# Homeopathy – does it work?



## The Backward OX (Jan 13, 2012)

At home, we’d been discussing conventional medicine versus homeopathy. My other half cited the British Royal Family as the best advertisement for homeopathy, given their ages and their general good health. She also reminded me about one of her relatives, cured, by a homeopath, of 30 years of severe tonsillitis.

So what do you think? Better still, what experiences have you had?


----------



## aj47 (Jan 13, 2012)

As I understand it, homeopathy is similar to mithridatism. I admit I'm not too well-read on the efficacy of either.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 13, 2012)

Asking if homeopathy works in general is pretty similar to asking if traditional medicine works in general. Overall I have a favorable view of it.

My mom had most of her thyroid removed for the same reason you did, Ox. The traditional docs missed part of it and she hasn't let them get in to take the rest. She goes to a homeopathic doc and a traditional doc, compares what they say, and chooses what she thinks she should do (pretty much always favoring the homeopath). So far the cancer's not come back.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 14, 2012)

Much of what's called homeopathy isn't.  You can't begin to get reasonable answers unless there's a clear understanding on what you're referring to when you use the term homeopathy.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 14, 2012)

Very enlightening, that.


----------



## garza (Jan 14, 2012)

Rustgold's point, if I understand it, is that many people confuse the application of ordinary home remedies with homoeopathy. Much of the confusion arises, no doubt, because U.S. dictionaries misspell homoeopathy. 

Thus his statement is enlightening, for it causes us to ask, 'Exactly what are we talking about?' We cannot properly discuss an issue until we understand the terms of reference and know that we are on common ground. Homoeopathy has naught to do with the use of home remedies.

In this case, how, exactly, do you decide which drugs to use in a homoeopathic treatment of a problem with the thyroid gland? What drugs for such a condition are prescribed by a homoeopathic practitioner? Is there consensus among homoeopathic practitioners for the treatment of such a condition?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 14, 2012)

the overall opinion of scientists is that no, it does not work as a medicine. it may work as a form of placebo, and there's no denying it has a wealth of support. but then, so does astrology and ouija boards and for every piece of 'evidence' to support it you'll find about ten pieces that disprove its claims and there's no getting around the fact it has no logical basis. a high dose of homeopathic medicine is, i believe, within the ratio of 1 part 'medicine' to 100 parts dilution liquid (tap water, essentially). and that's a high dose. a typical quantity of homeopathic medicine per dose is roughly equivalent to a pinch of salt in both the north and south atlantic oceans. in other words, it may as well not be there.

i dont much care either way on the subject, but one of the more irritating things about it to me is that it is taxpayer funded in some countries' health services, such as Britain's to the tune of several millions of dollars. to me, that's like funding voodoo. 

as a rule i am against virtually all 'alternative medicine'. did you know there's a name for alternative medicine that has been proven to actually work? yup, it's called 'medicine'.


----------



## candid petunia (Jan 14, 2012)

All I know is homoeopathy is popular where we live (and it's not home remedies) because conventional medicine does have its side effects. My brother's Tonsillitis was cured by homoeopathy in 3 months where the doctor's medicine could not help for years; they'd wanted an operation to have it removed.


----------



## Walkio (Jan 14, 2012)

Luckyscars is right. Scientific evidence says homeopathy works as well as a placebo, no more.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 14, 2012)

garza said:


> Rustgold's point, if I understand it, is that many people confuse the application of ordinary home remedies with homoeopathy.
> 
> Thus his statement is enlightening, for it causes us to ask, 'Exactly what are we talking about?' We cannot properly discuss an issue until we understand the terms of reference and know that we are on common ground. Homoeopathy has naught to do with the use of home remedies.


This

Quote Dictionary :
homoeopathy = "a method of treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses, which produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the disease."


What this means is that you give a patient small amounts of arsenic to treat a range of spotty skin conditions.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 14, 2012)

garza said:


> Rustgold's point, if I understand it, is that many people confuse the application of ordinary home remedies with homoeopathy. Much of the confusion arises, no doubt, because U.S. dictionaries misspell homoeopathy.
> 
> Thus his statement is enlightening, for it causes us to ask, 'Exactly what are we talking about?' We cannot properly discuss an issue until we understand the terms of reference and know that we are on common ground. Homoeopathy has naught to do with the use of home remedies.
> 
> In this case, how, exactly, do you decide which drugs to use in a homoeopathic treatment of a problem with the thyroid gland? What drugs for such a condition are prescribed by a homoeopathic practitioner? Is there consensus among homoeopathic practitioners for the treatment of such a condition?



garza –

I know of no one using home remedies and calling them homeo-anything. I don’t know where you get such an idea. Most people using home remedies would simply use the name of the remedy, like ‘eye of newt’ for example.

It is merely coincidence that treatment of thyroid conditions has crept into this thread. I personally am not looking for any homeo-whatsit treatment. The thread came about as a result of an entirely different catalyst.

And as to spelling, how do you pronounce the word the way you spell it? Ho-mo-eeo-pathy? It’s much easier on the lips to say ho-me-op-athy. 




luckyscars said:


> as a rule i am against virtually all 'alternative medicine'. did you know there's a name for alternative medicine that has been proven to actually work? yup, it's called 'medicine'.


