# homeopathy **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 28, 2000, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335 "2000-02-28T16:17:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/181 "2000-03-19T23:09:00Z")
Tom said: > [@](#): > > Gee Dave: > I was so caught up in having my intelligence, training, and sanity questioned and having been quoted saying some pretty nasty things (that never occurred in my personal e-mail to you)that (even though I looked through the past 2 pages) I’m having a hard time figuring out what exactly your questions were. Then I have to question your reading skills. I asked them _twice_ – once specifically asking if you had answered them. Since you are apparently unable to handle the task, I’ll give you some help. Look up from this message until you get to my message of 03-16-2000 08:15 PM. That one summarized them in neat fashion for you. If you still can’t handle it, then you’re beyond my abilities to help you. Perhaps you took homeopathic reading in school. Incidentally, I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding a personal e-mail to me, unless you are the person who I referred to a couple times here, and you used a different name. > [@](#): > > I have a question totally unrealted to the homeopathy thread that I hope you can answer. In my 24 years in medicine and 2 in graduate training, I have been involved in numerous scientific ‘forums’. My understanding of them is that although scientists may wildly differ in their beliefs or interpretation of data, they treat people presenting opposing views with collegial respect.I have rarely been involved in one where the discussant of a particular topic was personally attacked. Does that somehow make the critiquers more correct? I can’t speak for others, but when people avoid direct questions and act like they are somehow superior, while at the same time attacking anybody who disagrees with _them_ (as you have done – if you dare to accuse me of lying, I will point it out and ask you for an apology). In other words, kind sir, you are a hypocrite of the highest order. You have attacked those who disagree with you, but now have the nerve to whine as if you are the only injured party. Sorry, but that ain’t gonna cut it around here. > [@](#): > > I thought I was leaving too. Something about this discussion thread continues to interest me. Does that make my position more unplausible, too? Nope, but it doesn’t do wonders for your believability rating, which wasn’t too high to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/182 "2000-03-19T23:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by jkeller: > \*\*Dr. Bozzuto > > I’m wondering, if by questioning the veracity of your references (and your interpretation of their findings and significance) as well as the underlying theory of homeopathy, that constitutes a personal attack. Not necessarily you Jon. Yours were some of the ‘nicer’ attacks. 😉 > [@](#): > > The point that I am making here is that studies of homeopathy mean very little without a sound, logical theoretical base from which to work. OK, but just for arguement’s sake, are there not other areas of science where data from research has been found to be statistically siginficant before the firm understanding of the theoretical basis has been discovered? (Think of all the drug trials prior to biochemical assay abilities. A drug can be shown to be effective without knowing how it works-9just pick a few in the PDR and read their ‘mechanism of action’ section)-and I’m not particularly suggesting that this is ideal, perhaps in some situations practical). > [@](#): > > You point out a few areas in “conventional” medicine that aren’t supported by sound clinical trials, but forget to mention that there is a sound logical base for many of those practices, I agree absolutely. I may disagree with you somewhat on the Lancet paper(s). I would be interested in your interpretation of them once you get a chance to read them. My point is that these were rigorous studies, done by a very reputable physician, with siginficant p-values, enough to suggest that the response is not placebo (I will even go as far as to say suggest rather then prove.) As to whether I believe in a Law of Similars, vital force, etc. The article I wrote was intended for a general medical audience without ANY knowledge of homeopathy to explain its history as well as possible basis. I am more interested in seeing, over the next few years, more double-blinded studies, and perhaps a method by which the ultra-low doses may be shown to have biological activity. Until then, we may have to agree to disagree. Tom ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/183 "2000-03-19T23:17:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by David B: Then I have to question your reading skills. If you still can’t handle it, then you’re beyond my abilities to help you. Perhaps you took homeopathic reading in school. [/quote] I see, so this is collegiality? [/QUOTE] I can’t speak for others, but when people avoid direct questions and act like they are somehow superior, while at the same time attacking anybody who disagrees with _them_ (as you have done – if you dare to accuse me of lying, I will point it out and ask you for an apology). In other words, kind sir, you are a hypocrite of the highest order. You have attacked those who disagree with you, but now have the nerve to whine as if you are the only injured party. Sorry, but that ain’t gonna cut it around here. [/quote] [/QUOTE] Nope, but it doesn’t do wonders for your believability rating, which wasn’t too high to begin with.