Homeopath bloggers (II)
Posted by gimpy on December 3, 2007
There have been a number of homeopath bloggers in the last week or so who expressed a willingness to engage. At first I was happy to add some of these to my blogroll as I think it would be great if homeopaths could answer the concerns expressed here and on many other blogs about the ethics and efficacy of their profession. Sadly, for the most part, they have been unwilling or unable to seriously engage on these questions. While I still think it is important to engage with homeopaths and hope that they would accept our criticisms in good faith I do not think it appropriate for me to link to blogs in my blogroll that make impossible claims.
I hope that homeopath bloggers will continue to engage with the questions asked here and elsewhere and that they will allow reasonable debate on their own sites. I remain open to the possibility of adding homeopath blogs to my blogroll if the bloggers can answer these two questions to my satisfaction.
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
and
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
Thanks to MJ Simpson and pv for the questions.
M Simpson said
This got trimmed from a response to one of the H-bloggers because my post was over a restricted word count. But I’d rather like it to be somewhere as I think it’s got potential:
I marvel every day at the amazing level of healthcare that is potentially available now (financial and political constraints notwithstanding). Every time that I, or a loved one, requires treatment I know that what is available today is better than it was at any time in the past – better than last century, better than last year, better than last week – because of the continuous hard work and dedication of millions of people around the world, in hospitals, universities and industry, developing devices, drugs and treatment techniques that continually improve on what went before and which all fit together into our continually expanding understanding of the universe without contradicting each other.
How can that not be better than adherence to the 200-year-old writings of one lone researcher who lived in an age before anyone even knew there was such a thing as germs?
GaleG said
Dear Gimpy,
Please list ALL self limiting diseases. Please list ALL non-self limiting diseases. Because every time I have posted something concerning a disease cured by homeopathy, you give an opinion that the disease was self- limiting.
This listing will help the homeopaths who may want to respond to your question.
GG
freetochoosehealth said
Would this work for you Mr. Gimpy?
When I first started reading your blog I developed pain in the arseitis. I took a homeopathic remedy and it was cured- gone, no pain!
I have photos of the said arse, before and after. I am afraid though that if I show you, Gimpy, the pictures that Simpson may get into a jealous rage. In this fit of jealousy he/she may do something crazy- like frog whispering!
GaleG said
Hi Gimpy,
Me again. I have been mulling over your “..level of proof” question. Having positively experiencing homeopathy over the last 26 years for myself and my family, I guess I would need to answer….. 26 years of experiencing it not working. I find it a confusing question……as may others.
From reading your and others postings, I get the feeling that you cannot imagine that the”water” from which homeopathic remedies are made can have any part in healing, and so no matter what proof a homeopath would give you, you would find a way to discredit it.
I am afraid that any condition presented to you would be considered as having been sel-limiting….. and its cure as simply co-incidental. Spontaneous remission so to speak…
If I was a homeopath, I would be wary of giving you any information.
GG
gimpy said
GaleG by non-self limiting disease I mean
The level of proof I would need would be that homeopathy be the MOST likely explanation for a cure, although I would be willing to debate this. It should be noted that yours, mine or anybody else’s anecdotes are subject to all kinds of biases, so you would have to explain why the effect was not due to biased observation or why any potential bias was not important.
Freetochoosehealth, again you are conspicuously refusing to answer or engage with the questions. You really do your profession no favours.
M Simpson said
“so no matter what proof a homeopath would give you, you would find a way to discredit it.”
This is what’s called the scientific method. No matter what proof exists (I think you mean evidence, but let’s not split hairs), part of a scientist’s job is to find a way to ‘discredit’ it. When all attempts to show the evidence as false or invalid have been exhausted, it can be accepted as proof.
If homeopathy was strong enough to withstand this – as most conventional treatments are – then it would be accepted as genuine.
GaleG said
Paul Feyerabend:
“I want to defend society and its inhabitants from all ideologies, science included. All ideologies must be seen in perspective. One must not take them too seriously.
In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgment of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago.
Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer.
My criticism of modern science is that it inhibits freedom of thought.