My General Practitioner, a doctor registered with my country’s Medical Association, also practices acupuncture and hypnotherapy, and prescribes St John’s Wort as an anti-depressant and fish oil as an anti-arthritic. All of that is alternative medicine.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 14, 2012)

Homoeopathy? Giving people diluted solutions of harmful ingredients?

Sounds suspiciously dangerous to me.

In the early 1900's a similar thought-process was pursued.. It was called "Radioactive Water", and, at the time, everyone thought it was the new magic elixir that cured all and improved health.

Companies produced water coolers lined with radioactive isotopes, under the belief that the radioactively-charged water would invigorate the body and cleanse the blood.

They even began selling portable pocket-sized capsules of radioactive water shooters for you to drink and get your radioactive dose for the day!



Mm mm.. Feel that tingly sensation? That's radiation coursing through your veins! :nightmare:



> The Revigator was a jar made of radium-containing ore which held several gallons of water and came with these instructions: _“Fill jar every night. Drink freely . . . when thirsty and upon arising and retiring, average six or more glasses daily.”_
> Many more radium-emanating products hit the market, many of which were cheaper, smaller and mobile so you could take your personal, perpetual health spring with you on the road or at home.
> 
> In the 1920s and early 1930s it was possible to purchase radium-containing salves, beauty creams, toothpaste (radon was thought to fight dental decay and improve digestion), ear plugs, chocolate bars, butter, soap, suppositories, and even contraceptives.



And then, a unfortunate man named Eben Bryers began drinking radon-tainted water, under the belief that it was good for him... :grief:

The Radioactive Death of Eben Byers


----------



## AvA (Jan 14, 2012)

Agreeing with the 'homeopathy = placebo' statement.

It has been shown that in numerous occasions (e.g The Great Prayer experiment), the patient's believe-to-get-better is almost as important as the medicine itself.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 14, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Homoeopathy? Giving people diluted solutions of harmful ingredients?
> 
> Sounds suspiciously dangerous to me.
> 
> ...



I swallowed radioactive iodine 12 months ago and my jaw hasn't fallen off yet.


----------



## AvA (Jan 14, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> I swallowed radioactive iodine 12 months ago and my jaw hasn't fallen off yet.



I'm assuming that's iodine-131, which is used in medical treatments. I don't think you'd use any radon isotopes for anything other than inducing lung cancer.


----------



## garza (Jan 14, 2012)

xO - It's not my spelling. It's the correct spelling. Consult any Oxford dictionary and you will find both the correct spelling and correct pronunciation. 

The key to the meaning of the word is the prefix 'homoe-', (alternatively, from older sources, 'homae-', which provides a better guide to pronunciation for present-day English speakers) from the Greek meaning 'same'. Lose that, you lose the meaning of the word. 

Most misspellings in U.S. dictionaries can be laughed off as harmless idiosyncracies, the result of the backwoods cultural descendents of Andrew Jackson learning to write and making up their own spelling. In this case the meaning of the word is lost when the wrong spelling is used.

As to its efficacy, homoeopathy has too many respected adherents to be written off as useless, and too little scientific backing to be accepted at face value.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 14, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> At home, we’d been discussing conventional medicine versus homeopathy. My other half cited the British Royal Family as the best advertisement for homeopathy, given their ages and their general good health. She also reminded me about one of her relatives, cured, by a homeopath, of 30 years of severe tonsillitis.
> 
> So what do you think? Better still, what experiences have you had?



They use homeopathy on the same basis that Chairman Mao and Pol Pot did away with doctors - For everybody but themselves. Chairman Mao had a fully equipped hospital attached to his quarters.

Homeopathy is probably 99% the placebo effect plus the odd lucky hit - That said, the same doctors and scientists who say that 0.00001% in solution will have no effect also tell us that 0.00001% of substance _X_ will kill us - Seems that _they_ can have it both ways. The real art of doctoring, and any form of alternative medicine, is reading the patient, something that modern medical training ignores; all they are interested in are the test results, or *contingency absolution* as I call it, it goes along the lines of "I carried out all the tests and ticked the appropriate boxes.... Not my fault guv'ner." 

1st Rule - Doctoring is not about numbers on computer screens.

2nd Rule - Nursing is a people skill, it cannot be taught in a university lecture hall.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 14, 2012)

garza said:


> As to its efficacy, homoeopathy has too many respected adherents to be written off as useless, and too little scientific backing to be accepted at face value.



Funny that - They said the same thing about Barry Marshall and his assertion that ulcers were caused by Helicobacter Pylori - _"What would a backwoods Australian doctor know about it...."

_He's the one with the Nobel Prize sitting on his mantlepiece, not the experts who spent 10 years telling the world that he didn't know what he was talking about.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 14, 2012)

garza said:


> Most misspellings in U.S. dictionaries can be laughed off as harmless *idiosyncracies,* the result of the backwoods cultural *descendents* of Andrew Jackson learning to write and making up their own spelling.



Sad.


----------



## garza (Jan 14, 2012)

Thought you might enjoy that. 