\*\* [/QUOTE] Gee…maybe you should change your name from moderator to agitator! ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/184 "2000-03-20T01:08:00Z")
Good plan – don’t address any of the points I made or answer the questions I asked of you. Instead, just throw in a couple of meaningless remarks. It must be a shame that the people on this message board aren’t stupid enough to fall for this baloney… You can answer those questions any time now. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/185 "2000-03-20T01:39:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by David B: > Of course, water is always in contact with lots of things, so how do you even know what you’re comparing it with? How, exactly, is this tested? Gee, I thought that this would be really simple. If you add a homeopathic remedy to water, and test it against water without the remedy, then (regardless of what else is in the water) the difference in the results relates to the homeopathic remedy. [quote] Which part? That the FDA doesn’t regulate them like drugs, or that they could not stand up to the scrutiny? Doesn’t matter, I guess, **'cus I’m right in both statements. They are not regulated like drugs and they have not stood up to the scrutiny.** I’ll get back to you on this one, David. I’ve been invited to do a presentation to the FDA in April, so I’ll ask them myself. > [@](#): > > Interesting response, especially with the “also.” So you just admitted that homeopathy is nothing more than the placebo effect. Well, it’s good to hear such honesty! You try to “also” say other drugs are as well. Maybe they are, I don’t know. But that has nothing to do with homeopathy and that is the topic of discussion here. Although now that the only defender of homeopathy right now has just admitted its results are due to the placebo effect, I’m not sure what more there is to discuss… I wish your logic were as solid as your play on words. [quote}I had said, in reference to your claim about reputable scientists coming out against standard scientific methods: “Please name these ‘reputable scientists’ who want to overturn the proven methods of science in favor of…what? Magic?” [/quote] I hope this is a rhetorical question. If you expect me to go back through all 20 years of my reading medical literature to name every scientist who might have expressed an opinion that perhaps the way we currently apply testing methods to medicine may need some revision, I have neither the time nor the resources. (I’m SURE you’ll hone in on this one and pick it apart!) > [@](#): > > **Tom said: Do you know that one of the quackwatch docs was prohibited from being an expert witness in a case because he was determined to have no knowledge or training in the field he was criticizing?** > > Name names and case, please. I’m not just going to take your word for it. And have no doubt, I will contact the person you’ve accused and others who are knowledgeable in that area, so don’t try to pull any BS. If you have to know, it was Victor Herbert, who was a few years ago denied expert witness status testifying against some nutritional issues for which the court determined he had no expertise. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/186 "2000-03-20T02:14:00Z")
[quote} from David B: I had said: “Actually, Tom, it is you who is wrong./[quote] See the article linked to above, at Quackwatch, for a number of details about the FDA. Specifically, they do not regulate them as drugs. They do not force them to prove they work (or else they wouldn’t be on any shelves).” That the FDA doesn’t regulate them like drugs, or that they could not stand up to the scrutiny? Doesn’t matter, I guess, 'cus I’m right in both statements. They are not regulated like drugs and they have not stood up to the scrutiny. [/quote] Here is the document by the FDA that list regulation of homeopathic remedies. They are regulated by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of the FDA. **The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively). Section 201(g)(1) of the Act defines the term “drug” to mean articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopeia (USP), the official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), or official National Formulary (NF) or any supplement to them; and articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or the