Homeopathy

Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

Hi Tesla,Now that this thread is in the [forum=-11] forum, the stipulation for constructive discussion described in the Forum Guidelines means that at least a slight acquaintance with the underlying principles of homeopathy is a prerequisite for this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

apologies. i had misinterpreted "homeopathy"i believe that the water molecules should be scrutinized and all contaminants of the water isolated to know the truth.i don't believe that any homeopathic remedy would be truly any more effective than water if the concentration was so small, unless the "tiny amount" of the leftover medicine was a potent enough dose to work with the genetic biology of a human being.it may be, that even with the dilution, there is enough actually left in the water to maintain a effective dose, which , if it sat between the waters atoms would find the path through the blood quicker than a concentrated dose of the same amount, without being solved, in which the lack of water to absorb the medicine, could cause great waste, and only minimally used by the body anyways.i will withdraw from further comment, and again apologize for my initial ignorance. side note: a cup of warm water or coffee can be full to the brim, where it would appear than adding any more of anything would cause it to overflow, but sugar, being soluble, slips between the water molecules and can be added to an extent before true overflow of capacity.Edited by tesla, : side note.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

tesla writes:

quote:

---

side note: a cup of warm water or coffee can be full to the brim, where it would appear than adding any more of anything would cause it to overflow, but sugar, being soluble, slips between the water molecules and can be added to an extent before true overflow of capacity.

---

Let's see if you can do some of your own homework.Do you know what Avogadro's number is? It is the number of molecules of a substance required to have the same number in grams as its atomic weight. That is, since molecular oxygen has a molecular weight of about 16. Then if you have 16 grams of molecular oxygen, you know that you have Avogadro's number-worth of oxygen molecules.It is about 6.022e23.Now, if you do a dilution of 10^-30, how many molecules do you think are going to be left if you only started with 10²³ of them to begin with?You do know how to multiply exponentials, yes?The idea of "between the water molecules" is irrelevant. That's the entire point behind dissolving in the first place. Let's not assume chemists are incapable of understanding the most basic aspects of their profession.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

i meant no offense. if water has a tiny amount of something in it, that could not have any usable medicinal effect, but the water by study is having an effect, its worth finding out why. i was just throwing what i could reason of it in case it might aid in understanding the truth.if what I've said is irrelevant, just dismiss it like you just did. i will withdraw from further comment.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The following site simply has to be seen to be believed. It is called "Fair Deal Homoeopathy". Here is a typical extract; and here is the main link.
I'm still not sure if this is for real or just some kind of elaborate joke. Whichever, it's certainly very funny.Edited by Granny Magda, : typo

---

Mutate and Survive

I like their slogan:

quote:

---

Nothing acts as well as FairDeal Homopathy

---

Moose

Is it science? No, not the way science is defined today. Homeopathy is energy medicine. No one ought to dispute that you can buy a homeopathic remedy that doesn't contain a single molecule of the diluted substance, that is simply a fact. The underlying assumption is what should be in question -- that in order to be effective, the remedy must have some degree of the original substance left in it. It does not. And again, you can argue "scientifically" til the cows come home that homeopathy is bunk, that it shouldn't work. And yet it does. There are even homeopathic NHS hospitals here in the UK; the government realises that it works.What we should be discussing is not whether all these people are deluded, but what is going on here and how homeopathy works. Surely it's a topic worthy of more investigation, as are many things that are thrown out as "crank" notions. Me, I like being a crank.

Where is your evidence that it works?

So its only as scientific as ID and creationism then, you are thinking of subscribing to the Michael Behe school of science perhaps? Sure, but it depends if you only want it to be as effective as the placebo effect or to have an additional effect. A pretty massive claim and one you failed to substantiate in some pretty lengthy threads. Or did you only mean it works as well as sugar pills and injections of saline? But some of these were founded almost 2 centuries ago. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital was founded in 1849. Do you not think that medicine has progressed in 150 years, well perhaps not since homeopathic medicine is still firmly stuck in the scientific milieu of its foundation with some quantum technobabble (energy medicine? Seriously?) crudely grafted on to try and justify it.Its early initial acceptance has definitely helped homoeopathy hang on in the face of the evidence. I wonder if the homoeopathic principles had been formulated nowadays they would ever have risen above the noise of the other further out alternative 'therapies' like therapeutic touch, laetrile or scientological 'assists'. The fact that some people in government believe something is absolutely no guarantee of its truth or value. You still need to show that it does work, and there have been 200 years for that to happen, surely enough time for a real effect to be widely recognised scientifically? It has been investigated, the initial hypothesis was not necessarily 'crank', its foundations may have been tenuous but it was certainly testable. It has been investigated for over 200 years, and the evidence still fails to convince most people in the field. Evidently, I prefer being cranky.TTFN,WK

tesla responds to me:

quote:

