X, chances are that a given dose doesn’t contain a single molecule of the original. . . ” Though interesting, the fact is not even a moot point, because the presence or lack of molecules, once past the concentration where chemical activity is possible, makes no difference homeopathically. The science is not at all about chemico/molecular activity. When inappropriately examined any phenomenon may appear invalid.

  7. Rather than dealing fairly with the energy/vibration theory, you underhandedly write it off with sarcasm. I’ll grant that YOU are a loosely organized bag of flesh with a modicum of awareness, but the rest of humanity is an electric and magnetic phenomenon consisting of multitudes of frequencies, including a resonant frequency, just like the glass that Ella used to break. Every “substance” in the Universe is a vibratory phenomenon or a collection of them - even an atom, which, as you may have discovered from your conventional scientific cronies, has more space in it than so-called matter. Science doesn’t know what gravity, light, electricity, atomic parts, or even a “charge” really ARE, yet it can utilize these things. Just so, though Homeopathy may not be fully explained, it can be used to great effectiveness, and uses the principle of resonance.

  8. That you have a Catholic background may explain a lot about the narrowness of your mind. No doubt you are reincarnated from the time of Galileo.

  9. If federal regulators have taken the view that Homeopathy is harmless, they have done worse with allopathy, which is extremely dangerous and ineffective, except perhaps for worsening the underlying physiological condition from which symptoms (so-called diseases) arise, thus ensuring continued profits at the expense of a sickened population.

  10. You make vague reference to the report in “Nature” which explained that a homeopathic solution had an effect on a biological system. Though the Inquisitors attempted to discredit that study (even bringing in a common magician!), and did so temporarily, the study stands as valid. If there is little to no conventional scientific attention to the validation of Homeopathy, I assure you it is because it threatens pet scientific beliefs as well as the wallets of the rapacious medical industry (whose shill I suspect you to be). There is therefore no money to be had for such research. They’d rather inflict pain on helpless animals. You may know that the AMA was convicted in court of trying to destroy the chiropractic profession, and you might remember that, no more than ten years ago, acupuncture was regarded as witchcraft by these same “scientists.” It is an absolute lie that the universal view among scientists is that the effectiveness of Homeopathy is placebo. Many scientists are homeopaths, in case you hadn’t noticed, many of whom are MDs. You also failed to mention that the modality is highly regarded in Europe.

  11. When you say there is no cure for something, you ought to make it clear that what you mean is that there is no patentable means of which the pharmaceutical industry has control, that only such means are allowed to be called a cure, that the definition of “cure” is contrived to suit the profitability of the medical power structure, and that even many of those drugs proudly claimed as cures by that structure, are, in fact, not cures for illness, but only the most insidious manner of symptom manipulation.

  12. The implication that Homeopathy is used primarily for colds and flu is the most brazen form of deceitful rhetoric. For example, I’ve used a Homeopathic remedy on several occasions on second degree burns, with dramatic results (overnight disappearance of damage). The same goes for bruising and sprain remedies. It can be of value in almost any situation where allopathic drugs are employed. The remark about Sudafed is among the very rare intelligent and accurate ones in the whole piece.

  13. Cecil (if indeed you exist, per se), you’re a discredit to journalism, and there should be a publication injunction against you for dealing with any health-related matter.

3

I haven’t yet read Cecil’s column, but judging by the e-mails posted here so far, he said what I would expect any rational person to say after he’s looked into it, and pronounced it to be pseudoscience.

I don’t expect a great deal of debate about the topic on this board, though, because although people here disagree about many things, there’s not much support for throwing out all our success in understanding chemistry in order to chase some 18th-century misunderstandings. If homeopathy were to be effective (other than placebo), it would require that all we know about chemistry be not only incomplete, but completely wrong.

If someone doesn’t understand what homeopathy really means, take a look at http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html, at least until we can see the master’s words posted.

4

Curt C, that link didn’t work…I didn’t work. Went to a “not found” message.