When Copernicus introduced a new view of the universe, he did not consult scientific predecessors, he consulted a crazy Pythagorean such as Philolaos. He adopted his ideas and he maintained them in the face of all sound rules of scientific method.
Wherever we look we see that great scientific advances are all due to outside interference which is made to prevail in the face of the most basic and most ‘rational’ methodological rules.
Science is just one of the many ideologies that propel society and it should be treated as such.
Thomas Kuhn:
“Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory, and until that adjustment is completed- until the scientist has learned to see nature in a different way- the new fact is not quite a scientific fact at all.
X-rays were greet not only with surprise but with shock. Lord Kevin at first pronounced them an elaborate hoax. Though X-rays were not prohibited by established theory, they violated deeply entrenched expectations.
Both during pre-paradigm periods and during the crises that lead to large scale changes of paradigm, scientists usually develop many speculative and unarticulated theories that can themselves point the way to discovery.
In the development of any science, the first received paradigm is usually felt to account quite successfully for most of the observations and experiments easily accessible to that science’s practitioners. Further developments, therefore, ordinarily calls for the construction of elaborate equipment, the development of an esoteric vocabulary and skills and a refinement of concepts that increasingly lessens their resemblance to their usual common-sense prototypes. That professionalism leads, on the one hand, to an immense restriction of the scientist’s vision and to a considerable resistance to paradigm change.”
-GG
gimpy said
GaleG, you’re playing the quote game. Opinion does not equal evidence. Anecdote does not equal data.
As for your X-rays story I raise you N-rays. Ultimately what decides a theory’s or phenomena’s durability is its reproducibility and ability to withstand repeated test and challenge. N-rays were found wanting X-rays were not.
GaleG said
Well, it was not MY x-rays story!
Good luck in finding your “proof”or “incontrovertable” example…
-GG
Beermonkey said
The point about scientific method is that it doesn’t matter whether you immediately believe everything that’s published – the methods used to generate the data are available to all and the data should be reproducible. It’s like not believing in evolution – it doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not, it’s happening anyway.
Furthermore, when you publish a scientific paper, there are almost inevitably people who have a stake in proving you wrong. As such, a whole bunch of people will immediately jump on your paper and try to find flaws in it – particularly in medicine, where there are huge sums of money at stake. Anything you see on the shelves of your pharmacist has survived this process. Now, the scientific community doesn’t treat homeopathy as any different to any other idea or theory – it just doesn’t survive the scrutiny and review process, something it has in common with about 99% of other theories and ideas. At the point at which it can demonstrate efficacy in a robust and reproducible way, it will be accepted. But not before.
GaleG said
In response to Beermonkey saying that “anything you see on the shelves of your pharmacist has survived this process….” I submit:
Today’s (Dec 4, 2007) News Item from Associated Press:
“There is limited evidence that new formulations of over-the-counter cold medications actually relieve nasal congestion, federal health officials said Monday.
The Food and Drug Administration said studies of phenylephrine, an ingredient recently added to many cold medicines, are small, poorly designed and decades-old. The agency reviewed data ahead of a meeting later this month on phenylephrine in widely used nasal decongestants, such as Pfizer’s Sudafed.
Manufacturers, including Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and Wyeth, switched to phenylephrine after Congress enacted a law in 2006 that pseudoephedrine products be kept locked behind the counter and sold on request at pharmacies. The law is aimed at prohibiting the illegal processing of drug-store cold medications into the highly addictive stimulant methamphetamine.
FDA said seven of 14 studies of phenylephrine did not show a significant improvement in nasal airflow at the currently used dosage. FDA only requires two large, comprehensive studies to support effectiveness of a drug, however agency scientists said nearly all the phenylephrine studies were inadequate.
“The studies are small and lacking many details necessary to provide a convincing demonstration of effectiveness,” the FDA said.
University of Florida Professor, Leslie Hendeles, said the findings support his view that the new formulations “aren’t any better than taking nothing,” and he supports upping the dosage to achieve effectiveness.
Researchers at the University of Florida had requested the government examine phenylephrine’s effectiveness and said there is scant evidence they work better than a placebo at the 10-milligram dose in formulas available without a prescription.”
