nogginhead, I agree with your post, and look forward to your assessment of the paper. I may do the same, if I can find the time. It is also premature to report on the death of the placebo effect based on one study. The placebo effect may be best understood in the context of response expectancy theory, which is fairly well established.
That is very debatable. Skeptics, like myself, do in fact think that the only effect from homeopathy is placebo.
I was unable to go to your link for some reason, so I cannot comment on it. But the idea that water has “memory” and can generate some kind of immunization-like response to what it has memory of is quite hard to believe and has tremendous flaws. For example, how do they erase the “memory” of what the water has come into contact with during the last thousand or million years, before they make a new “memory” for the treatment they are creating? What if it had come into contact with stuff that has the opposite characteristics of what they want it to “remember”? Do they create the water from scratch, combining Hydrogen and Oxygen?
The claim in the first paragraph is not suppoerted by any of the first 10 or so abstracts in the link you provided. I quick look showed only one marginally interesting result, about skin relief.
Few of the papers speak to comparing placebo to homeopathy; the one’s I saw so far show no difference, which should be taken as a lack of proof of difference. ( As opposed to a proof of sameness.)
I still can’t get over the people who were trying to sell “healing sugars” to my diabetic aunt. They were selling her a sugar pill. And they were TELLING her that it was a sugar pill: full of “seven essential sugars.” Now, maybe there’s something to that, but when I raised the concept here, some dopers pointed out how ridiculous it probably was. Still, glyconutrients are a huge industry, apparently…
I think prime suspects for people selling placebos are the claimed effects. If it involves curing a condition that often goes away naturally, or symptoms cycling in and out, that’s bad. If it promises diffuse results like “fight off colds, lower your blood pressure, or simply have more energy” that’s bad.
So, if ex-salt water would hydrate me, would highly diluted gatorade dehydrate me? 
When my son was first diagnosed with diabetes at age 3, my pain over the matter was pretty raw. When my wife told me that a customer at the bank at which she worked told her that he was a chiropractor and could treat his diabetes with chiropractology (or whatever the hell you’d call it) I was so furious I wanted to seek him out and beat him until he couldn’t spout such nonsense. My wife, being more level headed and less prone to fits of violence, simply asked him for literature supporting such a claim. He subsequently produced some in the form of a pamphlet, which from the brief references themselves were clearly inadequate. The primary one seemed to be a single case study from 1975. Charlatans come in all shapes and sizes, yet they should all be strung up by the gonads.
All homeopathic solutions should taste like my urine because I pee’d in the ocean once when on a vacation to the beach.
Here’s two abstracts from peer review journals that you might have missed:
Urine has been used therapeutically: Premarin
I don’t doubt that it could turn out that small doses of allergens things could help with allergies (that’s what eating local pollenated honey is all about). But cancer isn’t an allergy.
What happens to a homeopathic solution that cures alzhiemer’s and it forgets what it’s diluted with?
Looking at the responses so far, you thought wrong. What makes you so quick to judge us?
I did say that I only looked at the top ten or so… those are pretty far down the list.
Disclosure: I’m a statistician and methodologist, and I review papers for medical and psychiatric journals. I don’t expect or want anyone to believe me for this reason, but also know that I’m also not just making stuff up.
The latter is from Lancet 1986, p 881. I don’t believe I have access to Lancets that old, and the abstract is not complete enough to evaluate the quality of the study or the accuracy of the abstract. The Lancet is usually a trustworthy journal, though.
The former is from Br J Clin Pharm 1980 p 453. It’s apparently not a blinded study, though. And there’s no suggestion of who the subjects were.
Let’s suppose, though, that the methods of both of the above are perfect. Even so, it doesn’t prove anything. The way statistics works, loosely, is that it gives some sense of how likely the observed results are to have been seen if there was in fact no association. That means you can get a spurious result: in this case, one that supports the non-placebo-ness of homeopathy, even when homeopathy is really a placebo. (Especially) When counter-intuitive or unexpected results appear, you should rely on one or preferably more replications of the work. I saw one paper on the referenced pubmed search that talked about replication but haven’t read it yet.
If anyone wants to start a thread about homeopathy, I’d be willing to comment on the scientific validity of any article the full text of which can be e-mailed to me.
I have a question for the skeptics in here, just on a final note:
Let’s say homeopathy IS just a fancy placebo. Say there are no legitimate medicinal effects whatsoever. If that’s true, the human mind and body are a lot more powerful than we think. The woman from South Africa that I’ve mentioned has never used any anesthetic while at a dentist. Instead, she goes on a regular dosage of the pills a few days before and she doesn’t feel a thing while on the chair, even when she has to get cavities drilled or a root canal. That’s a pretty powerful placebo.
So if the human mind is so easily tricked into these things, why all the scoffing? A person above me told a story of a woman that lived NINE years longer than expected, largely in part, he believed, because her spirit believed alternate medicine worked. Why is that so laughable? Why do you guys laugh and shake your head at a chance of a better standard of living? So you can die after a lifetime of trips to the doctor and medlys of illnesses proud that you lived in firmly in the realm of science and logic, while these fruity alternative medicine hippies continue to live well into their 90s, never having bought over-the-counter drugs and been to the doctor maybe twice? Unless you can willingly force your brain to perform these miracles on itself, what’s so bad about dissolving a sugar pill under your tongue once in awhile if it makes you healthier than you’ve ever been? Is it more the princepal of the thing?
Because actual medicine is even stronger. The sugar pills may have worked as a good anasthetic on that woman, it might not work on everybody. Novacaine does.
Who’s laughing? Most of the posters seem to respect the power of the placebo or mind or whatever you want to call it. I’m all for doing whatever works for you.
The problem is when you eschew scientifically proven treatment for something that isn’t working for you. And when you try to convince someone else that a particular non-scientific remedy is what they should use, instead of what a responsible MD recommends.
My wife’s aunt died of essentially untreated cancer, because she believed some particular brand of quackery would cure her. I’m all in favor of letting her do that. I also favor legal suicide. But if your goal is to live, you’ve got to listen to all the information. Many MDs now are alternative-medicine friendly, and I think that’s progress. But you’ve also got to respect science, or chances are you won’t make it to 90.
You’ve also got to be careful about how results are attributed. A person who exceeds their expected life span can claim it’s due to all the cigarettes they smoke, to frequent spakings, red wine enemas, homeopathic remedies, or to the magical sky fairies. That doesn’t mean it’s true. And it also doesn’t mean it was the power of their minds. The body is a funny place, and tumors can go into remission for reasons that no one understands.
Ah, yeah, there’s that, but actual medicine is often terrible for you as well. Even novacaine has side effects and can cause allergic reactions in some people, and many common medicines, like Tylenol, can build up in your body with ill effects over the long run. Sugar pills are harmless. The point of homeopathy is that it offers a safer, healthier alternative to mainstream medicine. If mainstream medicine was harmless and did only what it was supposed to do, there would be no need for alternatives.
And yeah, I’m not touting that people avoid much-needed cancer surgery in favour of seaweed, but homeopathy can drastically improve their everyday quality of life, whether it’s the chemical or psychological effects of homeopathy.
Some of the supposedly effective dilutions of ‘active ingredients’ are so dilute that there is less than one molecule of ‘active ingredient’ dissolved in the equivalent of all the water in the solar system.
This is plainly absurd, and any ‘active ingredient’ that is there is more likely to be there by chance, and to have the same likelyhood of being present as * any other possible ‘active ingredient’*
so any homeopathic remedy should be as effective against a particular ailment as it is against any other, and to be exactly as effective as plain water.
We are not talking dilute solutions, we are talking complete and utter absence of anything effective.
One molecule in a solar system.
This has not been proven. “The improvement of the everyday quality of life” is a vague statement. How does one measure “quality of everyday life” ?
If 75 out of 100 homeopaths show decrease in measurable cancer, viruses or something. Random chance/placebos showed only 10 out of 100 then we’d be looking into it. But, every study I’ve read shows that random chance and homeopathic cures are about equal in occurance. To have faith in something that relies on anecdotal evidence is to be superstitious. “My aunt got better” does not qualify to get a study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
actual medicine is not often terrible for you. Those risks and side-effects are quite rare and most medicines do the most good for the most people.
They just never got sick in the first place. What about all those hippies that relied on alternative medicine and died anyway? We never hear about them for some reason.
It should not be hard to accept the idea that some people will live for a very long time and not get sick enough to need medical intervention. Of course, those are the ones that make it onto the Today Show. Naturopathy is no more responsible for keeping people alive in their 90’s than conventional medicine is responsible for killing people in their 50’s.
Katie Couric: So what’s your secret?
112 year-old woman: I’m at the high end of the bell curve.
Somehow I knew that this was going to get into a debate about whether homeopathy works or not (which is why I put it in GD, I guess).
I would credit the part I bolded as being a far stronger force than any fungus - I have had three family members hold on to life until a precious relative could arrive, and then very quickly passing away.
Also, situations of people living longer than expected are actually not uncommon - I know of a person (if you don’t mind a round of trading anecdotes), who was actually quite negative, and seemed to be full of hate and despair, living for around twenty years, after being given one year to live. They didn’t use any alternative medicines, they just happened to not die as quickly as the doctors thought they would, based on statistics (after all, doctors aren’t prophets).
Maybe hating the world is the best way to extend your life? Either way, in these stories, the ending is almost always the same, with the cancer taking its toll eventually.
A very interesting point. Why are people seemingly hardwired to have faith in what is illogical, rather than what is tested and proven? I suppose this is a question that’s been asked a thousand times on these boards.