Looks like the beginning of a nice hot thread.

Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley

5

Never underestimate the diversity of this board or the strength of deeply held beliefs. Also, we may get some new people specifically on this topic.

And the link is
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

(had an extra comma in there).

I will attempt to refrain from other commentary until after reading Cecil’s column.

6

Sorry, the link is http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

Apparently, UBB can’t distinguish a comma at the end of a URL. Even Irishman’s link didn’t work.

7

Just what makes you think that Cecil doesn’t understand basic physics? Even if someone doesn’t understand rockets, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation. I have yet to see any explanation of how something can help someone even if that someone doesn’t even ingest it.

While I am sure that there are a few practitioners of homeopathy that have had traditional medical training, I’m sure that they are the minority. Medical doctors, on the other hand have all had traditional medical training.

How can something as powerful as proponents claim homeopathy is be “absolutely harmless”? Do the homeopathic substances somehow magically “know” what’s good for patients and what’s bad?

Is that supposed to impress me?

Gee, the British Royal family certainly has established a reputation for great intelligence over the years :rolleyes:.

Expect what to be the case? That the Royal Family make a bad medical decision? Why not?

Not necessarily. The whole idea of a placebo is that it must convince the patient that it will work. Some remedies may be better than other at convincing patients that they work.

And how is “wrong” defined? If it’s defined in terms of sucess of the patient, then that’s circular reasoning, isn’t it? And if there is some other reasonto think that it is “wrong”, why are practioners giving out “wrong” medicine?

Definitely.

Seeing as how you offered absolutely no concrete evidence that homeopathy works, what makes you think that it is owed an apology?

PeterAtGemini

Ah, yes, the “if I’m wrong, why do so many people agree with me” ploy.

Ever heard of voodoo? Or Christian Science? I could go on and on. Or are you going to defend those too?

What?!! Vaccination has never been proven to be effective? How can you possibly expect to have any credibility after making that statement?

What do you mean by potenty?

So this is a completely digital effect? If you take a homeopathic treatment, either you get the active ingredient or you don’t, and there’s no getting more or less of the active ingredient? There’s absolutely no difference between one dose of the stuff and two doses? Do you really expect anyone to believe this?

But you just said that there’s no such thing as more or less.

It’s not? Then why are you arguing about it?

And how do you know that? And if the molecules aren’t doing anything, what’s the point of involving them anyway?

Let’s get something straight: this is not science. Making a bunch of wild claims without any evidence called “speculation”, not science.

How is mentioning that there is no known mechanism “invalid”?

“Theory” is a well defined scientific term. Misusing hurts your case; it doesn’t help it. And refusing to recognize a bunch of speculation is hardly “underhanded”.

What do mean by “really ARE”? Do you think there is some deeper metaphysical meaning to these concepts? And do you think that scientific theories are flawed for not incorporating this mysterious “what they really ARE” into their theories? The fact is, science is

8

And another thing: in real science, every claim is tested independently. In homeopathy, a study purporting to show that one homepathic remedy works is somehow taken as proof that all of the remedies work.

9

Would you care to explain how smallpox was eradicated, if not by the marvelous idea of that “moron” Jenner? Whether he thought it was a marvelous idea “on the face of it or not” is irrelevant- what is relevant is that he demonstrated conclusively that it would work. [What a world! Someone shows how to save millions from a hideous death, and for that they are called a moron.]

10

Okay, the column is posted now.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000225.html

(Does this still work?)

The thing that should be noted is the reason homeopathy is so popular if it doesn’t work. There is a strong appeal to the notion that a person can take a substance that will not cause any harm, have any side effects, and yet cure illness. See how the promoters talk about homeopathy vs “allopathy”, trying to emphasize a distinction in approaches. Notice how they villainize modern medicine, standard medical approaches, and pharmaceutical companies. They denigrate the findings of science while claiming science validates their findings.

11

[[they use absolutely harmless remedies instead of toxic pharmaceuticals.]]