Georgetown University
I,for one, do not implicitly trust the medications behind or in front of the pharmacist’s shelves.
-GG
M Simpson said
“Wherever we look we see that great scientific advances are all due to outside interference which is made to prevail in the face of the most basic and most ‘rational’ methodological rules.”
And how do they prevail? By demonstrating solid proof that they are true, not by claiming that they are entitled to a special, different understanding of the concept of ‘proof’.
It is also worth remembering that although some scientific advances start off as unconventional ideas rejected by the mainstream, the vast majority of unconventional ideas rejected by the mainstream never become scientific advances because they are demonstrable nonsense. You can compare homeopathy with Copernican heliocentrism but the difference is that Copernicus’ theory was investigated and found to be robust. A better comparison for homeopathy would be the flat Earth theory.
GaleG said
Dear Gimpy,
I, infact, have already answered your initial questions on this blog entry:
http://goodscience.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/hello-world/#respond
I even gave you links to double- blind placebo controlled studies on homeopathy done by established universities and hospitals.
But you chose to ignore it and instead employ an accusatory, rhetorical “scientific methodology”.
I’m afraid that it’s looking like freedomtochoosehealth’s comment in response to your questions is right on.
-GG
gimpy said
GaleG, a handful of dodgy trials do not overturn the scientific consensus.
The paper you quote here actually concludes
The paper you quote here has a tiny number of participants, 21, split into three groups. An average of 7 individuals in each group. You cannot do any meaningful analysis on such a tiny number of people. Likewise this trial where there were 10 or 11 patients, 3 of whom were given placebo.
GaleG said
Dear M Simpson,
And it took over 300 years for the Church to drop their prohibition of the heliocentric cosmology.
His book was published in 1514 (amid great fear on his part) and:
“In 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index suspended “De Revolutionibus” until it could be “corrected”, on the grounds that the Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth revolved about an immobile Sun was “false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture.
The corrections, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued in 1620. The same edict also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.
In 1633, Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for “following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture”, and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
The Index issued in 1758 omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism, but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De Revolutionibus and Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.
The Index of 1835, finally, dropped those prohibitions.”
I rest my case…
GG
Andy Lewis said
“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that
you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.” (Robert Park)
hcn57 said
“1. The Imperfections of real medicine do not validate your kooky theories.” From http://pandabearmd.com/blog/2007/11/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-complementary-and-alternative-medicine-part-1/
GaleG, putting up an article that there are deficits in approved medications does not validate homeopathy. In fact, it shows that real medicine is willing to look back and CHANGE to accept new evidence, information and better science.
Homeopathy has failed to that in 200 years.
Actually, if you read the Organon you will find Hahnemann waxing on about the syphilis miasm and how the medicine of his really muck you up with their treatments. Which is very true, a common cure for syphilis was mercury, which poisoned the victim before he/she got to the tertiary stage. So those treated by homeopaths did actually live long. They weren’t cured, but they did not die of mercury poisoning, just of syphilis (or something else, but they still had syphilis).
Now I would be very impressed if a homeopath could claim to cure someone of syphilis without the standard use of modern antibiotics. If there is a true and verifiable example of that, list the PubMed paper where it was written up.
freetochoosehealth said
Andy Lewis Says:
” it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.”
Now here you go quoting someone who quoted a Catholic bishop from the 300 year time of persecution for even suggesting a new paradigm.
M Simpson said
Galileo was not a radical, ‘alternative’ free thinker. He simply dared to expound the widely known and accepted concept of heliocentrism *in Rome*. Within the protestant world, the scientific community of the time completely accepted heliocentrism and had done for a very long time. It was the Catholic Church which was out of step with the prevailing view, not Galileo.
In any case, the point is that Galileo had unambiguous scientific proof that the Earth orbits the sun, something which could only be countered by the Holy See’s unflinching dogma and refusal to acknowledge reality. In the case of homeopathy, the sceptics have plenty of proof that it doesn’t work – the prevailing view – and the homeopaths are the ones who belong to a church which can only offer unflinching dogma and refusal to acknowledge reality.
freetochoosehealth said
Said like a true high priest of the single reality based cult of pure/bad science!
wilsontown said
If there isn’t a single reality, how many are there?
