Homeopathy for politicians(darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com)
darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com
Homeopathy for politicians
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/06/homeopathy.html
75 comments
Another thing to look for: I believe homeopathic remedies are not regulated the same way by the FDA as conventional drugs, so some medicines will even claim to be homeopathic when they "aren't" purely for regulatory (and possibly marketing) purposes. I think Cold-Eeze zinc lozenges fall into that category. There is nothing specifically homeopathic about them, but they say homeopathic on the label.
Yes, it is diluted enough (if it is a homeopathy medicine) that it won't harm you even if it is incorrectly selected remedy.
Selecting the correct medicine for your allergy (or any other problem) is much more difficult in homeopathy. You need to take into account many factors. So selling off-the-shelf homeopathy medicines is probably going to make some money for the manufacturer but not cure you (from the point of view of a homeopath of course)
Selecting the correct medicine for your allergy (or any other problem) is much more difficult in homeopathy. You need to take into account many factors. So selling off-the-shelf homeopathy medicines is probably going to make some money for the manufacturer but not cure you (from the point of view of a homeopath of course)
Why should I trust someone selling me magic water, to actually make magic water correctly? I'd have to doubt either their morals or their grasp of scientific principles, if not both. Does some external 3rd party like the FDA actually test these things to ensure that they only contain (at most) ineffectual doses of whatever they claim to contain?
> ...that it won't harm you...
In fact, it won't have any effect on you at all!
(I kid. Sort of.)
In fact, it won't have any effect on you at all!
(I kid. Sort of.)
I basically agree with this, but I can’t help thinking it would be stronger if it were softer in places.
For example, I couldn’t say that “for homeopathy to be effective, it would have to work in violation of the principles of biology, chemistry, and physics” actually means. Surely it would be just as damning and clearer to say that it can’t beat a placebo in well-designed tests.
Likewise, “Its devotees don’t concern themselves with evidence” is awfully broad. I think some of them do, they just aren’t very good at it. There’s no need to call people stupid when you can show they believe something false.
Quibbles, really. I look forward to seeing more things like this.
For example, I couldn’t say that “for homeopathy to be effective, it would have to work in violation of the principles of biology, chemistry, and physics” actually means. Surely it would be just as damning and clearer to say that it can’t beat a placebo in well-designed tests.
Likewise, “Its devotees don’t concern themselves with evidence” is awfully broad. I think some of them do, they just aren’t very good at it. There’s no need to call people stupid when you can show they believe something false.
Quibbles, really. I look forward to seeing more things like this.
The first example wouldn't be the same. There's a big difference between it being a theoretical impossibility, and something that sounds like we just haven't tested it enough.
Proponents of homeopathy like to confuse the issue by citing some of their own badly done studies. Explaining to the layman that proving the efficacy of homeopathy would earn you a Nobel Price in physics helps to bring some context to that.
Proponents of homeopathy like to confuse the issue by citing some of their own badly done studies. Explaining to the layman that proving the efficacy of homeopathy would earn you a Nobel Price in physics helps to bring some context to that.
Heh. What is that difference? Philosophers of science would love to know.
If homeopathy failed to conform to accepted theory but consistently beat placebos in a wide variety of good clinical trials, it would be good medicine; if it worked in theory but not in tissue, it would not be. Theory is generally constrained by observation.
Homeopathy is wrong because it doesn’t work. Conceivably it could have turned out to work in some way that violated previous medical understanding. Lots of things have done this – it’s one of the main ways understanding is refined.
Besides which, as far as I know (which is not far) there is no fundamental principle of biology, chemistry, or physics that it breaks. It just so happens that water molecules and immune systems don’t work the way homeopathy would need them to. While you could see this in terms of a violation of principles (in the same way that you can rewrite any false math theorem to 1 = 0 if you work hard enough), that doesn’t seem like a very productive perspective to me.
But I’m not a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, so I guess it could be.
If homeopathy failed to conform to accepted theory but consistently beat placebos in a wide variety of good clinical trials, it would be good medicine; if it worked in theory but not in tissue, it would not be. Theory is generally constrained by observation.
Homeopathy is wrong because it doesn’t work. Conceivably it could have turned out to work in some way that violated previous medical understanding. Lots of things have done this – it’s one of the main ways understanding is refined.
Besides which, as far as I know (which is not far) there is no fundamental principle of biology, chemistry, or physics that it breaks. It just so happens that water molecules and immune systems don’t work the way homeopathy would need them to. While you could see this in terms of a violation of principles (in the same way that you can rewrite any false math theorem to 1 = 0 if you work hard enough), that doesn’t seem like a very productive perspective to me.
But I’m not a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, so I guess it could be.
It sounds like you're trying to re-frame the discussion from a context where homeopathy simply doesn't fit within currently understood models of the universe, into a context where it does and there simply is no evidence of efficacy. i.e., whether it "would be" good medicine or not is completely irrelevant, because we're talking about a treatment that doesn't fit at all within scientists' observation of the universe.
Or, to put it another way, tptacek once said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if you were to choose a cryptographic algorithm, you would tend to want to bet on the one that can only be broken by a fundamental new discovery in mathematics. In the case of medicine, the opposite is true: we're currently discussing a medicine that would require fundamental new discoveries in several sciences in order to work.
> Conceivably it could have turned out to work in some way that violated previous medical understanding.
That's the thing: no, it couldn't have, not even conceivably. I'm really not generally pessimistic about the possibilities of new discoveries in sciences, but we're talking here about violating not just "previous medical understanding" but the violation of our current understanding of the foundations of chemistry, physics, and biology. This is not just "medical understanding", this is "our understanding of almost everything".
> Lots of things have done this – it’s one of the main ways understanding is refined.
This is mentioned often by laypeople when debates over our scientific understanding of the universe comes up, and it's wrong because it ignores the way in which our understanding has changed throughout history.
Science tends to refine its understanding of the universe towards a narrower and narrower minima. Since people like to point to relativity as an example of a radical change in understanding, let's take that as an example: let's start with Copernicus, who started with the hypothesis that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and then move on to Galileo, who further observed and refined the movement of the planets and other objects in the sky, and then find ourselves at Newton, who began to formulate the theories of gravity that described the laws of the universe behind Galileo's observations. When Einstein described relativity, his discovery didn't violate Newtonian mechanics or the entire body of 700 years of scientific observation and understanding. Rather, it refined it: the observed differences between relativity and classical Newtonian mechanics only show up at very large velocities or very large scales. Otherwise, everything actually works pretty much the way Newton described it.
Likewise with quantum mechanics: it's likely going to further refine relativity, but only on very, very small scales.
The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy don't require a refinement in our understanding of science, they require a complete contradiction of its very foundations.
> Besides which, as far as I know (which is not far) there is no fundamental principle of biology, chemistry, or physics that it breaks. It just so happens that water molecules and immune systems don’t work the way homeopathy would need them to.
I don't even know how you could put those two sentences next to eachother. :-) If "water molecules and immune systems don’t work the way homeopathy would need them to", then "there are fundamental principles of biology, chemistry, or physics that it breaks". You can't say, "it doesn't break anything, except that everything would have to be broken for it to work."
> While you could see this in terms of a violation of principles (in the same way that you can rewrite any false math theorem to 1 = 0 if you work hard enough)...
Actually, you can't. Every example I've seen of the "1 = 0" proof contains a very subtle mistake which violates mathematic principles. Sometimes, finding those mistakes is really really hard, but they're always there.
But, just to further drive the point home: if we were to argue that water could contain "memory", we would have to try to figure out how. First, are we talking about ordinary tap water, which contains trace amounts of various other chemicals? Or are we talking about "hypothetical" water, which contains only molecules of H2-0? If we assume the latter, for simplicity's sake, then we next have to determine where the energy for this "memory" is stored, how it's encoded, and what form it might take. Let's propose the simplest possible explanation -- which violates everything we know about cellular biology -- and say that this "memory" is basically some theoretical "frequency" that the "medicine" resonates with. All we have to do then is propose that atoms of hydrogen and/or oxygen can somehow store a frequency ...
If that happened in nuclei, I'm pretty sure it would break spectrometry, which would make it really hard for astronomers to observe the atmospheres of planets. If it happened in the electron shells, I'm pretty sure it would break the entire concept of ionization, since changes in frequency cause changes in energy levels of electrons, which cause them to interact with other atoms in various ways.
This is just one example; in fact, there is a huge body of scientific knowledge, built by hundreds of years of experimentation, postulation, and observation, that would all be directly contradicted by any proposed mechanism for homeopathy.
> But I’m not a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, so I guess it could be.
This is bugging me more and more, lately. If someone isn't a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, then I don't see how that person could say, "...but I think they might be wrong!"
Or, to put it another way, tptacek once said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if you were to choose a cryptographic algorithm, you would tend to want to bet on the one that can only be broken by a fundamental new discovery in mathematics. In the case of medicine, the opposite is true: we're currently discussing a medicine that would require fundamental new discoveries in several sciences in order to work.
> Conceivably it could have turned out to work in some way that violated previous medical understanding.
That's the thing: no, it couldn't have, not even conceivably. I'm really not generally pessimistic about the possibilities of new discoveries in sciences, but we're talking here about violating not just "previous medical understanding" but the violation of our current understanding of the foundations of chemistry, physics, and biology. This is not just "medical understanding", this is "our understanding of almost everything".
> Lots of things have done this – it’s one of the main ways understanding is refined.
This is mentioned often by laypeople when debates over our scientific understanding of the universe comes up, and it's wrong because it ignores the way in which our understanding has changed throughout history.
Science tends to refine its understanding of the universe towards a narrower and narrower minima. Since people like to point to relativity as an example of a radical change in understanding, let's take that as an example: let's start with Copernicus, who started with the hypothesis that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and then move on to Galileo, who further observed and refined the movement of the planets and other objects in the sky, and then find ourselves at Newton, who began to formulate the theories of gravity that described the laws of the universe behind Galileo's observations. When Einstein described relativity, his discovery didn't violate Newtonian mechanics or the entire body of 700 years of scientific observation and understanding. Rather, it refined it: the observed differences between relativity and classical Newtonian mechanics only show up at very large velocities or very large scales. Otherwise, everything actually works pretty much the way Newton described it.
Likewise with quantum mechanics: it's likely going to further refine relativity, but only on very, very small scales.
The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy don't require a refinement in our understanding of science, they require a complete contradiction of its very foundations.