Spell-check flagged them, but I said, no, given the subject of the sentence...


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Jan 14, 2012)

My mum once got me to see a homeopathic doctor, because actual doctors weren't, (and still aren't), able fix my headache condition. I promised I'd put aside my logic and go along with it for an appointment or two, even though I knew homeopathic theory is, in essence, to dilute something as much as possible and therefore make it stronger. But as I said, logic aside, I gave it a go...

During the first appointment, the doctor asked me to rate the headache I was experiencing on that day out of 10, and then gave me a pot of sugar pills. And I mean sugar pills. They tasted sweet and I remember thinking at the time that they could've at least stuck in a cockroach or two to at least give the illusion of actual content. Anywho, no effect, and a month or two later I returned for my next appointment, and was asked to rate my headache for that particular day again.

It happened to be one point less, and, apparently, that meant that the pills had worked. Because I was one point out of 10 better on that particular day at that particular time of day a month later. I did tell her that my headaches changed throughout the day, every day, but apparently the results were quite telling nevertheless. It was worth the try anyway, not because there was actually any chance of success, but because otherwise people would've kept badgering me to try homeopathy 

I think homeopathy is probably the medicine of optimism and hope if anything. The doctors tend to be kind and seem to care, and so that I imagine is what convinces people of its merit. Just don't expect the treatments they give you to be all that much good, (as, once again, homeopathic theory is dilution equals strength, so 1 part in a 1,000 of treatment is thought of as _weaker _than 1 part in 10,000 of treatment).

Edit- Oh, and I didn't return, of course


----------



## Foxee (Jan 14, 2012)

You know, the fingers were pointed at homeopathic doctors in this thread for giving patients a 'radioactive drink' but who prescribed that for Ox? Traditional methods for cancer are cut, burn, and poison the cancer out which to me falls under 'desperate times call for desperate measures'. 

From what I've heard of homeopaths like these guys their actual philosophy is entirely backwards from the definition that Rustgold found. Indeed, that fits traditional medicine a bit better to me with inoculations of a weakened sickness into healthy people to build immunity. Note that I'm not denigrating the practice, it's just that they definition seems to apply there much better.

There are two very respected homeopathic offices that I know in this area and I've heard docs from each speak. Their philosophy of treatment of the human body has a lot more to do with prevention than waiting for things to go wrong and having to apply a drastic cure. Feeding the immune system, balancing hormones, vitamins, etc. For situations that need a more drastic approach they often work in tandem with traditional doctors, not telling people to go off their medications but trying to make them healthier and stronger so that when the patient returns to their traditional doctor they test out of the need for their meds.

I don't see a problem with that. 

I think that on either side of the fence, traditional medicine and alternative medicine, there are good guys and shysters, knowledgeable caring caregivers and those only after a quick buck and off to their golf game. Buyer beware.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 14, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> My General Practitioner, a doctor registered with my country’s Medical Association, also practices acupuncture and hypnotherapy, and prescribes St John’s Wort as an anti-depressant and fish oil as an anti-arthritic. All of that is alternative medicine.



and again, the reason it is called 'alternative medicine' is because there is no definite proof it works in the way it is suggested. note that i'm not saying things like acupuncture have absolutely no benefit to the patient. even homeopathy, as i said, has demonstrable effects on some of those who use it. it wouldn't be a multi-million dollar industry otherwise. same goes for acupuncture. the difference between an alternative medicine, like acupuncture for instance, and a proven medicine like, lets say, the birth control pill is that the effectiveness for the former is widely variable. sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it works in one patient very differently that in another. in other words, there is no proven prognosis for somebody who undergoes acupuncture treatment for a specific condition. in comparison, birth control medication has the exact same effect in the overwhelming majority of otherwise healthy women the overwhelming majority of the time. the fact alternative medicine can be and is administered by a registered doctor does little to substantiate its case. doctors, GP's or otherwise, may turn to a multitude of different alternatives to cure conditions, but no doctor would tell you acupuncture is guaranteed to work. same for st johns wort, etc. 

it's essentially equivalent to the use of exorcism in psychology. there have been one or two cases in the past of exorcism being promoted as a way to treat violent psychosis or schizophrenia. this was not because anybody believed the patient to actually be possessed by a demon, but because the school of thought was that administering an exorcism was a powerful way to treat patients, particularly those with religious susceptibility, through the power of suggestion. in other words, if you were able to make a violent schizophrenic believe that their condition is as a result of demonic possession and then stage a ritual to 'rid' the demon from them, then they will believe themselves 'cured' sufficiently for the treatment to work or seem to work. most alternative medicines follow this doctrine, it's all basically variations on the placebo theory.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 14, 2012)

InsanityStrickenWriter said:


> My mum once got me to see a homeopathic doctor, because actual doctors weren't, (and still aren't), able fix my headache condition. I promised I'd put aside my logic and go along with it for an appointment or two, even though I knew homeopathic theory is, in essence, to dilute something as much as possible and therefore make it stronger. But as I said, logic aside, I gave it a go...
> 
> During the first appointment, the doctor asked me to rate the headache I was experiencing on that day out of 10, and then gave me a pot of sugar pills. And I mean sugar pills. They tasted sweet and I remember thinking at the time that they could've at least stuck in a cockroach or two to at least give the illusion of actual content. Anywho, no effect, and a month or two later I returned for my next appointment, and was asked to rate my headache for that particular day again.
> 
> ...