---

if water has a tiny amount of something in it, that could not have any usable medicinal effect, but the water by study is having an effect, its worth finding out why.

---

Then how do you get "purified water" in the first place? If water "remembers" what was once dissolved in it, how can one possibly get water that doesn't have some sort of memory? The very justification of the process of homeopathy precludes it from ever having any effect because it will always have an effect of some sort, quite possibly counter and opposite to the one you are trying to achieve.And since there has never been any observed effect, why are we bothering to try and find the "why" of something that doesn't exist?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

LindaLou writes:

quote:

---

Homeopathy is energy medicine.

---

But it is self-contradictory. If you've diluted the substance so much that not one molecule of the substance remains and yet there is some sort of effect because the water is somehow "remembering" what was once dissolved in it, then how can one possibly get "pure water" to dilute the original substance in the first place? All water would be overwhelmed with contaminated "energy" from all the previous solutes that had ever been dissolved within it previously.

quote:

---

And yet it does.

---

No, it doesn't.There has never been an actual study showing effectiveness of homeopathy. In fact, the exact opposite is what is seen: Homeopathy does nothing:Effect of homeopathy on analgesic intake following knee ligament reconstruction: a phase III monocentre randomized placebo controlled study.Paris A, Gonnet N, Chaussard C, Belon P, Rocourt F, Saragaglia D, Cracowski JL.
Inserm, CIC003, CHU Grenoble, Grenoble F-38043, Grenoble, France. The effect of adding homeopathic treatment to rehabilitation on muscle tone of children with spastic cerebral palsy.Sajedi F, Alizad V, Alaeddini F, Fatemi R, Mazaherinezhad A.
Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Welfare & Rehabilitation, Koodakyar Street, Daneshjoo Building, Evin 1985713834 Tehran, Iran. The effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxine on highland frogs: influence of electromagnetic fieldsS. Weber, P.C. Endler, S.U. Welles, E. Suanjak-Traidl, W. Scherer-Pongratz, M. Frass, H. Spranger, G. Peithner and H. Lothaller
Interuniversity College Graz/Castle of Seggau, Austria
Peithner Inc., Vienna, Austria
University of Graz, Austria
Received 13 December 2006; revised 14 November 2007; accepted 14 November 2007. Available online 11 January 2008. Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder.Coulter MK, Dean ME.University of York, Hull York Medical School, Second Floor, Hull York Medical School, Heslington, York, UK, YO10 5DD. mkc500@york.ac.uk So where are these papers that show an effect?

quote:

---

Surely it's a topic worthy of more investigation

---

How does one investigate that which does not exist?

quote:

---

Me, I like being a crank.

---

And that doesn't tell you something?I seem to recall the last time this was brought up that it was suggested that you respond to these flights of fancy because you get psychological satisfaction out of it. You dismissed such musings previously, but now it appears you are agreeing that it is true.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ah, I missed this. You guys are easy to wind up LOL. Not that this is what I'm trying to do. But my take on most things usually guarantees floods of posts here from people. That's why I don't come here unless I've got some time on my hands.If you're trying to win a debate with me? It's a non-starter. I've already said that homeopathy, like other topics I've discussed here, does not fit with the definition of science that many here hold. That isn't to say that it can't be investigated by science. But science first has to accept that something exists to investigate, and some people seem to think that anything which does not fit the materialistic reductionist paradigm is delusional and therefore unfit for study.There are studies on homeopathy which are negative. There are studies on vitamins which are negative. Most scientists don't investigate the paranormal in the first place because they don't accept that it exists -- or they know what will happen to their reputations if they try. Anyone with a closed mind, anyone from a pharmaceutical company who wants to eliminate some competition, etc etc can produce a negative study. What about all the people who attest that these things exist? Logically you can write them all off as being delusional, mistaken, victims of the placebo effect. Maybe this applies to some but I think it's insulting to humanity in general to lump them all in this category and tell them that they are wrong, every last person.Science needs to establish that a positive effect from homeopathy exists, like Rupert Sheldrake is doing for telepathy, dogs who know their ownders are coming come, and the sense of being stared at. Then science needs to investigate how it works.BTW, no one is sure how homeopathy does work, though there are plenty of ideas. This website talks a little about how water can be influenced by thought. I've read Dr. Emoto's book. He doesn't talk specifically about homeopathy, but he has been investigating properties of water. You'll probably think this this is total lunacy, but it's an enjoyable read.

