# Study claims homeopathy success -- now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 19, 2004, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633 "2004-12-19T09:01:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/61 "2004-12-22T19:41:02Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Don’t ask me, if you want answers to this go to an alternative medicine forum. Sorry, I misunderstood that you were only supplying a “recipe” and didn’t necessarily hold any stock in the explanation. I’ve never heard any homeopathic medicine proponents mention anything about lether-bound bibles. Can you give a cite or two where folks are doing so? ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/62 "2004-12-22T19:42:27Z")
\>Napier, Hahnemann University hasn’t been in the homeopathy business for a long time. Certainly not. Hell, they have real doctors, electricity, telephones, pretty much the works. I mean to point out that homeopathy has acquired some veneer of legitimacy through its long history and its having been more integrated with the mainstream at other times. I see homeopathy as somewhere towards the disreputable end of a spectrum that also includes chiropractic, osteopathy, and regular medical practice at various places closer to the “nice” end. And I get allergy desensitization shots knowing full well that many experts suspect they work by the placebo effect. Jeez, there was even a note in Scientific American a few years ago pointing out that there is little experimental evidence to show that chemotherapy is helpful in fighting cancer. So - it’s messy and hard to tell what’s for real, though homeopathy sounds wacky enough to dismiss pretty early on. Though perhaps I should try to make the same claim regarding bloodletting’s legitimacy and “The Lancet”… ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/63 "2004-12-22T22:21:04Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Sorry, I misunderstood that you were only supplying a “recipe” and didn’t necessarily hold any stock in the explanation. I’ve never heard any homeopathic medicine proponents mention anything about lether-bound bibles. Can you give a cite or two where folks are doing so? Here’s a few : [one](http://bbcity.co.uk/user/quackblog/2004-07-04) Samuel Hahnemann, patron saint and prophet of homeopathy suggested ten forceful taps of the glass vial on a leather bound Bible. I’m surprised that the homeopaths aren’t arguing over which translation to use. The decision between New International and King James version must be the key to this mystical phenomenon. [two](http://www.explorepub.com/articles/shelton_11_6.html) "HOWEVER, in between each serial dilution, in order for the dilution to be truly considered Homeopathic, it has to be VIGOROUSLY SHAKEN against either a leather book (Hahneman used his Bible) or the palm of the hand. " [three](http://www.ehealingtree.com/activecolumns/homeopathy2.htm) There is a story that Hahnemann was holding a test tube of a diluted substance in his hand and was so frustrated at this point that he began to hit it against a leather-bound Bible and discovered that… [four](http://www.watchman.org/na/homeopth.htm) This is stopped up and shaken vigorously against a rubber or leather pad, this method being known as succussion. Hence the first centesimal. ---
**Author:** ![Grimpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/82dd89/32.png) [@Grimpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grimpen)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/64 "2004-12-22T23:54:59Z")
I’m not noticeably interested in homeopathy, but it seems to me that the original post implied a question I find more interesting. What guidelines would be helpful in evaluating evidence in a field where you’ve got little background information? Nobody’s well-grounded in everything. People quite knowledgeable in their own field can make ludicrous and public blunders when they speak outside that area; and, on the other hand, people who are indeed knowledgeable in the area under consideration can be altogether incoherent (or, worse, alienating) when they speak to the general public. And yet, prudent citizens have some responsibility to at least try to come to informed conclusions regarding rather a large range of topics. So: let’s say that for some reason I feel the need to come to a tentative conclusion regarding homeopathic medicine. (Maybe my insurance company has lately decided to pay for it, and in consequence my premiums go up. Or make up your own reason.) But I haven’t got any competent background in medicine. I don’t even know what journals to look for. I could certainly use Google; and get lots of information. Some of it even true. The question I find interesting is: what sorting process might I use to filter through publically available evidence? Some criteria have been proposed in the discussion: for example, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (A reasonable argument, I think; on the premise that an “extraordinary claim” would be one which can’t be true unless rather a lot of what else we think we know is false. Such a claim is up against extensive prior research, and probably large heaps of evidence.) More ad hoc criteria have also been proposed: specific journal articles, for example. (Highly useful: but the question of interest to me is, as a prudent citizen, how would I go about finding such a list of articles; and how would I gauge the confidence with which I can trust that list? ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/65 "2004-12-23T01:43:54Z")
I was not arguing that the scientific communitiy shouldn’t be _skeptical_ of homeopathy. Rather, it was my assertion that the concept shouldn’t be dismissed _simply_ because the \*mechanism \* cannot be understood at this time. There is often an “air” of elitism and superiority to scientific criticism that I detest. There have been a significant number of double blind studies and at least a couple of hypotheses about possible mechanisms to explain how homeopathy _might_ work (one involves crystals in water that form when the water is shaken with a substance, and that these crystals reflect certain properties of the substance and replicate with successive dilution). Being able to explain _how_ something occurs has never been an a priori requirement of the scientific method so far as I am aware. Had I lived in the early 1700’s and witnessed so called “ball lighting” it is likely that I would have been dismissed (or scorned or ignored) because we didn’t understand the concept of plasma physics. It is not unreasonable to believe that there are still vast areas of physics that we haven’t yet started to grasp let alone quantitatively analyize. Now I believe that there is roughly a 99% chance that homeopathy is not objectively valid. However, I don’t “scoff” at the concept of testing the theory. Here’s what I say to homeopathy proponents instead: " If you want to establish the validity of your treatments then you must demonstrate them in _large scale_ randomized, double blind studies done by independent testing firms." I don’t dismiss the treatment, but instead demand significant evidence that it is effective. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/66 "2004-12-23T01:48:37Z")
