homeopathy

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
201

Welcome to the discussion Notthemama! You write refreshingly and well. Here are a few quick comments.
QUOTE: “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, …”

You are blending empirical evidence and experimental laboratory evidence. There’s loads of empirical evidence for homeopathy (over 200 years worth of anecdotes!), as well as a lot of other alt. med. methods. After all, voo-doo, acupuncture, tea leaves, etc. have been around a long time. What we lack is convincing, reproducible, experimental laboratory evidence for homeopathy. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
QUOTE: “Let’s try to keep an open mind, …”

Fine, just as long as it’s not so open that our brains fall out. It can get a little drafty up there, if too many windows are open! Be careful about believing something that is contrary to known facts and commonly accepted rules of logic. It’s important that one doesn’t drift like a ship without an anchor.
QUOTE: “Look at all the other issues on which modern medical science has flip-flopped, …”

This fact is one of the best pieces of evidence that science is evidence-based. It doesn’t try to force reality to conform to a metaphysical theory, but changes with the evidence. That it doesn’t always happen very quickly is because scientists are also human. We humans don’t always change our minds very quickly, but a good scientist will do so when the evidence is strong enough. A bad scientist won’t and becomes an alt. medder. In fact, many alt. medders consider empirical evidence to be sufficient, not realizing that empiricism, when taken alone, can be extremely deceptive.

Homeopathy hasn’t changed its basic theory yet, a real big red flag. When it begins to do that, then it’ll maybe be a little bit more believable!

Here is something I’ve written about chiropractic, but the principle applies just as well (if not more) to homeopathy:

"On the condition that there is a qualified effort being made to find proof for a claim, the more time that goes by without finding any proof, the less compelling is the claim. The “chiropractic subluxation” has no compelling proof for its existence. In fact, there are some very good reasons to suspect that there never will be found such evidence. The more time that goes by with trying to define subluxations and prove their supposed existence, the heavier the accumulation of weight on the side of the scales, against it ever being proven.

“Since that which is unique about chiropractic is an illusion; What right does chiropractic have to exist? Unique illusions are the legitimate tools of magicians, not of health care professionals.”
QUOTE: “nux vomica (what IS that, anyway?)”

Strychnine. But then, in homeopathic doses it won’t hurt you. “Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It’s completely safe to drink.”-- Peter Dorn
QUOTE: “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? …”

Time does wonders. Experience dictates the prognosis, which can often be too pessimistic. The dog was lucky!
QUOTE: “Willow bark containing aspirin was also used for centuries, so, hey, people, don’t knock something just because it’s “herbal”.”

At least there was “some” willow bark in the potion. Therefore an effect more than placebo. If a homeopathic potion does actually contain some molecules, then there is a potential for effect. But since the most commonly used ones don’t, then there’s nothing left but the expectation of an effect. Fortunately for homeopathic water, it has a selective memory, only remembering its contact with the supposed active agent…:wink:
Sincerely,

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro: http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

202

Curt C:

I’m sorry you seem to have missed the point of my posting, both halves of it. The one half of my point was not that I was saying, “yes, by golly, we should definitely take homeopathy as a discipline seriously”. What I was saying was that we should just keep an open mind and not simply dismiss homeopathy (or astrology, either, for that matter) as “crap”. This is for the very good reason that I personally have seen a lot of strange things in my time kicking around on this planet, and when I’ve seen even the so-called “hard sciences” repeatedly change their minds about things, I tend to be a little more tolerant of the “soft” sciences, the ones that are a little blurred around the edges.

This being a free country, I will of course courteously allow you to hoot derisively as loudly as you want. (But please don’t waste bandwidth and valuable Internet time by hooting something like, “You would class homeopathy as ‘science’?”)

The other half of the point of my posting was the other side of the coin. I was agreeing with you, Curt C–I too believe that homeopathy needs to produce some solid experimental evidence that proves that, as a discipline, it works, the same way that I believe astrology needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Jab1:

When I wondered aloud why homeopathy seems to push everybody’s hot button, it seemed like your answer was saying that everybody’s so angry because they had all friends or relatives who had less than adequate medical care because they involved homeopathy, and possibly some of them died. Is that what you meant to say? And is that in fact why everyone’s so upset?

Also, your statement seems to be based on the assumption that a patient can be treated by a doctor without the patient understanding what’s going on, that a doctor can somehow foist an off-the-wall or non-standard medical treatment on an unsuspecting patient, the patient meekly swallowing the pills or drinking the potion because “the doctor says so”.

Maybe that was true 50 years ago, when the doctor was God, maybe it was true 20 years ago, and maybe it’s still true nowadays for a certain percentage of elderly or, shall we say, “marginally functional” members of society. But in my neck of the woods, Caveat Emptor Rules. “Let the buyer beware”, for medical services as well as microwaves. I don’t know about you, Jab1, but when I or any of my family members goes to a doctor, we make darn sure that we understand what he’s talking about. If necessary, we consult the Merck Manual and a medical dictionary. Sometimes we even bring in an interpreter. I have never in my life taken a pill, or gone into a hospital for “tests”, or even submitted a blood sample, without knowing (a) why, (b) what results could logically be expected, and © how much it was going to cost.

I would be very interested to hear any actual case histories, in the form of, say, malpractice suits (as opposed to mere anecdotes), where a doctor treated a patient with useless homeopathic remedies, without the patient’s consent, and to the patient’s detriment.

And I agree with you completely when you say, “it only means there is still much we do not know. 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.” Absolutely. I am 100% with you on that.

See, we agree! Isn’t that nice?

And, um, the bit about the lab rats and the chicken soup was meant to be kind of a joke, tongue in cheek, you know? Yes, I do know that chicken soup won’t actually cure the virus, OK?

Fyslee:

Say, thanks for the pretty bouquet! Now I’ll send you one.

As I read your commentary, I realized that I have always used the word “empirical” to mean “data that we obtain by standing there and watching something happen”, as opposed to data that we imagined, or concocted, or heard about from somebody else. I have always used it rather interchangeably with “scientific”. After all, data that we obtain by standing there and watching something happen is “scientific”, isn’t it? And one of the places where we most frequently stand there and watch something happen is in a laboratory. However, you have now clarified for me that “empirical” evidence isn’t quite the same thing as “experimental laboratory evidence”, and I thank you for that. “Experimental laboratory evidence” is where you deliberately set out to prove or disprove something. “Empirical evidence” is where you happen to notice something.

So, in Genesis, chapter 30, Jacob noticed empirically that certain spotted and speckled sheep and goats had different mating patterns, and he obtained experimental laboratory evidence by either putting out the peeled branches by the watering troughs, or not putting out the branches. His experiment was so successful that, later on, he would be able to give his brother Esau a small gift of 220 goats and 220 sheep, not to mention 30 camels (“with their young”), 50 head of cattle, and 30 donkeys.

I see that you are Dateline: Denmark. Since you have the Internet, I am not so clueless as to think that you don’t have access to American TV, (“speak-a-da-English?”), but I do wonder if you know what I’m talking about when I speak of the constant barrage of sound bites from pundits on their soap boxes, updating us on the “…But Now We Know” syndrome. In any given morning, on Good Morning America, to take my least favorite example, you will have, in that 2-hour time slot, one expert seated in a comfy chair, giving us a science update; one stand-up journalist, solemnly giving us a science update into a microphone; and one “soft” science update on the kitchen or living room set, frequently involving cooking or toy safety. So that’s 3 updates per day, and if I watch GMA Monday through Friday, that’s a total of 21 updates that I have to mentally file and keep track of. “Oh, okay, now they’re telling us that maybe airbags are NOT going to save the world.” File for future reference…

Do you get that kind of thing?

203

[quote]
Originally posted by Notthemama:
**Jab1:

When I wondered aloud why homeopathy seems to push everybody’s hot button, it seemed like your answer was saying that everybody’s so angry because they had all friends or relatives who had less than adequate medical care because they involved homeopathy, and possibly some of them died. Is that what you meant to say?**/quote] No, I think I meant that we can all imagine homeopathy being practiced even more than it is, perhaps even replacing allopathy in the future if we don’t speak out against it.

I honestly don’t know if this has ever really happened, but I would not be surprised.

You’d be surprised how many people have told me they DID think that. One of them was nmy grandmother. (I’m not Jewish.)

I know where you got your UserName. I used to watch the Disney/Henson TV series, Dinosaurs, too.

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.

204

A good example from ancient history of applied science.

If you’ve checked out my website, you know that I’m American. We do see a lot of American TV here. I wake up to CNN every morning. Then there are all the American films, comedy series (I see Ally McBeal), as well as Oprah, Jerry Springer, etc.

So yes, we get some of it, from the best to the worst! It doesn’t bother me, but many Danes (this is a socialist country) consider it an American conspiracy to brainwash the country. When Danes frequently use the expression “American conditions”, they mean extreme poverty, corruption, oppression, violence, censureship, etc. They have (at least before the Berlin wall fell) considered Russian and Chinese “conditions” to be better. This is a result of socialist propaganda, IOW, focus on and expand on the (little bit of) negative of your ideological enemy and ignore the (great amount of) negative of your friends. Danes have considered reports of repression, political persecution, poverty, ineffectiveness, etc. from Russia and China as American propaganda. That’s changing.