prevention of disease in man or other animals; articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in the above. Homeopathic drugs generally must meet the standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. Section 501(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 351). The criteria specified in Section 503(b) of the Act apply to the determination of prescription status for all drug products, including homeopathic drug products. If the HPUS specifies a distinction between nonprescription (over-the-counter (OTC)) and prescription status of products which is based on strength (e.g., 30x) - and which is more restrictive than Section 503(b) of the Act - the more stringent criteria will apply. Homeopathic products intended solely for self-limiting disease conditions amenable to self-diagnosis (of symptoms) and treatment may be marketed OTC. Homeopathic products offered for conditions not amenable to OTC use must be marketed as prescription products. All firms which manufacture, prepare, propagate, compound, or otherwise process homeopathic drugs must register as drug establishments in conformance with Section 510 of the Act and 21 CFR 207. Further, homeopathic drug products must be listed in conformance with the sections above.** I guess that answers all you questions? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/187 "2000-03-20T08:16:00Z")
Here’s what Quackwatch has to say about the FDA and homeopathic products: [http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html](http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html) "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake "Stephen Barrett, M.D. (Sorry, we can’t post long quotes like that due to possible copyright infringement. Please go to the link to read it. Thanks - Jill Paul Lee, PT Denmark The Quack-Files: [http://www.geocities.com/healthbase](http://www.geocities.com/healthbase) [Note: This message has been edited by JillGat] ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/188 "2000-03-20T14:08:00Z")
[quote] Originally posted by fyslee: \*\*Here’s what Quackwatch has to say about the FDA and homeopathic products: > [@](#): > > This situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. This is what the FDA says about the FDC Act: \*\*The shortcomings of the Food and Drug Act with respect to food and drugs, as well as its failure to deal with medical devices, were major reasons for the passage of the FD&C Act in 1938. _The bill was created by Agriculture Undersecretary Rexford Tugwell;_ introduced in 1933 by Senator Royal Copeland, a physician and former New York City health commissioner; and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The FD&C Act expanded on the framework of the Food and Drug Act and _remedied many of its shortcomings_. Cosmetics and devices became regulated by the FDA. The FDA had to be notified before the marketing of “new” drugs. Standards of identity for most foods were authorized, and nonstandardized foods with two or more ingredients were required to list all ingredients. _The enforcement power of the FDA broadened_ as the number and type of offenses increased and as injunction became an enforcement mechanism. The FDA no longer had to prove that a therapeutic claim was knowingly falsified or fraudulent to stop its marketing. In 1933, a few days after the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt as President of the United States, the chief of the Food and Drug Administration, Walter Campbell, seized an opportunity to discuss the food and drug situation with Rexford Tugwell, a member of the President’s “brain trust,” who had been named Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. The same afternoon Campbell was again called to Tugwell’s office. “Mr. Campbell,” said Tugwell, “since I saw you this morning I have talked with the President. I repeated our conversation to him, and he has authorized a revision of the Food and Drugs Act.” The “Tugwell bill,” introduced in congress a few weeks later, was a legislative disaster. The opposition of industry and advertising interests to this New Deal legislation was total and overwhelming. When the smoke cleared away the Senate sponsor, Royal S. Copeland, M.D., of New York, aided by FDA officials, consumer-minded Congressmen, attorneys, and staff members, began the laborious process of fashioning a bill that could be enacted, yet not surrender essential consumer protection. A bitter 5-year legislative battle began. Again, organized club women provided most of the public support. Trade leaders made positive as well as negative contributions.\*\* Dr. Copeland was an M.D. who ‘happened to practice homeopathy’. Since he was only the sponsor of the bill in the senate, I fail to see how his influence alone was responsible for the’horror of homeopathy’ being unleashed on an unsuspecting FDA. The FDC Act also corrected many of the shortcomings in the previous Drug act of 1906. ---