Also, I forgot to add that no one has yet explained the _mechanism_ by which the so called _placebo effect_ is able to exert it’s powerful influence upon such a wide variety of different body systems, _and yet_ few question but that it exists. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/67 "2004-12-23T01:53:25Z")
Roland, compare and contrast your last post with the first paragraph of your post just before that. And consider that the scientific community doesn’t doubt for a moment that the placebo effect occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/68 "2004-12-23T12:33:49Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > Being able to explain how something occurs has never been an a priori requirement of the scientific method so far as I am aware. But the problem with homeopathy has always been that it fails to even demonstrate that it does indeed work. Until it can do this, who really cares _how_ it _might_ work? All the possible mechanisms are just fanciful explanations supporting something that has not yet been even shown to exist. For homeopathy to work the sciences of physics, chemistry and medicine must first be turned upside down and hundreds of years of knowledge re-evaluated. What it claims is so totally at odds with all known science that there is no other way for it to be acceptable. No surprise then that a mountain of solid evidence is asked for. And homeopathy consistantly fails to produce it. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/69 "2004-12-23T16:30:58Z")
Everybody forgets the good points of homeopathy, so let’s review them: -Homeopathic drugs have NO side effects. Unlike VIOXX, you don’t get a hear attack from a 10-jillion times diluted dose of spider venom -Homeopathic drugs are safe-you cannot overdose on distilled water -Homeopathic drugs are pretty cheap-compare “Nux Vomita” with n VIAGRA, for example -Homeopathic drugs can be taken with or without food-no stomach irritation! Now, lets discuss thisina reasonable light. Assuming that most illnesses are self-limiting, (and the placebo effect is real), one can assume that a good percentage of people who take homeopathic drugs will have good results (i.e. they 'get better").Of course, some will get worse, and some will die as a result of homeopathic therapy…but heck, allopathis thereapy also kills some people! Again, I repeat the question: Have any homeopathis doctors been sued for malpractce? ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/70 "2004-12-23T17:38:43Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > -Homeopathic drugs are pretty cheap-compare “Nux Vomita” with VIAGRA, for example Wrong! They are _very_ expensive, considering they contain **no active ingredients!** If you think paying $500 a gallon for distilled water is cheap, I have a bridge I can offer you for a mere $10,000. > [@](#): > > Again, I repeat the question: Have any homeopathic doctors been sued for malpractce? If it weren’t for the fact that congress critters like Orrin Hatch were bribed by the billion-dollar dietary supplement industry to exempt them from laws covering real drugs (that require them to be shown both safe _and_ effective), they could all be sued, or charged criminally, for fraud and false advertising. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/71 "2004-12-24T01:53:50Z")
It seems that I have failed to make a simple point clear. All I am saying is that observations, data or even a hypothesis (in this case the hypothesis would be that serial dilution of certain subtances can produce therapeutic benefits) shouldn’t be dismissed simply because we don’t understand the mechanism. There have been a certain number of published studies that seem to show that it has benefits. We should focus on the data (which may very well be flawed) rather than the mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/72 "2004-12-24T03:58:08Z")
Roland, Your point is valid. I am evidenciary based. Show me convincing evidence that something works and I’ll believe it works, whether I understand why it works or not. I do not know why acupuncture works for the things it has been shown effective for, and I doubt it really has to do with flow of chi, but I believe that it does. Some good stories turned out to be false too - in med school theophylline was used as an example of a drug that worked by way of a phophodiesterase cascade on airway muscles. It fit all the physiology that we knew. It just wasn’t true - its effects were more on the CNS and directly on the diaphragm the on the airways. Of course it is easier to believe that something works when it makes sense that it would. That’s just human nature. But you are right that it isn’t the best science. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/73 "2004-12-24T04:20:44Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > There have been a certain number of published studies that seem to show that it has benefits. Apparently not. From the [Skeptic’s Dictionary](http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html): > [@](#): > > There have been several reviews of various studies of the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments and not one of these reviews concludes that there is good evidence for any homeopathic remedy (HR) being effective. Homeopaths have had over 200 years to demonstrate their wares and have failed to do so. **Sure, there are single studies that have found statistically significant differences between groups treated with an HR and control groups, but none of these have been replicated or they have been marred by methodological faults.** Two hundred years and we’re still waiting for proof! > … > A review of the reviews of homeopathic studies has been done by Terence Hines (2003: 360-362). He reviewed Taylor et al. (2000), Wagner (1997), Sampson and London (1995), Kleijen, Knipschild, and ter Riet (1991), and Hill and Doyon (1990). More than one hundred studies have failed to come to any definitive positive conclusions about homeopathic potions. Ramey (2000) notes that > > Homeopathy has been the subject of at least 12 scientific reviews, including meta-analytic studies, published since the mid-1980s…[And] the findings are remarkably consistent:…homeopathic “remedies” are not effective. (Emphasis mine.) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633/74 "2004-12-24T05:01:42Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > All I am saying is that observations, data or even a hypothesis (in this case the hypothesis would be that serial dilution of certain subtances can produce therapeutic benefits) shouldn’t be dismissed simply because we don’t understand the mechanism. Indeed. But this is a problem that seems to be more talked about than real. And by talking this problem up, you tend to get lumped with those homeopaths who like to talk this problem up so they can pretend they are not getting a fair hearing from the scientific community, when the reality is they are getting as fair a hearing as the evidence they are able to produce entitles them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/study-claims-homeopathy-success-now-what/280633.md?page=3)