Maybe we should start a health and wellness thread. No, wait, there’ll be another site somewhere for just that. 

With most “illness”, the best treatment probably involves finding the cause first. Anything else is generally no more than a Band-Aid. Frequently, people take pain-killers for headaches instead of looking for the cause.

My other half suffered from debilitating headaches for years. Now I have to say, there are many places in the head from whence headaches can emanate. In her case, she told the quack where the pain was and he said it sounded like a sinus headache. He couldn’t fix it. His only suggestion was an operation to drain the sinuses. She said “No” and consulted a reflexologist. That lady rubbed the soles of my lady’s feet, her sinuses began draining, and the headaches vanished. 

Okay, she has to keep going back to the reflexologist. I don’t remember all I’ve read on the subject of sinus conditions but it’s something to do with the body’s response to allergens. The body produces fluid which fills the sinus cavities, and the pressure of the fluid build-up causes pain in the surrounding bone – or something like that. While ever she lives here, she’s going to be exposed to something in the environment that brings on sinusitis. (Our air is fresh; when she lived in the filthy smoky city, this problem was non-existent. Go figure) So anyway her sinus passages keep filling, the pain returns, she goes off to the reflexologist, the reflexologist does her mumbo-jumbo, the sinuses drain, the pain goes away.

Here’s the interesting bit. The Health Insurance fund my lady belongs to pays her a benefit of just over 40% of the cost of each reflexology consultation. So obviously they’re convinced about alternative medicine.

I’m not suggesting your headache is sinus-related. But you should be able to pinpoint a cause, and go on from there.




Foxee said:


> 'desperate times call for desperate measures'.



Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 15, 2012)

Short, and accurate, answer to OP. no, no more than the placebo effect. The evidence is in Ben Greenacre's book "Bad Science". He also mentions that the adherents of it are the only people who have threatened him with violence when he has exposed the errors in their logic, though Gillian MacKieth (is that the right spelling?) threatened him with the law when he questioned the worth of her qualifications, he obtained the same qualification for his dead cat and she took it no further.


----------



## garza (Jan 15, 2012)

xO - Tell your better half she's not ingesting a sufficient amount of pepper. If I go for any length of time in a situation where a source of good pepper is not available, my sinuses block up and I get headaches. I don't know what varieties of pepper are available where you live. The most effective is habanero. Jalapeño is good if she does not like really hot pepper, but she'll need to eat a lot more to get the same effect. What counts is how much capsaicin is in the pepper. When I eat a properly flavoured meal I need to have tissue handy because my sinuses will drain.

If fresh peppers are not available where you live you can probably find dried pepper in a local health food store. I don't know if the dried pepper would be as effective as the fresh. Also, a good brand of pepper sauce will work. You might find Tabasco from the U.S. (rather mild, but quite tasty) or Marie Sharp from Belize (available in several strengths) in larger supermarkets. Both are marketed worldwide and one or the other, or some other brand, maybe from Jamaica, should be available.

Those of us who love a lot of pepper appreciate the fact that pepper is one of the healthiest foods we can eat. You can check it out on the web.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Jan 15, 2012)

> I’m not suggesting your headache is sinus-related. But you should be able to pinpoint a cause, and go on from there.



If only it was that simple. After four/five years of it, and countless visits to countless doctors, and going around in circles with internet research, I still haven't a clue what to label my condition. From my time looking it up, sinus headaches are one of the easier head conditions to get a diagnosis of. I've been told in the past that, if I wanted, I could get myself a diagnosis of ME/CFS, not because I actually have it, but just because the term is diluted enough to provide a last-resort diagnosis to the un-diagnosable. As for pain-killers, they don't make a lick of difference, so I don't use them anyway. 

I'm pretty much resigned to the possibility of having this for decades, if not till my end. Then again, maybe one day I'll be directed to get a hole drilled through my head to make way for a kind soul to shove an electrode in. I hear it's becoming quite the treatment for head conditions. Can't wait.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 15, 2012)

Does homoeopathy work?

How much can someone's mind influence their body? And vice versa?

I like the Idea behind CBT. Positive thought might be useful in certain circumstances. It won't replace a missing limb, but it might help someone come to terms with the loss. 

Could homoeopathy be a clever way of influencing someone's own inbuilt medication?


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 15, 2012)

InsanityStrickenWriter said:


> If only it was that simple. After four/five years of it, and countless visits to countless doctors, and going around in circles with internet research, I still haven't a clue what to label my condition.



Okay, so have you tried reflexology? The reflexologist my lady sees was able, on the first visit, to diagnose all her ailments simply by feeliing the soles of her feet. She's only treating one ailment, but the interesting thing is that she was able to diagnose all the others.

It isn't invasive, and it might do some good. What do you have to lose?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 16, 2012)

bazz cargo said:


> Could homoeopathy be a clever way of influencing someone's own inbuilt medication?



yes. that is, in fact, the only scientifically possible way it COULD work. sorry, believers, but no other methodology can explain it. it is utterly absurd to believe the 'chemical explanation' because there is no way a drop or two of medicine (which would be of very dubious effect even if it was not diluted, mind) dissolved in hundreds or thousands of parts of water can actually have any physical effect. i am, however, very willing to entertain the placebo hypothesis because, yes, homeopathy has its advocates and most of them seem to be of reasonably sound mind. but, no, anyone who actually believes in water memory or any of that crap is very confused. a simple comparison of the amount of 'active' ingredient in a dose of homeopathic 'medicine' with the other molecules it contains pretty much debunk its chemical validity. there could well be more atoms of george washington's urine in a single dose of homeopathic medicine than 'active ingredient', yet i don't suppose many homeopathic advocates would suggest that it was george washington's pee that cured their migraine.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 16, 2012)

Umm...was DNA being collected and stored back in Washington's day?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 16, 2012)

um, it was a figure of speech, ox. i was just explaining how at a molecular level advocating the chemical properties of homeopathic substances as medicine is rather like eating a single pill of aspirin before hrowing up the entire other contents of your stomach and then pointing at the pool of vomit and claiming that the vomit is beneficial to consume because it contains aspirin and that if one did so it would help them stop feeling sick. it doesn't compute to a rational mind to refer to a tiny portion of a substance within a vast quantity containing other compounds and infer that compound, which contains all kinds of crap at the molecular level, has any net effect on a person's well being just because it contains a tiny amount of something that *might* be beneficial. Capeesh?


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 16, 2012)

It was meant to be funny.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 16, 2012)

oh, all right then. apologies.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 16, 2012)

garza said:


> As to its efficacy,* homoeopathy has too many respected adherents to be written off as useless*, and too little scientific backing to be accepted at face value.



That's not how it works.

Homeopathy does not work. It has never worked. More importantly, it is physically impossible for homeopathy to work. Do not, I repeat, do NOT take homeopathic medicine in lieu of taking actual medicine.


----------



## philistine (Jan 16, 2012)

Nope. Urban voodoo, quackery, charlatanism and mountebankery.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Jan 16, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> Okay, so have you tried reflexology? The reflexologist my lady sees was able, on the first visit, to diagnose all her ailments simply by feeliing the soles of her feet. She's only treating one ailment, but the interesting thing is that she was able to diagnose all the others.
> 
> It isn't invasive, and it might do some good. What do you have to lose?
> Reflexology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks, I'll consider it. I'll have to abandon logic again though.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 16, 2012)

Hey X0, there's a book for you to write! The psychology of Homoeopathy.  A Guide to male bovine excreta!


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 16, 2012)

Chirios said:


> That's not how it works.



Perhaps you might care to explain how "* homoeopathy having too many respected adherents to be written off as useless" *is not how it works. 

Put another way, saying that ""*homoeopathy having too many respected adherents to be written off as useless" *is not how it works" is a meaningless remark.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 16, 2012)

InsanityStrickenWriter said:


> Thanks, I'll consider it. I'll have to abandon logic again though.



Initial open-mindedness is good.


----------



## kowalskil (Jan 16, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> At home, we’d been discussing conventional medicine versus homeopathy. My other half cited the British Royal Family as the best advertisement for homeopathy, given their ages and their general good health. She also reminded me about one of her relatives, cured, by a homeopath, of 30 years of severe tonsillitis.
> 
> So what do you think? Better still, what experiences have you had?



Medicine is said to be half science and half arts. What fraction of homeopathy is based on controlled experiments? Probably much less than one half. But that is only a guess. 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 17, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> Perhaps you might care to explain how "* homoeopathy having too many respected adherents to be written off as useless" *is not how it works.
> 
> Put another way, saying that ""*homoeopathy having too many respected adherents to be written off as useless" *is not how it works" is a meaningless remark.



Whether or not something is works is not dependent on how many people believe that it does. Science is science, chemistry is chemistry, physics is physics and saying that homoeopathy should be accepted because there are people who believe in it is ridiculous.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Jan 17, 2012)

When scientists begin to measure infinity (beyond conciousness) I might begin to accept the misleading title of their "God particle" theory. LOL

No folks I'm neither religious nor anti-science, just tryin' to say it's a _relatively_ big old universe and I enjoyed ev'ryones views on this subject.

Thanks to all.

Ian


----------



## garza (Jan 17, 2012)

Chirios - You highlighted only the first half of my statement. The two halves are of equal importance. Please read the entire statement and see how the ideas balance.

Please note that I did not say its claims should be accepted, but only that homoeopathy should not be discarded as useless. Homoeopathy has at least the usefulness of the sugar pill or the saline injection. You also overlooked, I believe, the word 'respected'. 

The balance of probability is that homoeopathy cannot cure disease. There is no scientific evidence to show that it does.

But do remember that there was a time when there was no scientific evidence to show that surgeons washing their hands could reduce the number of deaths from puerperal fever, and the idea of infection was rejected as nonsense. 