> Besides which, as far as I know (which is not far) there is no fundamental principle of biology, chemistry, or physics that it breaks. It just so happens that water molecules and immune systems don’t work the way homeopathy would need them to.
I don't even know how you could put those two sentences next to eachother. :-) If "water molecules and immune systems don’t work the way homeopathy would need them to", then "there are fundamental principles of biology, chemistry, or physics that it breaks". You can't say, "it doesn't break anything, except that everything would have to be broken for it to work."
> While you could see this in terms of a violation of principles (in the same way that you can rewrite any false math theorem to 1 = 0 if you work hard enough)...
Actually, you can't. Every example I've seen of the "1 = 0" proof contains a very subtle mistake which violates mathematic principles. Sometimes, finding those mistakes is really really hard, but they're always there.
But, just to further drive the point home: if we were to argue that water could contain "memory", we would have to try to figure out how. First, are we talking about ordinary tap water, which contains trace amounts of various other chemicals? Or are we talking about "hypothetical" water, which contains only molecules of H2-0? If we assume the latter, for simplicity's sake, then we next have to determine where the energy for this "memory" is stored, how it's encoded, and what form it might take. Let's propose the simplest possible explanation -- which violates everything we know about cellular biology -- and say that this "memory" is basically some theoretical "frequency" that the "medicine" resonates with. All we have to do then is propose that atoms of hydrogen and/or oxygen can somehow store a frequency ...
If that happened in nuclei, I'm pretty sure it would break spectrometry, which would make it really hard for astronomers to observe the atmospheres of planets. If it happened in the electron shells, I'm pretty sure it would break the entire concept of ionization, since changes in frequency cause changes in energy levels of electrons, which cause them to interact with other atoms in various ways.
This is just one example; in fact, there is a huge body of scientific knowledge, built by hundreds of years of experimentation, postulation, and observation, that would all be directly contradicted by any proposed mechanism for homeopathy.
> But I’m not a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, so I guess it could be.
This is bugging me more and more, lately. If someone isn't a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, then I don't see how that person could say, "...but I think they might be wrong!"
>"If we assume the latter, for simplicity's sake, then we next have to determine where the energy for this "memory" is stored, how it's encoded, and what form it might take. Let's propose the simplest possible explanation -- which violates everything we know about cellular biology -- and say that this "memory" is basically some theoretical "frequency" that the "medicine" resonates with. All we have to do then is propose that atoms of hydrogen and/or oxygen can somehow store a frequency ..."
Good post overall, but this kind of stance always gives me pause. The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing.
As far as "does water have any kind of memory", it doesn't seem to in any way that affects us but in general? To me, excluding the possibility because we can't come up with a way to detect such a thing is going to far [1]. It wasn't so long ago that we couldn't see what was in cells. Any theories we built on that ignored cells based on the fact that they were opaque to us could only coincidentally end up correct.
[1] Note this doesn't mean I think we should be spending time or money trying to find such a thing. Just that saying anything more than "at present, we've seen no evidence to suggest such a thing" is going to far.
Good post overall, but this kind of stance always gives me pause. The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing.
As far as "does water have any kind of memory", it doesn't seem to in any way that affects us but in general? To me, excluding the possibility because we can't come up with a way to detect such a thing is going to far [1]. It wasn't so long ago that we couldn't see what was in cells. Any theories we built on that ignored cells based on the fact that they were opaque to us could only coincidentally end up correct.
[1] Note this doesn't mean I think we should be spending time or money trying to find such a thing. Just that saying anything more than "at present, we've seen no evidence to suggest such a thing" is going to far.
That's a fair criticism.
> The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing.
That's true, but it's a separate point from what was being discussed. As someone else pointed out in this thread, there's the "we tested it and it doesn't work" argument, and there's also the "it violates the current body of science" argument. These are two different, but related, things, and they reinforce each-other. I was focusing on the "it violates the current body of science" approach.
You do have a fair point about unknowns in general; a good example is the germ model of disease, which is a relatively recent development.
However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know.
Even if I were to concede that water could have a "memory" of some kind -- and that would be a terrible and involved battle -- I would be unwilling to concede that that particular explanation could possibly work within our current understanding of biochemistry, because this particular aspect of biochemistry is fairly well understood. And, as DaveChild keeps pointing out, a homeopathic proponent would also have to explain how the "memory" from the water ends up in a sugar pill which contains no water. :-) (I would require some kind of explanation there simply because otherwise it would make no sense as a delivery method.)
> The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing.
That's true, but it's a separate point from what was being discussed. As someone else pointed out in this thread, there's the "we tested it and it doesn't work" argument, and there's also the "it violates the current body of science" argument. These are two different, but related, things, and they reinforce each-other. I was focusing on the "it violates the current body of science" approach.
You do have a fair point about unknowns in general; a good example is the germ model of disease, which is a relatively recent development.
However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know.
Even if I were to concede that water could have a "memory" of some kind -- and that would be a terrible and involved battle -- I would be unwilling to concede that that particular explanation could possibly work within our current understanding of biochemistry, because this particular aspect of biochemistry is fairly well understood. And, as DaveChild keeps pointing out, a homeopathic proponent would also have to explain how the "memory" from the water ends up in a sugar pill which contains no water. :-) (I would require some kind of explanation there simply because otherwise it would make no sense as a delivery method.)
> "it violates the current body of science" argument.
Oh I agree, I just put a lot more weight in the "testing" side than the "it violates our current understanding" side because our current understanding is constantly changing. It is more additions and amendments than rewrites, as you mentioned earlier but if there are components out there that we currently can't detect then some of our foundations could be wrong.
I was just addressing one part of your post. I had no intention of defending Homeopathy nor anything they say. I was specifically thinking of some extra "dimension" or realm that is effected by what we can currently observe. I can't point to any evidence that such a thing might exist but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility since I have no way of saying it doesn't (nor would I spend much time thinking about or trying prove/disprove it).
>However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know.
Agreed. I would only add the amendment:
"and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body, nor demonstrate where the current body of science is in error".
That is, I don't think they must stay within the current scientific body but they must either show conclusively that the current scientific body is flawed in some way, or simply show something conclusive that seems to contradict that body and leave it to others to work out why.
I expect it to happen in my lifetime that some discovery will be made that demonstrates a large body of science is built on foundations that were misunderstood. But I expect this to happen scientifically based on observation/tests, not by a group fantasizing about what they would need to prop up their beliefs and then claiming it to be true.
I don't address any more of your post because I think we're in agreement.
Oh I agree, I just put a lot more weight in the "testing" side than the "it violates our current understanding" side because our current understanding is constantly changing. It is more additions and amendments than rewrites, as you mentioned earlier but if there are components out there that we currently can't detect then some of our foundations could be wrong.
I was just addressing one part of your post. I had no intention of defending Homeopathy nor anything they say. I was specifically thinking of some extra "dimension" or realm that is effected by what we can currently observe. I can't point to any evidence that such a thing might exist but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility since I have no way of saying it doesn't (nor would I spend much time thinking about or trying prove/disprove it).
>However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know.
Agreed. I would only add the amendment:
"and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body, nor demonstrate where the current body of science is in error".
That is, I don't think they must stay within the current scientific body but they must either show conclusively that the current scientific body is flawed in some way, or simply show something conclusive that seems to contradict that body and leave it to others to work out why.
I expect it to happen in my lifetime that some discovery will be made that demonstrates a large body of science is built on foundations that were misunderstood. But I expect this to happen scientifically based on observation/tests, not by a group fantasizing about what they would need to prop up their beliefs and then claiming it to be true.
I don't address any more of your post because I think we're in agreement.
You’re making really good points, but unfortunately I mainly agree with them. That is, you’re arguing against something I did not argue.
i.e., whether it "would be" good medicine or not is completely irrelevant, because we're talking about a treatment that doesn't fit at all within scientists' observation of the universe.
Whether it’s good medicine is an observation of the universe. If it worked and violated models, the models would have to change. If you disagree with this, then we really do disagree.
Many drugs have been used successfully before their mechanism was fully understood. They have, on occasion, driven arguably fundamental discoveries. They were in one sense outside our models, although our models were known to be incomplete. Our models of the behavior of water are also known to be incomplete. p != 0 that something odd could be going on there. We know that the particular odd thing that homeopathy claims does not occur in any significant way, but we only knew that when we tested it. (Of course all the smart money would have been on its not working. But expert opinion is not exactly the same as science.)
Can you put a categorical upper bound on liquid water information storage over time that’s lower than a categorical lower bound on the information needed to, say, lower blood pressure? I doubt anyone can yet. Could be wrong. Until then, it will be possible to put forward a million loopy theories – microcrystals, whatever – that do not obviously violate specific laws, but which can still be shown, by experiment, to have nil predictive power. And the smart money, obviously, will be overwhelmingly against all of them. But that by itself is not a scientific principle. It’s just how science works.
Your point about science as a refining process is quite true in the sense you use it, but it’s not really addressing the sentence you quoted. If you want a broader picture that synthesizes what you’re saying with what I’m saying, you might try Wikipedia’ing Karl Popper’s theories as a starting place and following the various derivative and competing ideas. Believe it or not (are you hinting you’re a working scientist?), how scientific knowledge progresses in practice is a topic of much interest from the outside.
The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy […] require a complete contradiction of its very foundations.
Two points. First, what is the contradiction? I’m curious, because in my amateur’s understanding it’s not obvious. Second, that’s actually a slightly different point from the sentence I objected to. The original said that for it to work, it would have to violate etc. You’re saying that for it to work in the way claimed, it would have to violate etc. That’s significantly narrower. (Back to drugs that have worked with incompletely understood mechanisms.)
I don't even know how you could put those two sentences next to eachother.
Because my whole point is that theories follow data (in principle, not in time). Water molecules behave in ways that we cannot yet derive perfectly from our theories alone. So we’re not in a position to categorically rule out certain kinds of behavior – even if, in casual speech, we say we know they cannot happen. Disproof is hard except by statistical methods like clinical trials. That’s another key sentence where if you disagree then we really do disagree ;). So I think you’re confusing having an accurate theory with having a proven theory.
Every example I've seen of the "1 = 0" proof contains a very subtle mistake which violates mathematic principles.
[Squints, scratches head.] Perhaps you thought I said “can’t” instead of “can” in the sentence you quoted? If not, I’m afraid I completely miss your point there.
if we were to argue that water could contain "memory", we would have to try to figure out how
Scientists would have to. Doctors merely ought to.