GaleG said
Dear M and Wilsontown,
My reality (or experience if you like) is that homeopathy works and works well.
That is not your reality or experience ?
Oh dear- we have two realities!!
-GG
Andysnat said
Nope. There is only one reality. Somebody is wrong.
I wonder who?
hcn57 said
GaleG, may I suggest you get one of these products:
http://www.cafepress.com/mythbusters/3494458
Though it might be more useful if you actually watch the programs (where what is written on the shirts is a quote by Adam Savage). They are quite entertaining. But you may not find them enjoyable because it might cause you to actually learn some SCIENCE!!!
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
(I have no affiliation with the channel, program or anything other than my children enjoy the shows, as do I… and I thought it fit with the “two realities” comment by GaleG)
homeopathy4health said
Do any of you skeptics work in a health-related job? Are you qualified in a health profession? How are you qualified to comment on health in any way?
hcn57 said
Why? Because mostly what one needs to comment on homeopathy is a working knowledge of chemistry, and some maths, plus knowing what Avogadro’s Number is and why it is important.
Do you happen to have any evidence of homeopathy being effective in a non-self-limiting condition? Something like syphilis, which is mentioned by Hahnemann in the Organon.
gimpy said
Homeopathy4health, I have a couple of first aid certificates. But, like Hcn57 says, you don’t need to be a health professional to understand why homeopathy is an unbelievable concept. Nor do you have to be a health professional to understand what makes a good experiment and why homeopathy fails to demonstrate a significant effect over and above that of a placebo. In fact may I go so far as to suggest that homeopaths without some form of science or medical training lack the intellectual tools and knowledge to defend its concepts. May I ask what yours are?
nash said
If you are a homeopath then you’re not a health professional either.
eveningperson said
Why is it necessary to work in a health profession to be a sceptic?
I think that the two main requirements to be a sceptic are (1) to understand the difference between good arguments and bad and (2) to understand what counts as good evidence in a particular situation.
Having looked at quite a lot of what homeopaths have written online I suspect that the essential requirement to be a homeopath is to understand neither.
(I’ve got a PhD in chemistry, if you ask.)
homeopathy4health said
Hcn57: I was asking about health, I did not mention homeopathy. And by the way please point to proof/evidence of Avogrado’s principle I’d like to check it out.
I have real world anecdotal evidence of homeopathic treatment of syphilis and real world observation of homeopathic treatment of the symptoms of asthma, eczema, glue ear, depression amongst other non-self limiting conditions. I appreciate that you only consider DBRCT to be ‘evidence’ but I don’t consider DBRCT to be an effective predictor of the effectiveness and safety of drugs in the real world based on the anecdotal evidence that I see daily.
Gimpy:I have O levels in biology, chemistry and physics. I wasn’t interested in pursuing them further despite encouragement to take chemistry A level (my father was a chemist) because I wasn’t interested in academic laboritory experimentation but wanted to get a job in the real world.
Nash:’If you are a homeopath then you’re not a health professional either.’ is only opinion.
Eveningperson: interesting question. You are a true sceptic.
I now retire with a considerable headache.
nash said
It may be opinion, but it’s one shared by other hoes
homeopathy4health said
‘hoes’ – gardening implements?
homeopathy4health said
where is your quote from Nash?
nash said
Whatever.
Anyway I will be in the archives of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital next week. Checking some facts. But I’m not a homeopath so I have to.
gimpy said
Homeopathy4health Nash’s quote came from comments to an article in the BMJ. You can read them here.
nash said
here.
homeopathy4health said
My enquiry about Avogrado’s number (not principle that’s to do with gases I understand) is genuine (checking facts too!). Has it ever been proved in regard to ultra-dilution? Point me in the right direction.
nash said
Try Wikipedia
homeopathy4health said
Is that the best you can do?
gimpy said
Homeopathy4health, avogrado’s number is ~6.022×10^23 and represents the number of molecules in one mole of a given molecularly homogeneous substance. This number is key to why homeopathy is bollocks. Homeopathy dilutes a solution beyond the point at which any molecules of the original substance remain. Basically it is extremely unlikely that any original molecule remains in dilutions of 12C or above. All you are left with is water (and whatever impurities are absorbed from the container or air).
hcn57 said
Homeopathy4health said “And by the way please point to proof/evidence of Avogrado’s principle I’d like to check it out.”