Too many of us suffer from the 'we have arrived' syndrome, believing that current ideas are final. My doctor assured me, and showed me the scientific evidence, gathered from scans and blood tests, that I would not live three months without the battery of anti-stroke medication he prescribed. That was nine years ago. Recently I've learned that my self-prescribed dose of one gramme of aspirin per day can, in many cases, be as effective as anything else. 

Take note that Bishop Wright assured his sons that men could never fly. 

I've no faith in the words 'never' or 'can't', and, though I may disagree with it, I do not label an idea different from my own as 'ridiculous'.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 17, 2012)

garza said:


> Chirios - You highlighted only the first half of my statement. The two halves are of equal importance. Please read the entire statement and see how the ideas balance.



They don't balance. I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but your statement was an example of the golden mean fallacy, assuming that in any debate both sides have equal merit. They don't. Sometimes people are simply wrong.



> Please note that I did not say its claims should be accepted, but only that homoeopathy should not be discarded as useless. Homoeopathy has at least the usefulness of the sugar pill or the saline injection. You also overlooked, I believe, the word 'respected'.



I over looked the word respected because who is and who isn't respected is a subjective view. However, I can say with certainty that no chemist, physicist, biochemist or pharmacist who is respected in the scientific community has stated that there is evidence that homoeopathy works beyond the placebo. Now, if you take homoeopathic medicine along with actual medicine that's grand, but it needs to be stressed that homoeopathy does not work by the mechanisms that homoeopaths claim that it does and it cannot work by the mechanisms that homoeopaths claim it does.



> The balance of probability is that homoeopathy cannot cure disease. There is no scientific evidence to show that it does.



It's not the balance of probability. It doesn't. And there are comprehensive scientific studies which say that, not to mention some two or three hundred years of chemistry and physics which say that it cannot. 



> But do remember that there was a time when there was no scientific evidence to show that surgeons washing their hands could reduce the number of deaths from puerperal fever, and the idea of infection was rejected as nonsense.



Of course there wasn't such evidence, because for the most part *science hadn't been invented*. And in those locations where the scientific method was invented (the Islamic world, Asia) being clean was well known to stop the spread of disease. But this is another fallacy, because it assumes that a statement has been made without evidence. The homoeopaths have been extremely helpful in stating exactly by what mechanisms they believe their medicine to work and by giving a very precise method to determine whether or not it works. However what they say overturns centuries of physics and chemistry. 

There are two problems with what this process that you realise right off the bat. 1) Molecules are constantly moving. The rate at which they move is determined by their temperature. The only way to stop this movement is by reducing the temperature of the molecule to absolute zero. (Sort of. Zero Point Energy means that the molecule would continue to move anyway but that's irrelevant for this discussion.) Which means that even if the water molecules retained a memory of whatever molecule was diluted into the solution such a memory would disappear almost instantaneously due to the random movement of the molecules. 2) As has been previously stated, chemistry requires the formation of electronic bonds between molecules/atoms. Without such a bond there is no chemistry, and therefore no effect on the body. So even if a space was created between the water molecules that corresponded to the dimensions of the chemical, there would be no reaction with the molecules in the body. In other words, a vacuum that is shaped roughly the same as a molecule of sulfer will have no more effect on the human body than a vacuum shaped roughly like Tony Blair would make someone want to invade the Middle East. 3) The extent to which homoeopaths dilute the water is to such an extent that there is no active ingredient left in the solution. Which means that it's no different to properly sanitised tap water. 



> Too many of us suffer from the 'we have arrived' syndrome, believing that current ideas are final. My doctor assured me, and showed me the scientific evidence, gathered from scans and blood tests, that I would not live three months without the battery of anti-stroke medication he prescribed. That was nine years ago. Recently I've learned that my self-prescribed dose of one gramme of aspirin per day can, in many cases, be as effective as anything else.



It's not a we have arrived syndrome, it's knowledge. If I told you that the sky was a carpet you'd say: hold on, I've been on a plane, I've flown through the sky, it isn't a carpet. If I told a car mechanic that he could fuel an engine using vomit he'd look at me funny. Specialised knowledge leads to knowing what is and what isn't. This isn't to say that everything is known, just that some things are, and when someone states: we think that what you know isn't true, scientists respond: do you have any evidence for it? The person shows the evidence, an experiment (well, lots of experiments) are done, and it is shown that the person is right and or wrong. The same thing happened with homoeopathy, it's just that the homoeopaths ignored the science and therefore they are ridiculed.

And if you think I'm wrong about this: look at the recent faster than light neutrino's thing. A huge, monumental statement has been made, but it was made with evidence, and no experiment has been conducted which falsifies the evidence. The people are most likely wrong about faster than light neutrino's, but the scientific community hasn't ostracised them because they have evidence for their claim. Not to mention that they haven't been rude about the whole thing, simply saying: we have a funny result that we can't explain except to accept it at face value. 

As for what happened to you, you got lucky. There's a term mathematicians use called "variance". In any probabilistic situation there will be some people who hit a certain number and some people who don't. There are other explanations but frankly that would be delving waay too deep into your personal life to explain.



> Take note that Bishop Wright assured his sons that men could never fly.



Another false equivocation. There was nothing physically stopping the building of an airplane, it was just considered too difficult to do. There is something physically stopping homoeopathy from working, it's called the electromagnetic force, and it's one of the fundamental constants of the universe. 