Your debunking of water memory by vibration is good, but you had to propose a pseudo-plausible mechanism to debunk. Someone else could propose another one. When you say “any known mechanism” (my emphasis), I think you’re departing from falsifiability. (If not, again, I’m curious. My known unknowns about chemistry are large.)
Eventually, in practice, we’ll want to come at the issue from the other end and check results as well as principles. This is what a clinical trial does. Homeopathy failed. And so I’m saying that describing homeopathy as something with no results is rhetorically stronger than describing it as something with no known mechanism.
If someone isn't a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, then I don't see how that person could say, "...but I think they might be wrong!"
Oh dear. I get the sense that you’re trying to cure me of mistrust in the scientific process. There’s no need. I’m not trying to say that I know better than qualified experts. I’m criticizing a detail of a cartoonist’s phrasing. “X doesn’t fit some unspecified principle” is not as strong to me as “X does not work”. That’s all.
i.e., whether it "would be" good medicine or not is completely irrelevant, because we're talking about a treatment that doesn't fit at all within scientists' observation of the universe.
Whether it’s good medicine is an observation of the universe. If it worked and violated models, the models would have to change. If you disagree with this, then we really do disagree.
Many drugs have been used successfully before their mechanism was fully understood. They have, on occasion, driven arguably fundamental discoveries. They were in one sense outside our models, although our models were known to be incomplete. Our models of the behavior of water are also known to be incomplete. p != 0 that something odd could be going on there. We know that the particular odd thing that homeopathy claims does not occur in any significant way, but we only knew that when we tested it. (Of course all the smart money would have been on its not working. But expert opinion is not exactly the same as science.)
Can you put a categorical upper bound on liquid water information storage over time that’s lower than a categorical lower bound on the information needed to, say, lower blood pressure? I doubt anyone can yet. Could be wrong. Until then, it will be possible to put forward a million loopy theories – microcrystals, whatever – that do not obviously violate specific laws, but which can still be shown, by experiment, to have nil predictive power. And the smart money, obviously, will be overwhelmingly against all of them. But that by itself is not a scientific principle. It’s just how science works.
Your point about science as a refining process is quite true in the sense you use it, but it’s not really addressing the sentence you quoted. If you want a broader picture that synthesizes what you’re saying with what I’m saying, you might try Wikipedia’ing Karl Popper’s theories as a starting place and following the various derivative and competing ideas. Believe it or not (are you hinting you’re a working scientist?), how scientific knowledge progresses in practice is a topic of much interest from the outside.
The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy […] require a complete contradiction of its very foundations.
Two points. First, what is the contradiction? I’m curious, because in my amateur’s understanding it’s not obvious. Second, that’s actually a slightly different point from the sentence I objected to. The original said that for it to work, it would have to violate etc. You’re saying that for it to work in the way claimed, it would have to violate etc. That’s significantly narrower. (Back to drugs that have worked with incompletely understood mechanisms.)
I don't even know how you could put those two sentences next to eachother.
Because my whole point is that theories follow data (in principle, not in time). Water molecules behave in ways that we cannot yet derive perfectly from our theories alone. So we’re not in a position to categorically rule out certain kinds of behavior – even if, in casual speech, we say we know they cannot happen. Disproof is hard except by statistical methods like clinical trials. That’s another key sentence where if you disagree then we really do disagree ;). So I think you’re confusing having an accurate theory with having a proven theory.
Every example I've seen of the "1 = 0" proof contains a very subtle mistake which violates mathematic principles.
[Squints, scratches head.] Perhaps you thought I said “can’t” instead of “can” in the sentence you quoted? If not, I’m afraid I completely miss your point there.
if we were to argue that water could contain "memory", we would have to try to figure out how
Scientists would have to. Doctors merely ought to.
Your debunking of water memory by vibration is good, but you had to propose a pseudo-plausible mechanism to debunk. Someone else could propose another one. When you say “any known mechanism” (my emphasis), I think you’re departing from falsifiability. (If not, again, I’m curious. My known unknowns about chemistry are large.)
Eventually, in practice, we’ll want to come at the issue from the other end and check results as well as principles. This is what a clinical trial does. Homeopathy failed. And so I’m saying that describing homeopathy as something with no results is rhetorically stronger than describing it as something with no known mechanism.
If someone isn't a doctor, biologist, chemist, or physicist, then I don't see how that person could say, "...but I think they might be wrong!"
Oh dear. I get the sense that you’re trying to cure me of mistrust in the scientific process. There’s no need. I’m not trying to say that I know better than qualified experts. I’m criticizing a detail of a cartoonist’s phrasing. “X doesn’t fit some unspecified principle” is not as strong to me as “X does not work”. That’s all.
You can't run faster than the speed of light, i.e. it isn't just for lack of trying. Explaining things in those terms to the layman helps them to understand the issues. There's a large chasm between things that might potentially work, and things that couldn't even work in theory.
Homeopathy is squarely in the latter category. The whole concept of water memory is pseudoscientific nonesense.
Note that they're not just claiming that water has some special effect on the human immune system. They're claiming that molecules are capable of transmitting and retaining information in a manner that violates our understanding of chemistry and physics.
Homeopathy is squarely in the latter category. The whole concept of water memory is pseudoscientific nonesense.
Note that they're not just claiming that water has some special effect on the human immune system. They're claiming that molecules are capable of transmitting and retaining information in a manner that violates our understanding of chemistry and physics.
I think we mostly agree and are arguing mainly over interpretation.
There's a large chasm between things that might potentially work, and things that couldn't even work in theory.
Can you characterize this chasm? I think that there’s a fairly continuous range of possibility. When we say that “theory” precludes something, we might mean any of a variety of kinds and strengths of theories. It is a very strong theory that you cannot accelerate at the speed of light. Is there something as strong saying that water categorically cannot preserve information of that kind? I suspect the theories there are more statistical and harder to test.
Mind you, I believe those theories. For one thing, the idea of water memory violates my intuitions about entropy. But it seems incautious to see it as a violation of principle. This kind of thinking tends too far in the direction of thinking that airplanes violate gravity, or that there could be no brown dwarf orbiting the sun because that would “violate our theory of how the solar system works”, etc. – scientism, not science.
Of course, as I said, I have no special knowledge here. Maybe water memory is categorically rather than empirically impossible. If this is so, I’d be interested to learn why.
There's a large chasm between things that might potentially work, and things that couldn't even work in theory.
Can you characterize this chasm? I think that there’s a fairly continuous range of possibility. When we say that “theory” precludes something, we might mean any of a variety of kinds and strengths of theories. It is a very strong theory that you cannot accelerate at the speed of light. Is there something as strong saying that water categorically cannot preserve information of that kind? I suspect the theories there are more statistical and harder to test.
Mind you, I believe those theories. For one thing, the idea of water memory violates my intuitions about entropy. But it seems incautious to see it as a violation of principle. This kind of thinking tends too far in the direction of thinking that airplanes violate gravity, or that there could be no brown dwarf orbiting the sun because that would “violate our theory of how the solar system works”, etc. – scientism, not science.
Of course, as I said, I have no special knowledge here. Maybe water memory is categorically rather than empirically impossible. If this is so, I’d be interested to learn why.
WHat is the difference? Well, there are two prongs to the response, which correspond to the phrases "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns". In the case of empirical studies of homeopathy, we see that it is actually ineffective. This gives us more confidence in discarding the "unknown unknowns" - there doesn't seem to be any strange effect going on that our current theories don't know how to describe.
The second part though, is to point out that our current theoretical understanding of how the world works suggests that homeopathy is just bunk, that there is no known theoretical underpinning that could explain a response to a homeopathic medicine (well, apart from the placebo effect).
Both responses re-inforce the other. If we just had a theoretical justification for refusing homeopathy, we might be wrong about the theory, or have overlooked a crucial factor. If we just had the experimental results, we might be tempted to conclude that the experiment wasn't well-enough designed. But when the experiment and the theory agree with each other, we can start to have a very high level of confidence that we know what we are talking about. If homeopathy does actually work, we would have to conclude that today's theories of physics and chemistry are wrong, and that all of the well-conducted experiments that have so far been done have had some fatal flaw in them. That's a highly improbable situation, which is the important information that politicians need to understand. It is important to explain that multiple lines of reasoning indicate that homeopathy just doesn't work.
The second part though, is to point out that our current theoretical understanding of how the world works suggests that homeopathy is just bunk, that there is no known theoretical underpinning that could explain a response to a homeopathic medicine (well, apart from the placebo effect).
Both responses re-inforce the other. If we just had a theoretical justification for refusing homeopathy, we might be wrong about the theory, or have overlooked a crucial factor. If we just had the experimental results, we might be tempted to conclude that the experiment wasn't well-enough designed. But when the experiment and the theory agree with each other, we can start to have a very high level of confidence that we know what we are talking about. If homeopathy does actually work, we would have to conclude that today's theories of physics and chemistry are wrong, and that all of the well-conducted experiments that have so far been done have had some fatal flaw in them. That's a highly improbable situation, which is the important information that politicians need to understand. It is important to explain that multiple lines of reasoning indicate that homeopathy just doesn't work.
Which law of nature is against the theoretical possibility, though? Not saying that it is possible, but I certainly don't know enough about physics to prove it myself. Afaik water is actually still a bit of a mystery to science. Admittedly, last I read about the water puzzle was in a book that is 15 years old, by Douglas Hofstadter (of Gödel - Escher - Bach fame). Perhaps physics has progressed since then.
While certain aspects of water may still be unexplained -- like its phase transitions, for example -- that doesn't leave the door open for contradictions of the aspects that are understood.
"Memory" requires some form of information storage, in this case in one of the simplest molecules known to man. Not only would any physicist be stumped to even propose some form of information storage (i.e., "we don't know how it might have memory"), but any such proposal would contradict the current body of knowledge of chemistry (i.e., "we know that it can't have memory -- there's nowhere for it to hide").
...and that's just one little part. Even if there was some kind of "memory" possible in water, you would have to explain how that memory would act on cells.
"Memory" requires some form of information storage, in this case in one of the simplest molecules known to man. Not only would any physicist be stumped to even propose some form of information storage (i.e., "we don't know how it might have memory"), but any such proposal would contradict the current body of knowledge of chemistry (i.e., "we know that it can't have memory -- there's nowhere for it to hide").
...and that's just one little part. Even if there was some kind of "memory" possible in water, you would have to explain how that memory would act on cells.