Are you sure you studied chemistry? I really don’t understand the difference between “O” and “A” levels in UK education, but in basic 10th grade chemistry it is taught. Though you might find it easier to look if up if you spelled it like I spelled it (which is how it is more commonly spelled). It is the number of molecules or atoms in a mole of the substance, a mole being the molecular (or atomic) weight of the substance in grams. From http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html , “Avogadro showed that there is a large but finite and specific number of atoms or molecules in a mole of substance, specifically 6.022 x 1023. A mole is the molecular weight of a substance expressed in grams. Thus, a mole of water, H2O, molecular weight 2 + 16 = 18, is 18 grams. So there are 6.022 x 1023 water molecules in 18 grams of water.”
You might want to get a copy of this book:
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781592575145,00.html
Okay, here is a typical dilution used in homeopathy: 30C
That is a ratio of one part remedy component (like NaCl for Nat Mur) to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parts of solvent. That is a “1″ followed by 60 zeros. In short, just shy of the total number of atoms in the observable universe (that is actually about a “1″ followed by 80 zeros, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/905633072.As.r.html ).
Now, how can you even get this kind of dilution? And, why would it have any biological effect on someone?
For the record: I did complete high school chemistry plus high school physics, and had a full year of college chemistry, plus physics, thermodynamics, other science (I took oceanography for fun), mechanics and math up to advanced engineering mathematics to earn my Bachelor’s of Science degree in aerospace engineering.
Since I have probably used enough links to require moderation, for fun I will just throw in this incredible chemistry link:
http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/
hcn57 said
In my previous comment (which will be seen once approved) this bit is in error: 6.022 x 1023
Actually that is supposed to be 6.022 x 10^23, or 6.022 times 10 to the 23 (a “1″ followed by 23 zeros), which is Avogadro’s Number.
goodscience said
NASH………so you are going into the archives of the London Homeopathic Hospital to check out some facts! Be careful you may just come out with a new understanding of health and disease…….you may come out realizing you were wrong all along!
homeopathy4health said
‘extremely unlikely…All you are left with is water’
but has anyone done the tests? I understand the maths but does it check out in reality? If it hasn’t been tested how would it be done? It is an understandable assumption, but given reported anecdotal effects did anyone in the scientific community check it out?
hcn57 said
The plural of anecdote is not data. So far no one has provided a definitive study of it actually working, especially on non-self limiting conditions. If you read the literature you will see that studies with homeopathy tend to show it fails when more rigorous science is used. I would suggest you read about the homeopathy debate at Steven Novella’s blog: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php (also listen to the podcast, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe link in on the right, check the archives for which program discusses the debate he participated on in Connecticut).
Homeopathy4Health, why don’t you try it yourself.
Take about 1/2 a teaspoon of food dye and put it in a cup of water. Shake it about, then take 1/2 teaspoon of the colored water and put into a cup of water… throw the rest away (or 1 mL into 100 mL water).
Do that about 28 more times until you get a 30C solution.
What color is the water?
Try it again with salt (make it sea salt from a fancy store to make your own homemade Nat Mur). How salty does the 30C mixture taste?
How does Avogadro’s Number work into this?
Calculate the number of NaCl molecules in 1 mL of volume, then calculate the number of H2O molecules in 100 mL of volume… then recalculate for each dilution… Remember you keep adding H2O molecules, but the number of NaCl molecules are devided by 100 each time…. How long before you come up with a fraction of an NaCl molecule?
Do you see why it is an incredible claim that this solution would have any medical properties? This incredible claim requires incredible evidence, which so far has been lacking.
hcn57 said
Until my comment escapes moderation, I will give you some numbers to do a calculation of how many NaCl molecules are in Nat Mur 30C.