The only “absolutely harmless remedies” are ineffective ones - except for placebos. And I am not denying here that placebos sometimes work. Even practicers of “allopathic medicine” believe in them, or they wouldn’t use them for case/control studies.
Jill

12

I love it when homeopaths crow about the fact that homeopathy has no side effects. Of course not! It has no effects at all!

13

At least they don’t kill many animals in the production of homeopathic remedies. One remedy for cold symptoms called Oscillococcinum is made from duck liver and heart. But the dilution is such that the concentration is one molecule of duck in one followed by 400 zeroes of solution (water). In other words, more than the number of molecules in the universe. According to US News & World report, only one duck per year is needed to manufacture this product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996.

Think I’m gonna become a duck farmer.

14

Here I was going to defend poor Cecil, but it looks like other people have far more time to do it than me.

I would like to say, as a former physicist, that I do understand how rockets work, and I still think homeopathy is a complete crock. Rocketry came about when chemistry had evolved to the point that Newton’s very old theories could be tested in yet another way. The fact that rockets work just like physicist would predict is experimental evidence in favor of Newton’s theories. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is based on on a theory that has been refuted scientifically. (Yes, there have been studies showing various homeopathic remedies are worthless. No, I know of no studies, of any value, that show any remedy works.)

Does the lack of supporting evidence mean the American scientific community has it in for homeopathy? Well, no, the first study I remember reading was French. Does it mean the world’s scienctific community has it in for homeopathy? Well, no, scientists make their name (we don’t make fortunes) by overthrowing the status quo - not supporting. Does it mean homeopaths stick their head in the sand and utter incredibably moronic statements about vaccinations? Hmmm, could be …

15

Dear Cecil

Thank Gawd someone still has the common sense to call “Homeopathy” what it is, pure Quakery and nonsense.
Read this and weep, oh True Believers.
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/go/btcarrol/skeptic/refuge/sr.html
Typical of any valid criticisms of “Homeopathy”.
Lots of talk of “toxic” drugs and harmless Homeopathic rememdies.
Tell me if they are so diluted how can they have any effect?
As for the “British Family” and other misguided souls believing in that hokum, millions of flys are attracted to dog-doo also.
I personally would not depend on Homeopathy to save my Life in an emergency. Would you?
We should let all the believers keep taking them as it will clean up the gene pool and eliminate gullibilty from the Human Race.

Claw

16

Well, I knew this column would bring the loons out of the woods. (Is there a homeopathic “cure” based on the livers of loons?)

Peter says “It’s popular in Europe, therefore it MUST be good.”

“If even a million people believe a foolish thing, it is STILL a foolsih thing.” I think it was Voltaire who said that. Could someone please verify or correct that?

As far as vaccinations being dangerous, Peter may have the oral polio vaccine in mind, which was developed because - surprise! - kids don’t like hypodermic needles! Unfortunately, a few people do react negatively to the oral form and should’ve gotten the shot instead. However, this does NOT mean the concept of vaccination is flawed, it only means that ONE method in particular is flawed.

A search on Metacrawler for the phrase “oral polio vaccination” turned up 30 different websites, including this one: www.909shot.com/polio396.htm which tells about the link between oral vaccinations and Gulf War Syndrome.

What was that gratuitous crack about a common magician? Are you referring to James Randi?

><DARWIN>
_L___L

17

Clawdagon, I think you mean this link.
http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

18

Thanks Irishman,

It’s cool to see that there are actually rational,sane people on who participate on this list.
Claw

19

You know, I was going to respond to Peter’s silly statement about homeopathy being used for a long time and point to astrology as a piece of BS that has survived a long time, but then I realized that he’d probably believe that as well…

Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.

20

Excellent reply David.

I think homeopathy can best be thought of with respect to the following statement.

A cold or a flu will be cured with homeopathy in approximately 3-4 days. Without any treatment, either illness should clear up in about half a week.

Nuff said :rolleyes: