Homeopathy is a con job???

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

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]

2

[[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

3

[[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

4

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

5

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.

6

> 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.

7

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

8

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?

9

I pronounce it homey-oh-pathetic.

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson

10

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

11

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.

12

[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.

13

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

14

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.

15

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.

16

[[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

17

[[ 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

18

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…

19

CKDextHavn asks:

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

20

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.