**Author:** ![fyslee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dec6dc/32.png) [@fyslee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fyslee)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/189 "2000-03-21T16:59:00Z")
Here are some interesting excerpts from a little (75 page), hardback, gem of a book I bought at a yard sale in northern California, back in 1975. The author was amazingly level-headed, and ahead of his time, considering some of the medical practices that were still common at the time. We also have here solved the mystery of who “invented” the expression, “self-limiting diseases”. His observations are still good common sense today. * * * “Brief Expositions of Rational Medicine”: To Which Is Prefixed “The Paradise of Doctors, A Fable.” by Jacob Bigelow, M.D., Late President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, Physician of the Massachusetts General Hospital, etc., Publisher: Boston: Phillips, Sampson and Company, 13 Winter Street. 1858 * * * p. 15, “The Paradise of Doctors” “An old lady, whose shrill voice drew immediate attention, protested against violent measures of all kinds, and moved, as a middle course, that resort should be had to homeopathy. It never did any harm, and was very comforting, especially when well recommended by the physician. It cured her child of the measles in six weeks, and herself of a broken leg in six months, during which time she had two hundred and ninety-five visits, and took more than fifteen hundred globules. She had walked to the meeting on her crutches to exhibit to the assembly the astonishing powers of the Hahnemannic system. Here she was rudely interrupted by a bluff marketer, who somewhat rudely pronounced homeopathy to be a great humbug, since, but a short time before, his child had eaten part of a raw pumpkin, and was seized with convulsions; and the physician who was sent for, instead of taking measures to dislodge the offending cause, took out a little book, and remarking to the by-standers that “like cures like,” proceeded to prescribe the hundred millionth part of another pumpkin. – The next person who rose was a manufacturer, who had calculated that the homeopathic profit on the cost of the raw material was altogether unreasonable. He had himself expended seventy-five dollars in a quarter of a grain of belladonna, so divided as to keep off scarlet fever; but found, after all, that he had not bought enough, for his children had the disease a little worse than any of their neighbors.” * * * pp. 26-27, “Expositions of Rational Medicine” "The methods which, at the present day, are most prevalent in civilized countries, in the treatment of disease, may be denominated the following: 1. The ARTIFICIAL method, which, when carried to excess, is commonly termed heroic, and which consists in reliance on artificial remedies, usually of an active character, in the expectation that they will of themselves remove diseases. 2. The EXPECTANT method. This consists simply in non-interference, leaving the chance of recovery to the powers of nature, uninfluenced by interpositions of art. 3. The HOMEOPATHIC method. This is a counterfeit of the last, and consists in leaving the case to nature, while the patient is amused with nominal and nugatory remedies. 4. The EXCLUSIVE method, which applies one remedy to all diseases, or to a majority of diseases. This head includes hydropathy, also the use of various mineral waters, electrical establishments, etc. Drugs newly introduced, and especially secret medicines, frequently boast this universality of application. 5. The RATIONAL method. This recognizes nature as the great agent in the cure of diseases, and employs art as an auxiliary, to be resorted to when useful or necessary, and avoided when prejudicial." * * * pp. 29-30 “The public, however, expect something more of physicians than the power of distinguishing diseases, and of predicting their issue. They look to them for the relief of their sufferings, and the cure or removal of their complaints. And the vulgar estimate of the powers of medicine is founded on the common acceptation of the name, that medicine is the art of curing diseases. That this is a false definition, is evident from the fact that many diseases are incurable, and that one such disease must at last happen to every living man. A far more just definition would be, that medicine is the art of understanding diseases, and of curing or relieving them when possible. If this definition were accepted, and its truth generally understood by the profession and the public, a weight of superfluous responsibility on one side, and of dissatisfaction on the other, would be lifted from the shoulders of both. It is because physicians allow themselves to profess and vaunt more power over disease than belongs to them, that their occasional short-comings are made a ground of reproach with the community, and of contention among themselves. . .” “. . . certain diseases are ‘self-limited’ (This term was first introduced by the writer in a discourse in 1835, . . )” Here the writer speaks of himself. * * * p. 31 “The great objects which medical practice professes to effect, and which there can be no doubt that it frequently does effect, are the following: 1. The cure of certain diseases. 