> I've no faith in the words 'never' or 'can't',


 
Sure about that? What if I told you to jump off a building since you can fly? And I didn't give you a parachute. Or a jetpack. And I weighed you down with bricks.



> and, though I may disagree with it, I do not label an idea different from my own as 'ridiculous'.



It's not an idea, that's the problem. We aren't debating philosophy here, we're debating theories. Theories are based on facts, facts can be tested to check their truth, homoeopathy has been tested and it doesn't work. Some things are and some things aren't.  The Sun is not made out of cheese, human beings are composed mostly of water, not silicone, and homoeopathy does not and cannot work.


----------



## garza (Jan 17, 2012)

The placebo effect is real. Ask any long-in-service GP. 

You are lecturing me in elementary chemistry. I've researched and written articles about homoeopathy. My access to journals not readily available to the public gives me a bit of knowledge in such matters. I am, after all, a journalist, a reporter, and reporters write stories about all sorts of things. All you say is old stuff. 

In school I was taught that science was around long before the middle of the 19th Century. Apparently you are more learnéd in the history of science than I. The need for obstetric asepsis was not generally recognised until late in the 19th century. Is that when science was invented?

About the same time that science was invented, if your statement about puerperal fever is correct, physicists were in general agreement that they had a clear understanding of how the universe works. The suggestion was made in the U.S. that the Patent Office ought to be closed because everything that could be invented had already been invented. 

Then came the Special Theory of Relativitly. Then the General Theory. Then quantum theory and chaos theory and string theory and all of the other new ideas built on discoveries made over the past century, discoveries that have radically changed the way we view the universe. Most of what I learned about electricity as a youngster was wrong. You mention EMF. It dosen't work the way you apparently think it does. You need an update there. There are some remarkable new ideas.

So when you talk about sub-molecular chemistry are you absolutely certain you are on firm ground? Are you absolutely certain that there can not be something operating in that region that we have yet to discover, and that perhaps the anecdotal evidence that appears to support homoeopathy may in fact be pointing to something we do not yet understand? I'm not saying there is something, but are you saying there should be no further investigation? 

We don't know how the universe works. We can observe the orbits of planets and work out mechanical formulas that allow us to navigate around our back garden and land on the rock at our doorstep, but do we have any firm idea about what's going on at the extreme limit of our physical vision? Closer to home, explain why chlorophyll is green. Why is there gravity? One of the sayings popular when I was in school was, the wider the diameter of knowledge, the greater the circumference of ignorance. 

We are a thousand years away from having the kind of knowledge that will allow you or I to say, 'this is how Ohm's Law works', or to be able to explain centrifugal force. Can you explain any of the four fundamental forces? Not the effects - the causes. Neither can anyone else. We don't knock rocks together to make fire, so we believe we have arrived at a high level of knowledge. We haven't. We are children playing in a sandbox. 

There was nothing physically stopping the building of an airplane at any time in history. All that was needed was knowledge and the correct cultural environment. The Bishop said God would not allow men to fly. That idea has stopped many things from happening. One of the brothers, I believe it was Wilbur, finally took the Bishop for an airplane ride. In an earlier century he might have had them burnt at the stake.

And yes, I am certain I have no faith in 'never' and 'can't'. They are not reliable. By not reliable I mean they are subject to being undone. The don't work 100 percent of the time. They are only fully trusted by people who prefer to see why something can't be done instead of exploring whether it can be done. 

I'm not debating any theories. Frankly I don't believe any of the claims of homoeopathy, and I suspect, given your posts, that I've studied it far more closely than you have. It's a fascinating idea that dosen't work. There are masses of anecdotal evidence with nothing solid. 

But, then, the same can be said of many theories. Take Ohm's Law, for example. All we have is anecdotal evidence. I apply one Volt across one Ohm and observe a current flow of one Ampere. I do it again and get the same result. That's not proof. Explain for me why this happens, and offer proof that it can never happen any other way.

You would do well to subscribe to the _Journal of Analytical Science and Technology_, which is open source and has some very good articles from time to time, though they can be of uneven quality. It's a new journal just started in 2010 in Korea. I also recommend _Nature_ and _Science_. These three are not overly technical, available, I believe, to anyone, and you should find them interesting and informative. The higher level journals can be difficult to subscribe to.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 17, 2012)

garza said:


> The placebo effect is real. Ask any long-in-service GP.



I never said it wasn't, but, where there is no effect beyond the placebo then it isn't an endorsement of your drug, since a similar effect could be found with almost anything.



> You are lecturing me in elementary chemistry. I've researched and written articles about homoeopathy. My access to journals not readily available to the public gives me a bit of knowledge in such matters. I am, after all, a journalist, a reporter, and reporters write stories about all sorts of things. All you say is old stuff.



Of course I'm lecturing you in elementary chemistry, because the elementary chemistry of homoeopathy is wrong.



> In school I was taught that science was around long before the middle of the 19th Century. Apparently you are more learnéd in the history of science than I. The need for obstetric asepsis was not generally recognised until late in the 19th century. Is that when science was invented?