And then you would have to explain how that magic water memory makes it into sugar's magic memory when the water is evaporated away.
I am not arguing that it is possible (it also seems very unlikely to me), just arguing that one should stay scientific. Has it been proven that water can't have memory, or not? Physicists being stumped is no proof.
"It is against the laws of physics" sounds a bit like "most authorities agree that...", which doesn't cut it.
Nature seems to do a lot of weird information storage, btw (quantum entanglements? I am not a physicists myself...). I don't think we should be on the lookout for little flash drives embedded in the water molecules.
"It is against the laws of physics" sounds a bit like "most authorities agree that...", which doesn't cut it.
Nature seems to do a lot of weird information storage, btw (quantum entanglements? I am not a physicists myself...). I don't think we should be on the lookout for little flash drives embedded in the water molecules.
I am staying scientific. Science doesn't mean, "everything is possible until you rule it out"; science means, "observe something, come up with a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, consider it true if it passes rigorous enough experiment, until disproven later by other experiment." Demanding proof that water doesn't have "memory" is not at all unlike demanding proof that gravity doesn't work because of trillions of very tiny fairies that fly around pushing on things. This is one of the central differences between faith and science; faith demands proof of impossibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy doesn't work"), and science demands proof of possibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy works").
Ignorance is not a shield that protects you. Being open-minded to the point of incuriousity doesn't make you wise, it just means that you've stopped seeking the answers to questions.
Now, all that said: "spooky effects" like quantum entanglements are indeed very cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing some testable hypotheses on the mechanisms for that. However, experiments so far have only been able to make quantum effects at a distance work under very controlled conditions, and I'm pretty sure none of those conditions involved "shaking it back and forth 10 times". So, no, I'm not willing to buy that as a possible explanation for a mechanism for homeopathy -- even if homeopathy worked, which it doesn't.
Ignorance is not a shield that protects you. Being open-minded to the point of incuriousity doesn't make you wise, it just means that you've stopped seeking the answers to questions.
Now, all that said: "spooky effects" like quantum entanglements are indeed very cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing some testable hypotheses on the mechanisms for that. However, experiments so far have only been able to make quantum effects at a distance work under very controlled conditions, and I'm pretty sure none of those conditions involved "shaking it back and forth 10 times". So, no, I'm not willing to buy that as a possible explanation for a mechanism for homeopathy -- even if homeopathy worked, which it doesn't.
I can't follow your logic. You say science is making testable hypothesises, and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? Either you can test that hypothesis ("water can't have memory"), or you are being unscientific?
Also, is there debate about gravity working? I think it has been tested, so it is not at all the same thing. It would be more like saying "anti-gravity is impossible" (maybe it is, no idea).
I am not interested in Homoeopathy, just in proper arguing.
Also, is there debate about gravity working? I think it has been tested, so it is not at all the same thing. It would be more like saying "anti-gravity is impossible" (maybe it is, no idea).
I am not interested in Homoeopathy, just in proper arguing.
> ...and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that?
OK, you're right. I need to be more careful in what I'm saying, then.
My claim, specifically, is that science does not have a large enough lack of knowledge about water -- or any other simple chemical -- in the specific areas of chemistry or particle physics, to suggest that there is even an unknown mechanism by which extra-molecular information might be stored in such a chemical, "extra-molecular" here meaning any information which wouldn't otherwise be included naturally as a part of that chemical. Furthermore, I'm saying that, in the absence of such unknowns, and given current knowledge of basic chemistry and physics, such hypothetical information storage would violate the already-accepted principles of those fields.
In other words, I'm placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the people making the fantastical claim, and I'm justifying that by claiming that we have a large enough body of evidence to support labeling their claim as "fantastical".
Now, if this was the 17th century, and I appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed, "water cannot have memory!" -- then maybe you'd have a point. Instead, there's this wonderfully large body of understanding of chemistry and physics which, while incomplete, is not so incomplete as to leave any room for a method of information storage in basic chemicals without contradicting current knowledge. Thus, "water can not have memory."
If you want to press further on this and challenge my assertion anyway, then I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move. :-) If you can successfully disprove enough current chemistry or physics to leave the door open for any kind of "memory" in water, then there is probably a large amount of fame and acclaim waiting for you.
(And yes, there is some debate about how gravity works. While general relativity does a neat job of modeling gravity, it is somewhat unsatisfying as an explanation for its mechanism. And also, yes, I would be inclined to say that "anti-gravity is impossible", although with somewhat more reservation, because so far the best explanation for gravity is that it is in fact some kind of side-effect of mass on a space-time environment, so "anti-gravity" would require negative mass, which last time I checked doesn't even make sense -- although I haven't been watching the journals as closely as I used to.)
OK, you're right. I need to be more careful in what I'm saying, then.
My claim, specifically, is that science does not have a large enough lack of knowledge about water -- or any other simple chemical -- in the specific areas of chemistry or particle physics, to suggest that there is even an unknown mechanism by which extra-molecular information might be stored in such a chemical, "extra-molecular" here meaning any information which wouldn't otherwise be included naturally as a part of that chemical. Furthermore, I'm saying that, in the absence of such unknowns, and given current knowledge of basic chemistry and physics, such hypothetical information storage would violate the already-accepted principles of those fields.
In other words, I'm placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the people making the fantastical claim, and I'm justifying that by claiming that we have a large enough body of evidence to support labeling their claim as "fantastical".
Now, if this was the 17th century, and I appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed, "water cannot have memory!" -- then maybe you'd have a point. Instead, there's this wonderfully large body of understanding of chemistry and physics which, while incomplete, is not so incomplete as to leave any room for a method of information storage in basic chemicals without contradicting current knowledge. Thus, "water can not have memory."
If you want to press further on this and challenge my assertion anyway, then I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move. :-) If you can successfully disprove enough current chemistry or physics to leave the door open for any kind of "memory" in water, then there is probably a large amount of fame and acclaim waiting for you.
(And yes, there is some debate about how gravity works. While general relativity does a neat job of modeling gravity, it is somewhat unsatisfying as an explanation for its mechanism. And also, yes, I would be inclined to say that "anti-gravity is impossible", although with somewhat more reservation, because so far the best explanation for gravity is that it is in fact some kind of side-effect of mass on a space-time environment, so "anti-gravity" would require negative mass, which last time I checked doesn't even make sense -- although I haven't been watching the journals as closely as I used to.)
What if water did have memory? What if water somehow "remembered" everything that had been in it, once upon a time? Water is recycled - your glass of water has been rain, river, ocean, pond scum, cow piss, bug poo and dinosaur blood. Firstly wouldn't we'd have noticed by now if the provenance of a particular piece of water (say, lake water vs. rainwater) made it behave differently? And secondly what measures do homoeopaths take to cancel prior "memories" in the water that they use? Homoeopathy is not only false, it doesn't even make consistent sense in it's own terms.
Maybe it only has memory for one month or something.
I am not arguing for it, though, so don't downvote me just because you don't like Homeopathy - I didn't invent or advocate it.
Edit: According to Wikipedia there seems to be a memory of a fraction of nanoseconds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory (they seem to measure a specific kind of "memory", though). But what for example about waves, are they not also a kind of memory? Some waves last longer than a nanosecond.
I am not arguing for it, though, so don't downvote me just because you don't like Homeopathy - I didn't invent or advocate it.
Edit: According to Wikipedia there seems to be a memory of a fraction of nanoseconds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory (they seem to measure a specific kind of "memory", though). But what for example about waves, are they not also a kind of memory? Some waves last longer than a nanosecond.
Do homoeopathic remedies have a "best before" date? If you wanted to given them "best before" dates, how would you measure when the non-existent potency starts to disappear?
The next time anyone offers a homoeopathic drug, ask them how long the medication is good for. There is no sensible answer to that question, because homoeopathy is gibberish.
The next time anyone offers a homoeopathic drug, ask them how long the medication is good for. There is no sensible answer to that question, because homoeopathy is gibberish.
"I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move."
It doesn't work that way, and you know it :-)
It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird.
As for gravity, I know there is debate about HOW it works. I meant there is probably no debate that it "works" (by whatever mechanism).
It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are (some weeks ago I think there was an article on HN presenting a theory that would explain away dark matter). It also seems difficult or impossible to prevent particles from affecting each other. So I suppose "no memory" means "all effects are washed out in chaos" or something like that?
It doesn't work that way, and you know it :-)
It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird.
As for gravity, I know there is debate about HOW it works. I meant there is probably no debate that it "works" (by whatever mechanism).
It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are (some weeks ago I think there was an article on HN presenting a theory that would explain away dark matter). It also seems difficult or impossible to prevent particles from affecting each other. So I suppose "no memory" means "all effects are washed out in chaos" or something like that?
Well, I'm going back to bed for a few hours. I think I've presented my point as well as I'm inclined to, and our "debate" is starting to ring all of my diminishing-returns bells.
> It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird.
Cute. Do I really need to point out why, or are you just being deliberately snarky? Because the article pretty well covered all of this.
> It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are...
And this is where it suddenly dawned on me that debating this further, instead of going to bed, would be foolish.
Physicists: "Hmm, this is odd. Given our current understanding of gravity, observations supporting an expanding universe, and current mathematical constants, we appear to be missing a huge amount of mass in the universe."
Astronomers: "Hey, don't look at us. We're woefully underfunded, but I'm pretty sure we would've seen a hint of that much stuff by now."
Physicists: "Maybe there's some other kind of exotic form of mass that we haven't seen before?"
Other physicists: "Well, that doesn't really violate any other principles of physics. It's worth a check. Let's see if we can find it."
The under-educated public: "LOL they invented dark matter!"
How about, instead of playing debate-hit-and-run by making weak accusations against science ("they felt the need to invent dark matter") and then immediately hiding behind ignorance ("I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are"), you actually do some reading and find out? The internet is amazing, you can find an answer to pretty much any question you have on any topic. So I'll just leave this here then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
G'night.
> It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird.
Cute. Do I really need to point out why, or are you just being deliberately snarky? Because the article pretty well covered all of this.
> It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are...
And this is where it suddenly dawned on me that debating this further, instead of going to bed, would be foolish.
Physicists: "Hmm, this is odd. Given our current understanding of gravity, observations supporting an expanding universe, and current mathematical constants, we appear to be missing a huge amount of mass in the universe."