Things are getting better. The government does allow private TV stations now, and travel is also free (if you can afford it after paying between 65-80% of your income in taxes. Sales tax is 25% and non-deductible. Cars cost 2 1/2 - 3 times the cost in other Scandinavian and European countries. Taxes and surcharges for things like water, gas, telephone, etc. are normally 50-70% of the bill!) Double, triple and quadruple taxation are not forbidden. We don’t have an “iron curtain” but an “economic curtain”. Technically Danes are free, but by limiting their economic freedom by overtaxing them, their freedom is limited quite a bit. Most of them just aren’t aware of it. They live comfortably. Few have too much (many with financial success flee the country and live in exile in Spain, England, USA, etc.) and fewer have too little (no matter how much you screw things up by irresponsible behavior, you are almost forced to accept being supported by a welfare system that demoralizes people. Personal responsibility? What’s that? Danes don’t understand cause and effect. It can often cost more to work than to go on welfare.). The only way to support a system like that is with very high taxes and by limiting freedom of choice.

Now I’ll get off my soapbox. After all, after 17 years here, I’m finally going to be able to visit my family in the States this sommer for the first time!

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

205

Has anyone here read “The Natural Mind” by Andrew Weil? He makes the same claim, as part of a discussion about how we might better research just why ‘placebo’ cures do work sometimes for real maladies. I recommend it for anyone interested in the ‘working’ side of pseudo-scientific cures. (More recently he’s written some pop-health series; I read the first book in the series and it makes the extraordinarily controversial claim that if you eat nutritious foods, exercise, relax, and think good thoughts about your health, you’ll be healthier than if you don’t. I would assume that only the latter is truly controversial.)

Jerry

“My Jesus was a crossmaker.”–Warren Zevon

206

Out of curiosity, what would a homeopathic remedy for second-degree burns be? PeterAtGemini mentions one, but I can’t imagine what it would be.

207

First off, at the risk of taking an unpopular stance here, I must say that I have great respect for Tom Bozzuto. For most of this thread, he’s been alone on the receiving end of a lot of debate, both valid and petty, by a lot of folks-- I don’t know how long I would stick with a discussion, were I that outnumbered.
HOWEVER,
I must say that I disagree with his claims. I can accept the notion that homeopathy might work, even the in the abscence of any theory how it works (I don’t mean that stuff about the “memories” or whatever you want to call them. Water is a linear dielectric, which means that it’s molecules can be aligned by electric effects, but that they don’t STAY aligned). Before I accept that it DOES work, however, I’m going to need to see some experimental evidence. Bring on those rats-- make it four per trial, one each on Sudafed, soup, homeopathy, and ordinary water. Preferably, have the four rats for each trial be identical littermates. Repeat this trial unit a hundred, or a thousand times, and let it be performed by multiple double-blinded researchers, with biases on both sides of the issue. Use multiple diagnostics for judging the effectiveness of all remedies. Analyze the results for statistical significance. Then, repeat this entire process for homeopathic remedies for other ailments, comparing them against traditional remedies and controls. In other words, test the matter scientifically. If and only if that is done, and the results unambiguously support the value of homeopathy, will I say that homeopathy works.

“There are only two things that are infinite: The Universe, and human stupidity-- and I’m not sure about the Universe”
–A. Einstein

208

I am appalled at the ignorance and prejudice of Cecil Adams regarding homeopathy. As one of the Cincinnati area study group leaders for the National Center for Homeopathy, I would like the chance to present the facts about the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy.

Regarding Mr. Adams’ disparaging remarks about infinitesimal doses, there is a recognized principle in pharmacology called the biphasic response of drugs, which states that the two phases of a drug’s action are dose-dependent. Rather than a drug simply having increased effects as its dose becomes larger, research has consistently shown that exceedingly small doses of a substance will have the opposite effects of large doses. For instance, it is widely recognized that normal medical doses of atropine block the parasympathetic nerves, causing mucous membranes to dry up, while exceedingly small doses of atropine cause increased secretions to mucous membranes.

This pharmacological principle was concurrently discovered in the 1870s by two separate researchers, Hugo Schulz and Rudolf Arndt. Initially called the Arndt-Schulz law, this principle is still widely recognized, as witnessed by the fact that it is commonly listed in medical dictionaries under the definition of “law.”

Additionally, hormesis is the study of the effect of microdoses of otherwise toxic substances to stimulate growth or healing. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this phenomena and the journal, Health Physics, devoted it’s May 1987 issue to this phenomena. Dr. Shui-Yin Lo, professor at the California Institute of Technology, along with Dr. Benjamin Bonavida, professor and former chair of UCLA’s Department of Microbiology and Immunology, have published significant research on IE crystals which are biologically active in serial dilutions of up to one in ten 13 times. Dr. Lo who followed the traditional homeopathic pharmacological method of diluting and shaking solutions stated, “The homeopaths were definitely onto something. There seems to be something unique in water that undergoes extreme dilution, and we now have the laboratory and photographic (using an electron microscope and an Atomic force microscope) evidence to verify it. Based on our research to date, every dilution beyond the sixth has found IE crystals in them”

The Lancet, a well respected British medical journal published a review of 89 double-blind controlled trials in its September 20, 1997 issue and concluded that homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more effective than placebo. The World Health Organization noted that “Homeopathic treatment seems well suited for use in rural areas where the infrastructure, equipment and drugs needed for conventional medicine cannot be provided.”