Granted, that was an error. I got my timelines confused.



> About the same time that science was invented, if your statement about puerperal fever is correct, physicists were in general agreement that they had a clear understanding of how the universe works. The suggestion was made in the U.S. that the Patent Office ought to be closed because everything that could be invented had already been invented.



They very much were not. There were many problems in physics that people pointed out. They also did not have an answer to those problems, but they believed that they would find them out. It's just that the finding out of said answer was more complicated than they believed. 



> Then came the Special Theory of Relativitly. Then the General Theory. Then quantum theory and chaos theory and string theory and all of the other new ideas built on discoveries made over the past century, discoveries that have radically changed the way we view the universe. Most of what I learned about electricity as a youngster was wrong. You mention EMF. It dosen't work the way you apparently think it does. You need an update there. There are some remarkable new ideas.



You don't know what you're talking about and now you're just inventing things. Chemistry works by forming electromagnetic bonds, that's what chemistry is, you take away that and you don't have chemistry. I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say: most of what I learned about electricity as a younger was wrong. So what? Even if that were true, and I highly doubt that it is given how basic science is at the primary and secondary school levels, that has nothing to do with the fact that chemistry works by forming electromagnetic bonds.



> So when you talk about sub-molecular chemistry are you absolutely certain you are on firm ground? Are you absolutely certain that there can not be something operating in that region that we have yet to discover, and that perhaps the anecdotal evidence that appears to support homoeopathy may in fact be pointing to something we do not yet understand? I'm not saying there is something, but are you saying there should be no further investigation?



There has been the investigation and it has been shown to be wrong. And yes, I am absolutely certain that chemistry works by the electromagnetic force.  



> We don't know how the universe works. We can observe the orbits of planets and work out mechanical formulas that allow us to navigate around our back garden and land on the rock at our doorstep, but do we have any firm idea about what's going on at the extreme limit of our physical vision? Closer to home, explain why chlorophyll is green. Why is there gravity? One of the sayings popular when I was in school was, the wider the diameter of knowledge, the greater the circumference of ignorance.



Yeah, the more you know, the more you realise you don't know, but the very first part of that sentence presupposes that you know things. As for your other statements, chlorophyll is green because of the way the molecule absorbs light. Chlorophyll absorbs light mainly in the blue and red ends of the light spectrum, therefore chlorophyll appears green. I don't know why gravity exists, though the most common explanation is the Higgs Boson which has not been confirmed to exist or not. 



> We are a thousand years away from having the kind of knowledge that will allow you or I to say, 'this is how Ohm's Law works', or to be able to explain centrifugal force. Can you explain any of the four fundamental forces? Not the effects - the causes. Neither can anyone else. We don't knock rocks together to make fire, so we believe we have arrived at a high level of knowledge. We haven't. We are children playing in a sandbox.



We very much are not thousands of years away from either explaining how Ohm's law works or explaining centrifugal force. There are explanations for the four fundamental forces. You're projecting your own ignorance onto the scientific establishment.



> There was nothing physically stopping the building of an airplane at any time in history. All that was needed was knowledge and the correct cultural environment. The Bishop said God would not allow men to fly. That idea has stopped many things from happening. One of the brothers, I believe it was Wilbur, finally took the Bishop for an airplane ride. In an earlier century he might have had them burnt at the stake.



...

There were lots of things physically stopping the building of a plane before the brothers built one but that's not the point. When I said physical, I meant in nature. Other things flew, therefore flying was possible. 



> But, then, the same can be said of many theories. Take Ohm's Law, for example. All we have is anecdotal evidence. I apply one Volt across one Ohm and observe a current flow of one Ampere. I do it again and get the same result. That's not proof. Explain for me why this happens, and offer proof that it can never happen any other way.



That isn't anecdotal evidence, it's an observation. It's like saying the sun is yellow. That's why it's Ohm's Law, not Ohm's Theory. And the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference suggests to me you know a lot less about science than you claim to. You also don't seem to know what proof means. It is proof, because you have observed it exists and you can show that to other people who will get the exact same result. What you mean is it isn't an explanation. Which is why it's Ohm's Law, not Ohm's Theory.  



> You would do well to subscribe to the _Journal of Analytical Science and Technology, __which is open source and has some very good articles from time to time, though they can be of uneven quality. It's a new journal just started in 2010 in Korea. I also recommend Nature and Science. These three are not overly technical, available, I believe, to anyone, and you should find them interesting and informative. The higher level journals can be difficult to subscribe to._



Yeah, okay.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 17, 2012)

I thought gravity exists because Earth is a magnet. D’oh.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 18, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> I thought gravity exists because Earth is a magnet. D’oh.



Joke? Gravity and magnetism are linked but they aren't the same. Gravity is the curvature of space because of the presence of energy, momentum and stresses, typically evidenced by mass; magnetism is the distortion of space due to spinning charged particles. A strange quirk of the universe is that an electromagnetic field, since it has energy and momentum, will produce a gravitational field as well. This is the reason why a beam of light changes direction when it enters the Suns gravitational field. It's all very cool.


----------



## garza (Jan 18, 2012)

I fear that perhaps there is more confused than timelines, but let it go.


----------