Astronomers: "Hey, don't look at us. We're woefully underfunded, but I'm pretty sure we would've seen a hint of that much stuff by now."
Physicists: "Maybe there's some other kind of exotic form of mass that we haven't seen before?"
Other physicists: "Well, that doesn't really violate any other principles of physics. It's worth a check. Let's see if we can find it."
The under-educated public: "LOL they invented dark matter!"
How about, instead of playing debate-hit-and-run by making weak accusations against science ("they felt the need to invent dark matter") and then immediately hiding behind ignorance ("I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are"), you actually do some reading and find out? The internet is amazing, you can find an answer to pretty much any question you have on any topic. So I'll just leave this here then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
G'night.
Sleep well
Which law of nature is against the theoretical possibility, though?
Even if water could absorb influences from the homoeopathic medicine, what about all the other things that this water has been in contact with over the centuries? It's not even internally self-consistent.
In the words of W.CV. Fields "I never drink water, fish fuck in it."
Even if water could absorb influences from the homoeopathic medicine, what about all the other things that this water has been in contact with over the centuries? It's not even internally self-consistent.
In the words of W.CV. Fields "I never drink water, fish fuck in it."
Regarding "for homeopathy to be effective...", this statement shows a very XIX century preconceived idea about the human body: We are just machines.
We have learned a great deal more since then. Biologic systems are complex by nature and show emergent properties that cannot be explained by the sum of its components.
By example, there is a strong bias in the comic against the effectiveness of placebos. It assumes that "letting the disease run its course" is roughly equivalent to taking a placebo. It has been shown far from truth in double blind test, at least in the case of mild conditions; placebos do work, that's why we have the "placebo effect" meme in the first place.
In that sense, homeopathy might be working just as advertised: Triggering the body's own natural healing capacity. The theory behind it may be convoluted and borderline magical... but this should not invalidate it on itself.
Of course alternative healing should not be used instead mainstream western medicine for severe problems like cancer or such. However, in a country with basically no public health system, people should have access to any option that would not put them one blink away from financial disaster.
We have learned a great deal more since then. Biologic systems are complex by nature and show emergent properties that cannot be explained by the sum of its components.
By example, there is a strong bias in the comic against the effectiveness of placebos. It assumes that "letting the disease run its course" is roughly equivalent to taking a placebo. It has been shown far from truth in double blind test, at least in the case of mild conditions; placebos do work, that's why we have the "placebo effect" meme in the first place.
In that sense, homeopathy might be working just as advertised: Triggering the body's own natural healing capacity. The theory behind it may be convoluted and borderline magical... but this should not invalidate it on itself.
Of course alternative healing should not be used instead mainstream western medicine for severe problems like cancer or such. However, in a country with basically no public health system, people should have access to any option that would not put them one blink away from financial disaster.
A LOT of products in the drugstore are based on pseudoscience.
Products like Mederma (claims to reduce scars) sound scientific and are expensive ($30/tube), but Mederma is just a gel with some "botanical extract" that has been shown scientifically not to work. (They show before & after photos, but scars naturally look better on the same timescale.)
Other products like Airborne (to prevent colds on airplanes) are just dietary supplements which likely do not do as they say. This product even says it is "invented by a mom" -- why should that be a selling point for a medical product?
The list goes on and on.
Products like Mederma (claims to reduce scars) sound scientific and are expensive ($30/tube), but Mederma is just a gel with some "botanical extract" that has been shown scientifically not to work. (They show before & after photos, but scars naturally look better on the same timescale.)
Other products like Airborne (to prevent colds on airplanes) are just dietary supplements which likely do not do as they say. This product even says it is "invented by a mom" -- why should that be a selling point for a medical product?
The list goes on and on.
"Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." If only I knew where I heard this.
Edit: I'm fairly certain it came from House or Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Can anyone say one way or another?
Edit: I'm fairly certain it came from House or Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Can anyone say one way or another?
It's from Tim Minchin, in his poem "Storm". It's on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
On the other hand, it can take a long time for ideas to be accepted. Even Pasteur was a radical in his day; and I can't find him on Wikipedia, but there was a French doctor who introduced the idea of washing one's hands -- I think in carbolic acid? -- before delivering a child. This worked very well; but the doctors thought it was a nuisance and produced no benefit, and kicked him out.
I'm not defending homeopathy, which I'm pretty deeply suspicious of; it _might_ merit further investigation, but homeopathic medicines certainly shouldn't be sold as medicines until they start performing a whole lot better than they have so far. I just want to point out that the medical field, and most scientific fields, are resistant to adopting new ideas even when those ideas do work.
Another example of that slowness: post-traumatic stress disorder, which was only accepted by the APA in DSM-IV (1980) after a long struggle.
I'm not defending homeopathy, which I'm pretty deeply suspicious of; it _might_ merit further investigation, but homeopathic medicines certainly shouldn't be sold as medicines until they start performing a whole lot better than they have so far. I just want to point out that the medical field, and most scientific fields, are resistant to adopting new ideas even when those ideas do work.
Another example of that slowness: post-traumatic stress disorder, which was only accepted by the APA in DSM-IV (1980) after a long struggle.
I've always seen terms like alternative, complementary, or integrative medicine as akin to the terms creation science and intelligent design. Basically, designed to present a false dichotomy of equals with the legitimate paradigms.
If you're interested in this blog post I suggest reading Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science - http://www.badscience.net/
It covers the problems with homoeopathy in great depth and includes other similar alternative medicines, along with flaws in scientific studies promoting them and quackery in general. I highly recommend reading it. Not just to learn about the problems with these kind of treatments, but also the difficulties in creating unbiased scientific tests.
It covers the problems with homoeopathy in great depth and includes other similar alternative medicines, along with flaws in scientific studies promoting them and quackery in general. I highly recommend reading it. Not just to learn about the problems with these kind of treatments, but also the difficulties in creating unbiased scientific tests.
How is it that he equates herbal medicine with homeopathic medicine? The two don't have anything in common.
Actually, they do. Most homeopathic remedies are just dilute herbal remedies-- note that it's fairly rare for homeopathic remedies to be "strong" (i.e., weakly diluted) enough to be completely inert.
In other words, much of the time, what you are getting when you buy a homeopathic remedy at the local pharmacy is actually just an incredibly weak herbal preparation.
In other words, much of the time, what you are getting when you buy a homeopathic remedy at the local pharmacy is actually just an incredibly weak herbal preparation.
The homeopathic stuff is small/non-existant doses of herbs that cause some ailment. A herbal remedy would be a measurable dose of something intended to cure the ailment.
The latter may be woolly and untested feelgood hippy claptrap, but it's a lot less theoretically incoherent.
The latter may be woolly and untested feelgood hippy claptrap, but it's a lot less theoretically incoherent.
"The latter may be woolly and untested feelgood hippy claptrap"
You seriously think that no one has ever tested the efficacy of herbs?
You seriously think that no one has ever tested the efficacy of herbs?
Do you know what you call herbal medicine that's been proved to work?
Herbal medicine.
I disagree with this popular beleifs. No one managed to explain with a scientific proof what happens in Benvenist experiences. It is mainly beliefs and assumptions that bias the data analysis.
Experimental data points undoubtly to EM effects in water. This is the only way, using rational and actual science, to explain what has been observed. And ther is at least one possible explanation proposed by my father, physicist, that explains how it could. How the activity could be reccorded and reinjected in inactive water, the oscillations in activity during the dillution process, why shaking is needed, etc. He presented his explanation at a conference on Homeopathy in France last year. He is a theorist and his theory should be tested experimentally. None of the people present conducted these experiences.
There are still a lot of strange and unexplained effects in water. One scientist who reported such effects he saw in his experiments on EM effects was forced by the scientific community to pull back and say it was mistakes. I don't remember his name. I think he was german. It happened well before Benvenist discovery. This happens just because the data didn't fit to common beleif and assumptions.
The editor of Nature was a strong disbeleiver, maybe not as agressive as Randi. The real problem here is that these people behavior has nothing to do with pur science research process as it should be. They forged themselves a model of how things works and any data that doesn't fit the model must be an error. Calling back into question the model is out of question for them.
I've seen this behavior on many occasion. This is not scientific and rational.
Experimental data points undoubtly to EM effects in water. This is the only way, using rational and actual science, to explain what has been observed. And ther is at least one possible explanation proposed by my father, physicist, that explains how it could. How the activity could be reccorded and reinjected in inactive water, the oscillations in activity during the dillution process, why shaking is needed, etc. He presented his explanation at a conference on Homeopathy in France last year. He is a theorist and his theory should be tested experimentally. None of the people present conducted these experiences.
There are still a lot of strange and unexplained effects in water. One scientist who reported such effects he saw in his experiments on EM effects was forced by the scientific community to pull back and say it was mistakes. I don't remember his name. I think he was german. It happened well before Benvenist discovery. This happens just because the data didn't fit to common beleif and assumptions.
The editor of Nature was a strong disbeleiver, maybe not as agressive as Randi. The real problem here is that these people behavior has nothing to do with pur science research process as it should be. They forged themselves a model of how things works and any data that doesn't fit the model must be an error. Calling back into question the model is out of question for them.
I've seen this behavior on many occasion. This is not scientific and rational.
All lovely. Of course, in homeopatic "treatments", the water is allowed to evaporate away on a sugar pill. So does sugar have magic memory too?
There are two problems in your comment. First you assume, apparently without room for doubt, that the sugar pill contains absolutely no water. Second you assume that the activity is due to some element of fixed quantity.
Beside I don't see any reference to homeopathy in my comment. I only referred to Benveniste experiences which involved only water.
The sugar pill may contain water and contribute to stabilize the active and stable water molecule patterns. Even if there is only few of them, they may replicate themselves and amplify the activity with the same process occurring during the dilution and shaking process.
The theory suggest that the structures are aggregates of water molecule with ionic bound ruptures and rebinding at different locations. The oscillations yields a stable structure. This explains why very low EM frequencies are detected in active water. They are generated by the big structure oscillations. Recording the EM oscillations and replaying them in an inactive water, may induce the same ionic oscillations and the formation of the same patterns.
It is also commonly assumed that the activity is due to the chemical molecule itself. But if the molecule is polarized, the polarized water molecules will surround it and extend the polarization zone. The biological interaction could then be due to the water envelope around the molecule. The induced polarization would then have a particular shape. The structure can be stabilized by electron movements in the structure across water molecules.