On a more personal note, I saw a homeopathic physician for the first time at age 28. Eight months after beginning homeopathic treatment, I had my first normal glucose tolerance test since I was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 19. Also, after years of suffering with severe allergies, I was able to decrease and finally stop my antihistamines. When the elementary school my children attended had an outbreak of chicken pox, my children were back in school, symptom free, after three days of homeopathic treatment. In the 22 years my family (both human and animal) has been using homeopathy, we have never had an adverse reaction or even mild side affect from any homeopathic remedy; and we have had excellent outcomes for both acute and chronic medical problems.

If any of your readers would like more information about homeopathy, they can call the National Center for Homeopathy at 703-548-7790 or on the Internet at homeopathic.org; or the Homeopathic Educational Services at 510-649-0294 or homeopathic.com.

209

“…never had an adverse reaction…”
To what? Water?
Would you mind pointing us to double-blind studies that have been replicated, not worshipped by true-believers like yourself?

Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

210

Oh, goody. Another person who posts without apparently bothering to read the 206 posts BEFORE to see if any of that stuff had been discussed. Well, I guess at least this one didn’t start a brand new thread to do it this time.

I’d post more of a point-by-point rebuttal and questions, but I have a feeling this is another drive-by and I’d never hear from her again. Who knows, maybe she’ll prove me wrong, but I’m not going to waste my time (again) until I see some indication of it.

211

Just when you thoguht it was safe to go back in the linearly dielectric water . . .

212

I would like to take this opportunity to disabuse Shirley Reischman of any notion that Dr. Lo is a professor at Cal Tech (he is a visiting associate) and that he is even a reliable source of information concerning IE and homeopathy. Dr. Lo tried to peddle his IE structure nonsense for the purpose of selling “Laundry Balls” for American Technologies Group, for whom he was director of R&D. When this was shown to be a hoax, he discovered that it is a bit easier to fool homeopaths than settling fraud charges with the state of Oregon. I guess since homeopathy pseudoscience is legal and homeopaths are looking for any sort of validation for their faith–It turns out to be a perfect fit.

You can check out some of this yourself:

American Technologies Group: What are they up to?

Dr. Lo’s Unauthorized Biography (including links to his papers on IE structures

Funny how the CO$ is peripherally involved with Dr. Lo’s work and the fraud that his company committed. That should be a warning sign in and of itself…

Jon

213

Now there’s a solid endorsement–If you have no way to get real medical care, homeopathy will have to do…

214

Cecil on laundry balls:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970725.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970926.html

Jill
(ps - are you saying homeopathic remedies cured your diabetes?

215

Re: Laundry Balls

Wasn’t it shown that the reason that they appeared to work was because there is enough detergent residue on washed clothes to provide a good washing for 2 or 3 cyles? This may be why Cecil found that water worked as well as Tide and, therefore, there is no “dirty little secret”.

BTW, TradeNet is the front for the Co$. Maybe David Harris isn’t a “sap”, but rather a “plant”? Just fun speculation…really!

Jon

216

Anybody want to give any odds on Jo Ann Esterly, Dr. Mitch, and Shirley Reischman all being acquainted with each other? “There’s this message board…”

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

217

I’ll tell you why Homeopathic “doctors” defend their “medication”: After the Southern California Doper “Soiree” last Saturday, Johnny L. A., Highlander, Melin and I strolled around Santa Monica and window-shopped in some stores. One place we visited was The Discovery Channel Store. There next to one of the cash registers were two displays of homeopathic “remedies” for sore throats and colds. (Lemon-flavored lozenges for sore throats, peppermint-flavored for colds. Or maybe it was vice-versa…?)

ONE little box of thirty lozenges was five dollars. We did NOT buy any. Good grief, for that, I could buy a box of Sucrets and a bottle of plain aspirin, and those would actually work.

Sig Alert!

218

“Soiree”

Oops… I’m out of practice. Y’all may have noticed I haven’t been posting as much lately. But I’m baa-aaaack!!

219

This thread is getting too long, which slows down the board. I’m gonna close it. Anyone want to continue discussing homeopathy (there are previous threads about this topic, too), feel free to start a new thread. But be sure to read ALL of this one first so we don’t rehash it all again!
Jill