Several people here have described and linked the results of several scientific studies, so let's dispense with the "science ignores what it doesn't believe in" arrow from the crackpot's standard quiver, shall we? And anyone whose mind is already made up regardless of the evidence can ignore any study they want to. What about all the people who attest that bigfoot, Nessie, engrams, or UFOs really exist? Or those who believe in tarot, phrenology, palmistry or kinoki foot pads? The fact that people believe it is hardly proof that it's legitimate. So instead you lump together all the scientists who have tested homeopathic claims and all the rational people who have rejected homeopathic claims and tell us that we are wrong, every last person. What's the difference? To me, it's more insulting to say to those who have systematically investigated it that they were fools in doing so than to suggest that those who haven't systematically investigated it are fools for not doing so.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi Linda,
You say;

quote:

---

Logically you can write them all off as being delusional, mistaken, victims of the placebo effect. Maybe this applies to some but I think it's insulting to humanity in general to lump them all in this category and tell them that they are wrong, every last person.

---

But is it not just as condescending, more so even, to dismiss the large numbers of clinical trials that basically prove homoeopathy to be bunk? There are quite a lot.

quote:

---

But science first has to accept that something exists to investigate

---

This is simply not true. Just look at the current effort by physicists to detect the Higgs Boson. It has never been observed, so physicists are searching for it, despite the fact that they cannot know for certain that it really exists for them to find. So I hope you will agree that the above statement is false.

quote:

---

and some people seem to think that anything which does not fit the materialistic reductionist paradigm is delusional and therefore unfit for study.

​

There are studies on homoeopathy which are negative.

---

I hope you realise that these two statements are contradictory.

quote:

---

There are studies on vitamins which are negative.

---

Negative for what exactly? Providing essential nutrition or curing cancer?

quote:

---

Anyone with a closed mind, anyone from a pharmaceutical company who wants to eliminate some competition, etc etc can produce a negative study. What about all the people who attest that these things exist?

---

Ah, I see, it's a conspiracy by evil big pharma. Seriously, here is an example of how reliable the people who say that this exists really are. The folowing is from an analysis published in the British Medical Journal in 2001. The whole thing can be found here. {Emphasis mine}
That is pretty damning stuff. Homoeopathic journals are printing flawed, self-congratulatory trials without proper scrutiny. Rhain has already provided us with some examples of what happens when homoeopathy is tested by non-enthusiasts, but (no disrespect Rrhain) they were just three studies right? Maybe they were wrong or biased.
Maybe.
So lets take a look at a rather more rigorous way of examining data, the meta-analysis. Just for clarity, this is where a large number of studies are analysed, their statistical differences are ironed out, so that like can be properly compared with like, and the end result is taken from all of this data. These are very powerful tools. If homoeopathy were more than just a placebo effect, they would detect it. So let's take a look; Both of these reports can be found on Pubmed, here and here, respectively.
That isn't very convincing. The second one looks a bit better, but given the claims made by CAM practitioners, I'm still not impressed. The lack of effectiveness demonstrated by such analyses, combined with the fact that there is no conceivable mechanism for homoeopathy to work (beyond guff like "energy medicine", where "energy" is a synonym for "magic") can only lead one to believe that homoeopathy just doesn't work.
It's no use just saying "But I know it works." because your experiences are subject to all kinds of bias. One might use the same logic to prove the healing power of prayer.
I agree that all that really matters is whether or not it works, not how it works. But the truth is that it simply doesn't work.
PS - Didn't Dr Emoto fight the Fantastic Four in issue #16?

---

Mutate and Survive