By growing the structure would sort of take a print of the chemical molecule behaving like a sort of crystal seed. Shaking water would break the cluster and generate new crystal seeds, but made only of water molecules.
This would of course work only for particular type of chemical molecules and activity. Water behaves then like an amplifier and replicating system which could in some case have alternating negative and positive prints of the molecule or active structures.
This would be easy to test, but my father doesn't have the required apparatus and the time because he works on many other subjects. He is close to 80 years now.
Believe what you want. All I want to say is that the way Benveniste discovery was handled has nothing to do with science. The referenced comic is just an amplifying replication of the mishandling.
Beside I don't see any reference to homeopathy in my comment. I only referred to Benveniste experiences which involved only water.
The sugar pill may contain water and contribute to stabilize the active and stable water molecule patterns. Even if there is only few of them, they may replicate themselves and amplify the activity with the same process occurring during the dilution and shaking process.
The theory suggest that the structures are aggregates of water molecule with ionic bound ruptures and rebinding at different locations. The oscillations yields a stable structure. This explains why very low EM frequencies are detected in active water. They are generated by the big structure oscillations. Recording the EM oscillations and replaying them in an inactive water, may induce the same ionic oscillations and the formation of the same patterns.
It is also commonly assumed that the activity is due to the chemical molecule itself. But if the molecule is polarized, the polarized water molecules will surround it and extend the polarization zone. The biological interaction could then be due to the water envelope around the molecule. The induced polarization would then have a particular shape. The structure can be stabilized by electron movements in the structure across water molecules.
By growing the structure would sort of take a print of the chemical molecule behaving like a sort of crystal seed. Shaking water would break the cluster and generate new crystal seeds, but made only of water molecules.
This would of course work only for particular type of chemical molecules and activity. Water behaves then like an amplifier and replicating system which could in some case have alternating negative and positive prints of the molecule or active structures.
This would be easy to test, but my father doesn't have the required apparatus and the time because he works on many other subjects. He is close to 80 years now.
Believe what you want. All I want to say is that the way Benveniste discovery was handled has nothing to do with science. The referenced comic is just an amplifying replication of the mishandling.
I would love to refute your explanation, but to be honest, I can't make heads or tails of it. "Active" water? "Inactive" water? EM "oscillations"? "Crystal seeds"? ...I give up. It's like pseudo-science buzzword bingo.
One thing though: people often complain that something "isn't scientific" whenever the science comes to a conclusion that they don't like. The editor of Nature -- a prominent science magazine -- was willing to publish the guy's article. That alone should be reasonable counter-evidence for all those claims that there's a some scientific "conspiracy" afoot to keep the miracle of homeopathy down. The thing is, they published his results, and then they tried to reproduce them. This is science. That's how it works. His claims didn't hold up, and that was that. He's free to go back and re-reproduce his results, this time consistently, and then they might be re-examined again. Until then, his results are bunk.
One thing though: people often complain that something "isn't scientific" whenever the science comes to a conclusion that they don't like. The editor of Nature -- a prominent science magazine -- was willing to publish the guy's article. That alone should be reasonable counter-evidence for all those claims that there's a some scientific "conspiracy" afoot to keep the miracle of homeopathy down. The thing is, they published his results, and then they tried to reproduce them. This is science. That's how it works. His claims didn't hold up, and that was that. He's free to go back and re-reproduce his results, this time consistently, and then they might be re-examined again. Until then, his results are bunk.
Water is said to be active when the effect on basophile cells was positive. Basophile cells are actors in the immune system and Benveniste was studying mechanism of allergy when he discovered this effect. Water remained active even with repeated dilution and shaking. When water was heated above 80°C and cooled back again it became inactive, which means it had no more effect on basophile cells.
Benveniste also detected the presence of a low frequency (~500Hz) EM emission of active water, which is not present with inactive water. The source of this low frequency EM emission is a problem in itself because it is not compatible with the water molecule oscillation frequency.
Recording the EM emission and replaying it back on inactive water rendered the water active on the basophile cells. These are the experimental evidences reported by Benveniste that remains to be explained.
Things fall in place when we assume the presence of stable water molecule aggregation with charge movement through them, a growth mechanism by polarization affinity and fragmentation by shaking.
BTW it is not true that the editor was willing to publish the "guy's" article. Benveniste was before it a well known and respected scientists and he had to insist and debate for his article to be published. It was published because the editor had nothing to oppose to it and justify a rejection.
When he came to check the experience with Randi, probably under pressure of the scientific community, they found nothing that could explain the observations which where reproduced at will in front of them in increasingly twisted ways. Randi and the editor went nearly nuts for not finding any trick or error.
The result is that they justify the mismatch between their beliefs and the data by undetermined experimental errors. How convenient, but that is not science.
Note that I am not talking about homeapathy here and claiming anything about it. I currently have no clue and no beliefs about it. What I say about it is I don't know. And this is the best that we can objectively say a priori without error about it.
Back to the Benveniste discovery, the normal scientific process should be to try to elaborate a theory that explains the observations; not to debunk it at any cost. Once a theory is proposed and proved to be coherent and valid with current scientific knowledge and understanding, it should then be tested. My father proposed such a theory, but it has not been tested yet. From what he told me, it should be easy. If the water molecule aggregates are present they should change the electric property of water. Simple direct measurement with conventional EM measurement devices should do it. No need of hard to control basophile cells reaction test. According to Benveniste observation, EM signal could induce formation of these aggregates and thus, according to the theory, alter the EM property of water. If the aggregates are stable, the change if EM emission of water would be persistent and measurable. it would be removed after heating the water which dissolves the aggregate structures. How hard would this be to test and explore ?
Benveniste also detected the presence of a low frequency (~500Hz) EM emission of active water, which is not present with inactive water. The source of this low frequency EM emission is a problem in itself because it is not compatible with the water molecule oscillation frequency.
Recording the EM emission and replaying it back on inactive water rendered the water active on the basophile cells. These are the experimental evidences reported by Benveniste that remains to be explained.
Things fall in place when we assume the presence of stable water molecule aggregation with charge movement through them, a growth mechanism by polarization affinity and fragmentation by shaking.
BTW it is not true that the editor was willing to publish the "guy's" article. Benveniste was before it a well known and respected scientists and he had to insist and debate for his article to be published. It was published because the editor had nothing to oppose to it and justify a rejection.
When he came to check the experience with Randi, probably under pressure of the scientific community, they found nothing that could explain the observations which where reproduced at will in front of them in increasingly twisted ways. Randi and the editor went nearly nuts for not finding any trick or error.
The result is that they justify the mismatch between their beliefs and the data by undetermined experimental errors. How convenient, but that is not science.
Note that I am not talking about homeapathy here and claiming anything about it. I currently have no clue and no beliefs about it. What I say about it is I don't know. And this is the best that we can objectively say a priori without error about it.
Back to the Benveniste discovery, the normal scientific process should be to try to elaborate a theory that explains the observations; not to debunk it at any cost. Once a theory is proposed and proved to be coherent and valid with current scientific knowledge and understanding, it should then be tested. My father proposed such a theory, but it has not been tested yet. From what he told me, it should be easy. If the water molecule aggregates are present they should change the electric property of water. Simple direct measurement with conventional EM measurement devices should do it. No need of hard to control basophile cells reaction test. According to Benveniste observation, EM signal could induce formation of these aggregates and thus, according to the theory, alter the EM property of water. If the aggregates are stable, the change if EM emission of water would be persistent and measurable. it would be removed after heating the water which dissolves the aggregate structures. How hard would this be to test and explore ?
Somewhere in my book collection is H2O - A biography of Water, by Phillip Ball, one of the Nature editors.
The first half of the book is general background on the weirdness and uniqueness of water compared to other liquids of its class, but the latter part of the book is directly purely at explaining and dismissing a lot of the claims presented in Homeopathy.
I'm not certain if he was directly involved with the disclaimers surrounding the original article, but it wouldn't surprise me, given the vehemence in his later writing.
Amazon Link (hopefully non-referral, unless google has tricked me): http://www.amazon.co.uk/H2O-Biography-Water-Philip-Ball/dp/0...
The first half of the book is general background on the weirdness and uniqueness of water compared to other liquids of its class, but the latter part of the book is directly purely at explaining and dismissing a lot of the claims presented in Homeopathy.
I'm not certain if he was directly involved with the disclaimers surrounding the original article, but it wouldn't surprise me, given the vehemence in his later writing.
Amazon Link (hopefully non-referral, unless google has tricked me): http://www.amazon.co.uk/H2O-Biography-Water-Philip-Ball/dp/0...
As much as I like comics as a form, I'm not sure the images add much here. I may have preferred to read this as just straight text. (Though maybe I wouldn't have read to the end in that case?)
The images provide visual stimulation. I probably wouldn't have finished it had it not been for the format. This is an incredibly smart way of spreading information (and I think quite a number of people understand this - Google, after all, used comics to explain Chrome when it was first released).
Do homeopathy believers love vaccines? Or is a vaccine not diluted enough for them?
There is a compilation of clinical cases titled "Microdoses Megaresults" by a renowned Indian homeopathy doctor Diwan Harish Chand. It lists around 400 cases with complete histories of patients each spanning many years.
It is a wonderful compilation in the sense that it first lists all complaints and test results of a patient and then follow up results after treatment by remedies. He has discussed why he selected a particular remedy and why it worked or not worked.
This book serves as a good empirical evidence for me.
It is a wonderful compilation in the sense that it first lists all complaints and test results of a patient and then follow up results after treatment by remedies. He has discussed why he selected a particular remedy and why it worked or not worked.
This book serves as a good empirical evidence for me.
I know there is a really strong bias against homeopathy here.
I would suggest a thought experiment. Just for a moment think that homeopathy might have a grain of truth. And with this, ask how and why about its cures. This might help me to understand your point clearly.
I would suggest a thought experiment. Just for a moment think that homeopathy might have a grain of truth. And with this, ask how and why about its cures. This might help me to understand your point clearly.
...except that you clearly don't want to understand the point, because the point -- no matter how it's presented -- is that homeopathy doesn't work, and it doesn't have even a grain of truth.
And, I wouldn't say there's a strong bias against homeopathy here, so much as there's a strong bias in favor of 700 years of science of Things That Actually Work. (Thankfully; this isn't always the case on HN.)
And, I wouldn't say there's a strong bias against homeopathy here, so much as there's a strong bias in favor of 700 years of science of Things That Actually Work. (Thankfully; this isn't always the case on HN.)