2. The relief or palliation of all diseases. 3. The safe conduct of the sick. In all these objects it sometimes fails; yet, instances of its success are sufficiently numerous to establish the necessity of the existence of medicine as a profession.” * * * pp. 41-42 "3. “THE HOMEOPATHIC METHOD. – Homeopathy may be defined as a specious mode of doing nothing. While it waits on the natural progress of disease and the restorative tendence of nature on the one hand, or the injurious advance of disease on the other, it supplies the craving for activity, on the part of the patient and his friends, by the formal and regular administration of nominal medicine. Although homeopathy will, at some future time, be classed with historical delusions, . . .” * * * FYI, Paul Lee, PT Denmark The Quack-Files - [http://www.geocities.com/healthbase](http://www.geocities.com/healthbase) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/190 "2000-03-21T20:40:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by fyslee: > > * * * > > pp. 29-30 > > “The public, however, expect something more of physicians than the power of distinguishing diseases, and of predicting their issue. They look to them for the relief of their sufferings, and the cure or removal of their complaints. And the vulgar estimate of the powers of medicine is founded on the common acceptation of the name, that medicine is the art of curing diseases. That this is a false definition, is evident from the fact that many diseases are incurable, and that one such disease must at last happen to every living man. A far more just definition would be, that medicine is the art of understanding diseases, and of curing or relieving them when possible. If this definition were accepted, and its truth generally understood by the profession and the public, a weight of superfluous responsibility on one side, and of dissatisfaction on the other, would be lifted from the shoulders of both. It is because physicians allow themselves to profess and vaunt more power over disease than belongs to them, that their occasional short-comings are made a ground of reproach with the community, and of contention among themselves. . .” > p. 31 > > “The great objects which medical practice professes to effect, and which there can be no doubt that it frequently does effect, are the following: 1. The cure of certain diseases. 2. The relief or palliation of all diseases. 3. The safe conduct of the sick. In all these objects it sometimes fails; yet, instances of its success are sufficiently numerous to establish the necessity of the existence of medicine as a profession.” > > FYI, > > Paul Lee, PT > Denmark Paul: What delightful quotes. 🙂 Tom ---
**Author:** ![Loren\_Pechtel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@Loren\_Pechtel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loren_Pechtel)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/191 "2000-03-22T00:54:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Tom Bozzuto: > Dr. Copeland was an M.D. who ‘happened to practice homeopathy’. Since he was only the sponsor of the bill in the senate, I fail to see how his influence alone was responsible for the’horror of homeopathy’ being unleashed on an unsuspecting FDA. The FDC Act also corrected many of the shortcomings in the previous Drug act of 1906.\*\* ``` It's quite possible for the sponsor of a bill to slip something in that will sneak by others who won't realize what it's really saying. If no one else in the senate was a doctor, it would be no surprise that nobody else caught it. Just look at what happened locally--a couple of California-trained acupuncturists looked at the better conditions (less competition, more favorable insurance rules) here in Nevada and wanted to practice here. The only problem is the board here does it's job a lot more carefully than California does--their training was not deemed adequate to permit them to take the test. What did they try to do? Get the law changed! I saw the changes that were proposed, without knowing the true situation the language looked fine, and even a good idea. There was nothing about it that *APPEARED* to be watering down the law. Had the board (and several O.M.D.'s) informed the legislature of the true effect, it very well might have passed without much comment. ``` ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/192 "2000-03-22T19:27:00Z")
[Salon.com](http://Salon.com) recently published an article on homeopathy. Unfortunately, it’s _pro_, not _con._ [www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/16/homeopathy/index.html](http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/16/homeopathy/index.html) The writer compares it to vaccination, which is absurd, since most homeopaths believe vaccinations are either ineffective or harmful. I’m disappointed. I’m going to think more critically of [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) in the future. My thanks to **fyslee** for bringing this to my attention. * * * When all else fails, ask Cecil. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Bozzuto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Tom\_Bozzuto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Bozzuto)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/193 "2000-03-23T00:19:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by jab1: > \*\*[Salon.com](http://Salon.com) recently published an article on homeopathy. Unfortunately, it’s _pro_, not _con._ So, only the _con_ articles count? > [@](#): > > The writer compares it to vaccination, which is absurd, since most homeopaths believe vaccinations are either ineffective or harmful. I doubt that this statement is true. I, for one, do not believe this. Do you have any homeopathic literature that supports what you accuse? > [@](#): > > I’m disappointed. I bet you are. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/194 "2000-03-23T02:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by PeterAtGemini: > 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. Does this answer your question? If that Salon article had been _against_ homeopathy, wouldn’t _you_ have been disappointed? * * * Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you. ---
**Author:** ![JillGat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9fc29f/32.png) [@JillGat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JillGat)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/195 "2000-03-23T04:48:00Z")
I deleted a few long quotes (both pro and con, so people wouldn’t think I was taking sides) because we have to be kind of careful about possible copyright infringement. Please folks, wherever possible, just post the link and a few lines or paraphrasing of the whole. Editing is really time-consuming. Thanks. Jill ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/196 "2000-03-23T16:56:00Z")
I’ve been lurking for 4 pages now (whew!), and while I don’t feel a need to go find a Kevlar vest before I speak up, still I would like to say something. Golly, Cecil sure hit everybody’s hot button this time! What is it about homeopathy that’s got everybody going home to clean their guns (message board-ically speaking?) None of the other columns have gotten this much action. On the one hand, I think that before we all go rushing forward to embrace homeopathy, we need to have a little more empirical, scientific evidence that it actually works. Take three groups of lab rats, give them all colds in the head, and give one group Sudafed, one group chicken soup, and the third group homeopathic remedies, and see how long it takes before they stop lying around in bed complaining that they can’t find the remote control. Do this experiment many times. Have other people review your results and perform the experiment themselves. Then we’d have some data to work with. (My money is on the chicken soup. Buy stock in Beatrice Foods, not Pfizer.) On the other hand, I can’t helping thinking of people like Charles Lyell, the geologist who in the 19th century had the effrontery to suggest, first of all, that the world was a lot older than 6,000 years, and second, that glaciers 2 miles thick once covered all of Europe. He didn’t have much empirical, scientific evidence for this, so people at the time hooted loudly in derision, the same way that people on the message board are hooting loudly at the suggestion that homeopathy might actually work. Then there was Wegener, the plate tectonics guy (if I may continue with geology), and Alvarez, with his theory that a giant asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago, leaving a layer of iridium world-wide and, incidentally, extinctifying all the dinosaurs. People hooted loudly at both Wegener and Alvarez, for years, decades, even, until somehow, one day we all suddenly realized that children were being taught in schools that the continents definitely drift around like croutons on French onion soup, and that a giant asteroid really did hit the earth 65 million years ago, leaving a layer of iridium worldwide and, incidentally, extinctifying all the dinosaurs. (As an added bonus, they also receive the information that some dinosaurs didn’t die out after all, but survived and changed into birds.) And to branch out into paleontology, James Horner, the man who, if he didn’t actually come up with the idea of hot-blooded dinosaurs, at least was the one with the best-selling book and the highest media profile, had people laughing in his face for years, and if they had had flaming back then, I’m sure he would have been thoroughly flamed, until now, suddenly, children are being taught that some dinosaurs were hot-blooded, and could run fast, like in “Jurassic Park”, not just lumber along like a bus. See my point? Let’s