"except that you clearly don't want to understand the point". Don't be so cruel to me.
Think about yourself. You don't believe anything which contradicts those 700 years of work. You don't believe that water can have a memory. You don't believe there is some sort of energy/frequency stored in water or sugar which cures us. Why? Because we cannot see it or prove it with any known scientific methods. Right?
Well I was exactly like you. I got helped by homeopathy by chance and probably a "hacker" (as defined by Paul Buchheit) within me got curious if homeopathy is really works and is as miraculous as it claims?
I spent time, took medicines myself and my volunteer friends and family. It is still hard to believe for me but it works and it looks more than placebo effect.
I did not read it in a book. I actually experienced it. And my experience of 10 years tells it works.
Think about yourself. You don't believe anything which contradicts those 700 years of work. You don't believe that water can have a memory. You don't believe there is some sort of energy/frequency stored in water or sugar which cures us. Why? Because we cannot see it or prove it with any known scientific methods. Right?
Well I was exactly like you. I got helped by homeopathy by chance and probably a "hacker" (as defined by Paul Buchheit) within me got curious if homeopathy is really works and is as miraculous as it claims?
I spent time, took medicines myself and my volunteer friends and family. It is still hard to believe for me but it works and it looks more than placebo effect.
I did not read it in a book. I actually experienced it. And my experience of 10 years tells it works.
(I could not reply directly to the comment, probably due to bleeding karma)
"How do you explain that the supposed effects of homeopathy evaporate like the morning dew once they're placed in the setting of a double-blind scientific experiment with proper (well, in this case more) placebo controls?"
To me, one thing is sure for me. It works. Proved many many times for the last 10 years.
Now I am not really interested into running such tests mostly because I am not motivated enough (I am a programmer) and also because for myself I don't need any further proof for my own use.
"How do you explain that the supposed effects of homeopathy evaporate like the morning dew once they're placed in the setting of a double-blind scientific experiment with proper (well, in this case more) placebo controls?"
To me, one thing is sure for me. It works. Proved many many times for the last 10 years.
Now I am not really interested into running such tests mostly because I am not motivated enough (I am a programmer) and also because for myself I don't need any further proof for my own use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
As a simple experiment, could you put your most used homoeopathic remedy into a jar, and put pure water into another jar? They must be indistinguishable. Then, give them to someone you trust (and has no opinion either way on homoeopathy) to label A and B. They should record which of A and B is the real treatment, but not tell you.
Then, when you get sick, roll a dice. If it's 1 or 2, use A. 3 or 4, use B. 5 or 6, use the homoeopathic remedy. Record how effective they are after each use. Ideally, generate a new pair of A and B after each treatment. Also, assume that if you get A or B, it won't work since it's been messed around with.
After ten trials of each remedy, do the following. It'd be better if you didn't read this before doing it, but I want to commit to it, so I've ROT13'd it.
Zngpu hc gur rssrpgvirarff bs rnpu gerngzrag jvgu jurgure vg jnf ubzrbcnguvp be abg. Sebz urer jr'er tbvat gb nffhzr N jnf nyjnlf cynva jngre naq O jnf ubzrbcnguvp (nf jnf P boivbhfyl). Abj sbe n gehgu gnoyr bs rssrpgvirarff (0 sbe abg rssrpgvir, 1 sbe rssrpgvir):
As a simple experiment, could you put your most used homoeopathic remedy into a jar, and put pure water into another jar? They must be indistinguishable. Then, give them to someone you trust (and has no opinion either way on homoeopathy) to label A and B. They should record which of A and B is the real treatment, but not tell you.
Then, when you get sick, roll a dice. If it's 1 or 2, use A. 3 or 4, use B. 5 or 6, use the homoeopathic remedy. Record how effective they are after each use. Ideally, generate a new pair of A and B after each treatment. Also, assume that if you get A or B, it won't work since it's been messed around with.
After ten trials of each remedy, do the following. It'd be better if you didn't read this before doing it, but I want to commit to it, so I've ROT13'd it.
Zngpu hc gur rssrpgvirarff bs rnpu gerngzrag jvgu jurgure vg jnf ubzrbcnguvp be abg. Sebz urer jr'er tbvat gb nffhzr N jnf nyjnlf cynva jngre naq O jnf ubzrbcnguvp (nf jnf P boivbhfyl). Abj sbe n gehgu gnoyr bs rssrpgvirarff (0 sbe abg rssrpgvir, 1 sbe rssrpgvir):
N O P
0 1 1 Ubzrbcngul jbexf ba lbh
1 1 1 Lbh whfg trg orggre naq nffhzr gur zrqvpvar jbexf, be vg'f n cynprob
0 0 1 Vg'f n cynprob, naq lbh unir gb xabj lbh ner gnxvat vgI am not a homeopath, studied science in school and college and I was against homeopathy as much as any of you are. But here are my experiences which have made a believer and a lay, part time practitioner for myself, my family and friends. I am also not knowledgeable enough to support basis of homeopathy and related things like water memory.
I am posting my experiences about acute issues where a cure is expected in a matter of hours or days so it is quite clear if the disease has run its course or the medicine has worked.
I have seen many infants and young kids get better immediately with the homeopathy use. I am not sure if the placebo effect can work on them.
For the last 10 years my whole family (and many friends) are exclusively using homeopathy. So I think even if it placebo effect it is worth having.
I know my limited experiences can't be a basis of any scientific proof. But the point I want to make is homeopathy works for me as "advertised" so I don't care what science or other people say about it.
Have a look at these and let me know what it can be? Can placebo effect be so strong?
1. I was travelling and had severe back pain which resulted from sweeting in sun and then immediately going into a chilled place. Pain killers for 3 days could not subside it. My host, a lay practitioner, gave me a single homeopathy medicine, Rhustox 200, which cured me like a miracle. Please note I was a non-believer and I took this medicine in the most desperate conditions (traveling, deadlines etc.)
This experience forced me to give a second thought and I started self-study and help from two homeopaths.
'Rhuxtox 200' is also a medicine for complaints from sprains and strains on body. Since then I have cured countless people for similar conditions.
2. Any pain from injury to soft tissues immediately subsides with 'Arnica 30' 1 or 2 doses in a matter of hour. Have given this medicine to people of all ages.
3. Cantheris 30 for burning in urine.
4. Belladona 30 for fever/head ache due to host sun or any pain/inflammation with redness of the affected part.
5. Cough. Phosphorus 30 cures most cases.
6. Most pains which aggravate with motion. Bryonia 30 helps.
7. General spasms/pains. Colocynthis 30 1 dose works miracle on kids as well as elders. Hardly need to give second dose.
I am posting my experiences about acute issues where a cure is expected in a matter of hours or days so it is quite clear if the disease has run its course or the medicine has worked.
I have seen many infants and young kids get better immediately with the homeopathy use. I am not sure if the placebo effect can work on them.
For the last 10 years my whole family (and many friends) are exclusively using homeopathy. So I think even if it placebo effect it is worth having.
I know my limited experiences can't be a basis of any scientific proof. But the point I want to make is homeopathy works for me as "advertised" so I don't care what science or other people say about it.
Have a look at these and let me know what it can be? Can placebo effect be so strong?
1. I was travelling and had severe back pain which resulted from sweeting in sun and then immediately going into a chilled place. Pain killers for 3 days could not subside it. My host, a lay practitioner, gave me a single homeopathy medicine, Rhustox 200, which cured me like a miracle. Please note I was a non-believer and I took this medicine in the most desperate conditions (traveling, deadlines etc.)
This experience forced me to give a second thought and I started self-study and help from two homeopaths.
'Rhuxtox 200' is also a medicine for complaints from sprains and strains on body. Since then I have cured countless people for similar conditions.
2. Any pain from injury to soft tissues immediately subsides with 'Arnica 30' 1 or 2 doses in a matter of hour. Have given this medicine to people of all ages.
3. Cantheris 30 for burning in urine.
4. Belladona 30 for fever/head ache due to host sun or any pain/inflammation with redness of the affected part.
5. Cough. Phosphorus 30 cures most cases.
6. Most pains which aggravate with motion. Bryonia 30 helps.
7. General spasms/pains. Colocynthis 30 1 dose works miracle on kids as well as elders. Hardly need to give second dose.
You are not qualified, in any way, to determine what, if anything, had an effect on you or on other people. You are not capable of telling if your back pain, for example, was cured by homeopathy or had run its course. And this is why anecdotes are not considered evidence.
Anecdotes like yours are enough to warrant investigating to see if there is actually something going on. So people have - they have conducted trial and trial, and found homeopathy ineffective beyond any placebo effect.
It has no plausible mechanism by which it could work. It has no statistically significant effect when tested. It is dangerous and kills people. Hopefully you will wake up and realise this before you choose a homeopathic "remedy" for something serious and end up dead.
Anecdotes like yours are enough to warrant investigating to see if there is actually something going on. So people have - they have conducted trial and trial, and found homeopathy ineffective beyond any placebo effect.
It has no plausible mechanism by which it could work. It has no statistically significant effect when tested. It is dangerous and kills people. Hopefully you will wake up and realise this before you choose a homeopathic "remedy" for something serious and end up dead.
"You are not capable of telling if your back pain, for example, was cured by homeopathy or had run its course."
In my case, I may not be because it was for 3 days. But then I cured a large number of people for similar complaints within 1 day. Couple of weeks ago, I recommended Rhustox200 to a friend of a friend who had back pain for the last 1 year. This had started when he lifted a heavy object at that time. Rhuxtox faithfully cured him. Before that pain killers were temporary relief.
I am just narrating my positive experience for the last 10 years. And my point is that it works for me as it claims.
As I said in my comment, I have helped countless cases (fevers, pains etc) where relief was required within hours or days and I always got good results with homeopathy.
Homoepathy has cured, in my experience, really really serious cases in such a simple way that sometimes I just wonder what all this is; a placebo effect?
In my case, I may not be because it was for 3 days. But then I cured a large number of people for similar complaints within 1 day. Couple of weeks ago, I recommended Rhustox200 to a friend of a friend who had back pain for the last 1 year. This had started when he lifted a heavy object at that time. Rhuxtox faithfully cured him. Before that pain killers were temporary relief.
I am just narrating my positive experience for the last 10 years. And my point is that it works for me as it claims.
As I said in my comment, I have helped countless cases (fevers, pains etc) where relief was required within hours or days and I always got good results with homeopathy.