try to keep an open mind, and certainly not descend to personalities on the issue. That way, also, you have deniability. If it suddenly turns out that St. John’s wort cures everything from bad breath to cancer to an ugly blind date, you can say smugly, “Well, I personally have always been a supporter of alternative medicine,” and as long as no one can produce a hard copy of a certain Internet message board from February 2000, you’re safe. Look at all the other issues on which modern medical science has flip-flopped, and not so long ago, either. Caffeine–good for you, bad for you, who knows anymore? Aspirin–causes stomach ulcers, or miracle drug? I call it the “…But Now We Know…” syndrome. Every week there’s some pundit up on his soapbox, getting in his 30-second sound bite. “We used to think that caffeine during pregnancy was an absolute no-no, But Now We Know…” And as long as we’re talking about immunizations, there are now “experts” who will tell you “…But Now We Know…” that some immunizations can have such harmful side effects that you are better off not getting your kid immunized. How are you supposed to make a decision? Look at the whole Sudden Infant Death Syndrome thing (I know it’s not microbiology, but still…) Lay the baby on its back. No, lay the baby on its side. “We used to think that a baby should be put down on its side, But Now We Know that an infant should always be placed on its stomach.” Then, six months later, the great American public is told, “No, lay the baby on its back,” and we’re right back where we started from. Then, to top it all off, now we’re told that “many cases of SIDS may actually have been caused by parental abuse,” i.e. parents killing their infants, and that “there may not actually BE any such thing as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.” Well, in a so-called “scientific” climate like that, I refuse to choose up sides. Flat earth or round earth, what difference does it make? When I have a cold in the head, I’m going to take whatever makes me FEEL better, whether it’s Sudafed or chicken soup or something called, distressingly, nux vomica (what IS that, anyway?) And then there’s the story of my sister’s dog. My sister had this incredibly old, crippled dog, who developed an ulcerous sore on her hindquarters which rapidly turned gangrenous. Basically all the skin on the dog’s hindquarters was rotting and oozing off. The vet said he was sorry but there wasn’t much he could do, other than suggest she try to keep the wound clean. Antibiotics wouldn’t have much effect against such a massive case of gangrene, and there wasn’t enough healthy skin left to pull over the huge open wound. He, along with virtually everyone else, urged her to have the dog put to sleep. She had had many fine adventures with the dog, and she refused. She went looking for alternative medicine. She used homeopathic remedies. She called in an aromatherapist. She had someone come in who lit candles and did chanting. She hired a massage therapist who came in and massaged the dog. She put the dog on the prayer chain (we all obliged her, and probably most of us added a short prayer for her, too). She may have had crystals and magnets, too, I don’t know. And guess what–the dog got better. We all said, “Huh.” The vet said it loudest of all. I think we can discount a placebo effect. So, what did it? The crystals? Prayer? The homeopathic remedies? Would the dog have gotten better without any of it, just keeping the wound clean and lots of TLC? We will never know, but for me, it’s incidents like this that cause me to keep an open mind whenever people tell me they are having shark cartilage injections, or going to Mexico to get apricot pit extract to cure their cancer. Note to whoever it was who reported on arnica for a bruise: people have been using arnica on bruises in folk medicine literally for centuries, so I don’t think the anti-homeopaths should lump it in with those other homeopathic recipes where you’re talking about 1 molecule of whatever per quart of water. Willow bark containing aspirin was also used for centuries, so, hey, people, don’t knock something just because it’s “herbal”. ---
**Author:** ![JillGat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9fc29f/32.png) [@JillGat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JillGat)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/197 "2000-03-23T19:11:00Z")
[[None of the other columns have gotten this much action.]] Notthemama You must have missed “Genetically Engineered Seeds.” ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/198 "2000-03-23T21:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Notthemama wrote: > On the other hand, I can’t helping thinking of people like Charles Lyell, the geologist who in the 19th century had the effrontery to suggest, first of all, that the world was a lot older than 6,000 years, and second, that glaciers 2 miles thick once covered all of Europe. He didn’t have much empirical, scientific evidence for this, so people at the time hooted loudly in derision, the same way that people on the message board are hooting loudly at the suggestion that homeopathy might actually work. But he at least had some evidence, and although it went against the mainstream, it didn’t violate basic logic and well-understood laws of physics. If you’re going to come in and try to convert the mainstream to your point of view, then you need to have either empirical data that’s halfway believable, or if you don’t have that, some plausible mechanism by which your pet hypothesis might work. Homeopathy has neither. The suggested mechanism is not only implausible, but violates simple logic. How can a solution remember the effects of a few molecules while not remembering all the other stuff it’s been in contact with? Even with an implausible mechanism such as this, it still might be taken seriously if there were _any_ credible empirical evidence. But there isn’t! So what does it have going for it? The fact that some people believe in it? That’s it! I’ll continue hooting loudly in derision, thank you. Actually, I think I’ve been pretty polite, but this crap belongs in the same bucket as astrology. Are you suggesting we take astrology seriously too? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/199 "2000-03-23T21:06:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Notthemama wrote: > On the other hand, I can’t helping thinking of people like Charles Lyell, the geologist who in the 19th century had the effrontery to suggest, first of all, that the world was a lot older than 6,000 years, and second, that glaciers 2 miles thick once covered all of Europe. He didn’t have much empirical, scientific evidence for this, so people at the time hooted loudly in derision, the same way that people on the message board are hooting loudly at the suggestion that homeopathy might actually work. But he at least had some evidence, and although it went against the mainstream, it didn’t violate basic logic and well-understood laws of physics. If you’re going to come in and try to convert the mainstream to your point of view, then you need to have either empirical data that’s halfway believable, or if you don’t have that, some plausible mechanism by which your pet hypothesis might work. Homeopathy has neither. The suggested mechanism is not only implausible, but violates simple logic. How can a solution remember the effects of a few molecules while not remembering all the other stuff it’s been in contact with? Even with an implausible mechanism such as this, it still might be taken seriously if there were _any_ credible empirical evidence. But there isn’t! So what does it have going for it? The fact that some people believe in it? That’s it! I’ll continue hooting loudly in derision, thank you. Actually, I think I’ve been pretty polite, but this crap belongs in the same bucket as astrology. Are you suggesting we take astrology seriously too? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335/200 "2000-03-24T00:42:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Notthemama: > **What is it about homeopathy that’s got everybody going home to clean their guns (message board-ically speaking?)** How would you feel if you had gotten gravely ill and found out that the doctor had “treated” you with methods that don’t work _at all_. Or that one of your loved ones had died of a disease that was pefectly curable allopathically, but your doctor had elected to treat you homeopathically because he did not trust the “evil” FDA and the pharmaceutical industry? Pretty angry, I bet. > [@](#): > > **(My money is on the chicken soup.)** Not mine. Chicken soup may relieve the symptoms, but it does nothing to destroy the virus(es) that caused your (or your lab rats’) cold. Colds can’t be cured because there are so many viruses that cause it. And we don’t know how to cure most virus-caused illnesses anyway. (Cecil handled this topic just last month: [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000204.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000204.html) ) > [@](#): > > **Would the dog have gotten better without any of it, just keeping the wound clean and lots of TLC?** Sure sounds like it to me. If I were to get gravely ill, and the doctor had tried and failed with every known allopathic method there is, I’d say, “Thanks, Doc. You did your best,” and I’d hope for the best. If I get better anyway, it only means there is still much we do not know. You gave many examples of this yourself. Alvarez and Horner, _et al,_ were shown to be right because evidence was found backing up their theories and hypothesies. Homeopathy, at present, has nothing solid backing it up. It’s been said before on this thread: If homeopathy works the way its believers say it does, then medicine isn’t the only thing we’ve gotten totally wrong. Chemistry and physics would be on the list as well. * * * Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeopathy/1335.md?page=11)