Homoepathy has cured, in my experience, really really serious cases in such a simple way that sometimes I just wonder what all this is; a placebo effect?
The problem with people that eschew science is that they no longer know how to even tell if what they're doing is actually working the way they think it is, or not.
> Couple of weeks ago, I recommended Rhustox200 to a friend of a friend who had back pain for the last 1 year. This had started when he lifted a heavy object at that time. Rhuxtox faithfully cured him. Before that pain killers were temporary relief.
What was the biological cause of the pain? Was it neuromuscular? Was it nervous system? Had there been any medical diagnosis of injury before the "treatment"? Any follow-up diagnosis? What was your follow-up? What is his subsequent range of motion? How much weight can he dead lift now? Has he taken any other treatments since? What was the timing between your "treatment" and any other treatments? Was his "cure" independently verified by anyone so that he didn't feel compelled to tell a friend-of-a-friend that it worked even if it didn't?
How many people have you "treated" that did not get better at all?
The maddening thing about saying that it might just all be "a placebo effect" is that that explanation implies that the treatment has actually worked, even in an indirect way, when in fact there's no evidence that it works at all.
This is pretty much the very example of cargo-cultism: taking magic pills and then trying to correlate positive effects with them.
> Couple of weeks ago, I recommended Rhustox200 to a friend of a friend who had back pain for the last 1 year. This had started when he lifted a heavy object at that time. Rhuxtox faithfully cured him. Before that pain killers were temporary relief.
What was the biological cause of the pain? Was it neuromuscular? Was it nervous system? Had there been any medical diagnosis of injury before the "treatment"? Any follow-up diagnosis? What was your follow-up? What is his subsequent range of motion? How much weight can he dead lift now? Has he taken any other treatments since? What was the timing between your "treatment" and any other treatments? Was his "cure" independently verified by anyone so that he didn't feel compelled to tell a friend-of-a-friend that it worked even if it didn't?
How many people have you "treated" that did not get better at all?
The maddening thing about saying that it might just all be "a placebo effect" is that that explanation implies that the treatment has actually worked, even in an indirect way, when in fact there's no evidence that it works at all.
This is pretty much the very example of cargo-cultism: taking magic pills and then trying to correlate positive effects with them.
"What was the biological cause of the pain? Was it neuromuscular? Was it nervous system? ....."
To use Rhuxtox, we only need to know (short version) if the ailment was caused by strain, overlifting, getting wet while perspiring. And it will work. I just mentioned one case but it has worked in many similar cases. In this particular case, the patient had stopped using pain killers because of side effects and he felt much better within first 3 days and after 1 week much better. Rhuxtox will keep working for him and if his complete recovery stops, he will get Rhuxtox 200 again or the next higher potency (Rhuxtox 1M).
"How many people have you "treated" that did not get better at all?"
This is an interesting point. Sometimes when I prescribe incorrect medicine (mostly because I was not careful enough taking symptoms, causes) the medicines does not work at all. Even though the patient is believer. For example if the abdomen pain is due to injury (Arnica 30 is correct medicine) and I give Colocynthis (for spasmodic pain), it won't work. Correcting the medicine will bring cure.
And there are times when I can't help people get better, mostly because I am not that good, though the patient has faithfully used medicine for quite some time. See place effect is not working here.
In such cases I recommend him to get consultation from professional homeopaths I know and he/she in fact gets better from someone with more knowledge. Placebos working again. Isn't it strange?
To use Rhuxtox, we only need to know (short version) if the ailment was caused by strain, overlifting, getting wet while perspiring. And it will work. I just mentioned one case but it has worked in many similar cases. In this particular case, the patient had stopped using pain killers because of side effects and he felt much better within first 3 days and after 1 week much better. Rhuxtox will keep working for him and if his complete recovery stops, he will get Rhuxtox 200 again or the next higher potency (Rhuxtox 1M).
"How many people have you "treated" that did not get better at all?"
This is an interesting point. Sometimes when I prescribe incorrect medicine (mostly because I was not careful enough taking symptoms, causes) the medicines does not work at all. Even though the patient is believer. For example if the abdomen pain is due to injury (Arnica 30 is correct medicine) and I give Colocynthis (for spasmodic pain), it won't work. Correcting the medicine will bring cure.
And there are times when I can't help people get better, mostly because I am not that good, though the patient has faithfully used medicine for quite some time. See place effect is not working here.
In such cases I recommend him to get consultation from professional homeopaths I know and he/she in fact gets better from someone with more knowledge. Placebos working again. Isn't it strange?
No, it isn't strange at all that placebos work if your definition of "works" just covers subjective experience. Comments like "I have seen many infants and young kids get better immediately with the homeopathy use. I am not sure if the placebo effect can work on them." show that you aren't aware of observer bias, for one.
How do you explain that the supposed effects of homeopathy evaporate like the morning dew once they're placed in the setting of a double-blind scientific experiment with proper (well, in this case more) placebo controls?
How do you explain that the supposed effects of homeopathy evaporate like the morning dew once they're placed in the setting of a double-blind scientific experiment with proper (well, in this case more) placebo controls?
To me, one thing is sure for me. It works. Proved many many times for the last 10 years.
Now I am not really interested into running such tests mostly because I am not motivated enough (I am a programmer) and also because for myself I don't need any further proof for my own use.
Now I am not really interested into running such tests mostly because I am not motivated enough (I am a programmer) and also because for myself I don't need any further proof for my own use.
For someone that's scientifically minded anecdotes like the ones you've described would actually count against the idea, not for it.
Why? Because human beings are very bad at intuitively interpreting information methodologically, this is why we have things like double-blind trials in the first place. It's very easy to subconsciously stack the odds in your own favor.
I'd encourage you to read up on James Randi and some of the people that compete for his million dollar challenge. Everyone that takes it is equally convinced (as you are) of their woo-woo ideas, and all of them are proven equally wrong.
You aren't immune from deluding yourself, and neither am I. Nobody is, that's why we have a process to factor human error out of the equation. It's called science.
In this case we aren't talking about some harmless and quaint idea. If you continue foistering homeopathy on your loved ones, there's a real possibility that the magical thinking will rub off on on them. And they'll subsequently neglect to seek real medical attention when they have a problem that can't be solved by a glass of water and a friendly smile.
Why? Because human beings are very bad at intuitively interpreting information methodologically, this is why we have things like double-blind trials in the first place. It's very easy to subconsciously stack the odds in your own favor.
I'd encourage you to read up on James Randi and some of the people that compete for his million dollar challenge. Everyone that takes it is equally convinced (as you are) of their woo-woo ideas, and all of them are proven equally wrong.
You aren't immune from deluding yourself, and neither am I. Nobody is, that's why we have a process to factor human error out of the equation. It's called science.
In this case we aren't talking about some harmless and quaint idea. If you continue foistering homeopathy on your loved ones, there's a real possibility that the magical thinking will rub off on on them. And they'll subsequently neglect to seek real medical attention when they have a problem that can't be solved by a glass of water and a friendly smile.
There's a fantastic video online somewhere of a martial arts instructor that had built a practice out of some form of "energetic combat", where he would run around and wave his arms, and his students -- somehow convinced that it worked -- would helpfully fall over.
Then one day there was a challenge from a more traditional martial practitioner. The sensei was quite surprised when his unconvinced opponent did not fall down like he was supposed to.
And even more surprised when he got smacked in the face.
Unfortunately, rather than grapple with the realization that he had been practicing nonsense for years, IIRC he came up with some woo-woo excuse for why it didn't work that day, or on that opponent.
EDIT: Found it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I
Then one day there was a challenge from a more traditional martial practitioner. The sensei was quite surprised when his unconvinced opponent did not fall down like he was supposed to.
And even more surprised when he got smacked in the face.
Unfortunately, rather than grapple with the realization that he had been practicing nonsense for years, IIRC he came up with some woo-woo excuse for why it didn't work that day, or on that opponent.
EDIT: Found it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I
You say that homeopathy has cured many people. I believe you have stumbled upon one of the magical things in medicine: in acute cases of most diseases, people get recover. Even if we did nothing, most people would get better. Unfortunately, homeopathy is the clinical equivalent to nothing, so you are only observing people's natural history - not improving their outcome with your treatments. I urge you to very carefully consider if someone needs actual medical care in the future, and to refer appropriately.
" in acute cases of most diseases, people get recover. Even if we did nothing, most people would get better. "
I mentioned acute problems because results are more easily verifiable. Say you are having fever or allergy for last few hours and take a homoepathy medicine and get cured. Now you know that your disease runs its course in 3-7 days and has been obviously helped by homeopath.
Homeopathy is also good in chronic cases and I successfully help many people.
I mentioned acute problems because results are more easily verifiable. Say you are having fever or allergy for last few hours and take a homoepathy medicine and get cured. Now you know that your disease runs its course in 3-7 days and has been obviously helped by homeopath.
Homeopathy is also good in chronic cases and I successfully help many people.
> I cured a large number of people for similar complaints
> my point is that it works for me as it claims.
My point is that you are entirely unqualified to tell what works, and you are going to end up hurting yourself or someone else.
"Works for me" is meaningless. It either works, or it doesn't. In homeopathy's case, it has been demonstrated time and again that it does nothing; it is indistinguishable from a placebo.
> my point is that it works for me as it claims.
My point is that you are entirely unqualified to tell what works, and you are going to end up hurting yourself or someone else.
"Works for me" is meaningless. It either works, or it doesn't. In homeopathy's case, it has been demonstrated time and again that it does nothing; it is indistinguishable from a placebo.
I was in a bit of a hurry, so I just grabbed one. Fortunately, I read the label. Sure enough, the damned things were homeopathic eye drops (AKA water) with some undefined "apis" extracted from bees. I looked up their website, later. It claimed that their cures would "activate my immune system." Obviously, I put them back, but they were on the same damn shelf as the real medicine and in the pharmacy. Can you say "confusingly similar"? Yeah, they had a tiny label on them that said "homeopathic" without bothering to tell anyone what that means, or that the substance is nothing but bee crap heavily diluted with water.
Now, let's review: allergies are caused by an overactive immune system. Their eye drops, which are often used to treat allergic problems, contain bee bits (which people can be highly, even lethally allergic to, making me hope they really do dilute it enough) and they claim that this will cure me "like a vaccine" by activating my already over-active immune system.
Talk about a recipe for disaster. I was pissed off enough to send out a complaint, but I never got a reply.