One mole contains 6.022 * 10^23 molecules
Molar mass of NaCl = 58.44 gram/mole
the density of NaCl is about 2.165 gram/mL
(Figures are from the Salt Institute website).
Answer the following questions: How much of a mole of NaCl is in one mL?
How many molecules of NaCl are in that mL?
What happens when you divide that number by 100 thirty times? Do you have a whole NaCl molecule left, or a fraction?
goodscience said
Material science……….you all just cannot seem to get beyond that.
hcn57 said
Goodscience, do you have another way to make Nat Mur 30C?
homeopathy4health said
Are those the best tests that you can do: ‘what colour is it?’, ‘how salty does it taste’? Aren’t they rather subjective?
Claire said
With regard to the diluted homeopathic solutions, it’s surely time to revisit this discussion between Lord Broers and Kate Chatfield (Society of Homoepaths) during the House of Lords Allergy inquiry:
Q538 Lord Broers:……… Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?
Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.
homeopathy4health said
So no exploratory tests on the behalf of scientists to confirm that there is ‘just water’ when so many C dilutions are done? No proof.
apgaylard said
homeopathy4health:
hcn57’s comment was clearly an invitation to do some “kitchen science”. However, if you did want objective measurements then there are a wide range of analytical techniques that could measure NaCl concentration in the solvent (if it is still present above the limit of detection for the method). Similarly colour is measureable; how else could clothing retailers determine if the supplied garments were in the colours ordered?
If you could, by some measurement, determine the difference between the solvent alone and a homeopathic dilution past 12C (the so-called “Avogadro limit”) in a fair trial then you could claim Randi’s million dollar prize!
On the topic of dilutions and Avogadro, your comment “I understand the maths but does it check out in reality?” belies a common misunderstanding. In this case, as is common within science, the maths represents nature in symbolic form. So, Avogadro’s number just provides a symbolic representation for the finding from nature that standard amounts of material are made up of a paticular number of indivisiable (without special effort) units (like atoms and molecules). That lesson from nature tells us that with each dilution there will be fewer of these units present. This gets to a point where their presence in solution has to be expressed as a probability rather than a concentration(the so-called Avogadro limit, around 12C)because there are not enough units left to ensure that one is present in the dilution (even if the dilution has been done perfectly, with no loss of units through spillage or capture by the apparatus). Past this point the probability of there being any units present diminishes very rapidly with subsequent dilutions, becomming vanishingly small.
This is not a consequence of the maths, but of nature. The maths just provides us with a very widely understood symbolic representation.
Goodscience:
What’s wrong with “material science”? Why isn’t it good science? What’s your alternative?
Mojo said
@homeopathy4health: “My enquiry about Avogrado’s number (not principle that’s to do with gases I understand) is genuine (checking facts too!). Has it ever been proved in regard to ultra-dilution? Point me in the right direction.”
You should have covered the evidence for this in the course of your chemistry O level.
Actually, we don’t need a precise value for Avogadro’s number to realise that homoeopathy is nonsense: just the well established theory that matter is composed of atoms, and that these atoms have finite mass. This means that a given amount of a substance will contain a finite number of molecules. If you keep on successively diluting a finite number of molecules, sooner or later you are going to arrive at the point where, on average, each aliquot will contain less than one molecule.
dannychrastina said
A few unconnected points:
The solubility of salt (NaCl) is 359g per litre at room temperature. It’s 58.4g/mol so there’s 6.15 mol per litre of
NaCl in a saturated solution. Diluting this to 12C would give 6.15e-24 mol per litre, multiplying by Avogadro’s constant we find 3.7 “molecules” of NaCl per litre (in solution we would actually have dissociated Na+ and Cl- ions).
A table here suggests that 20-60 mg of Cl- per litre is acceptable in drinking water – that would be around 0.001 mol per litre. That would be about 2C if you started with a saturated solution.
I do x-ray diffraction, measuring the space between the planes of atoms in silicon crystals, so I know that its cubic unit cell has side length 0.543nm and contains 8 atoms. This means there are about 5.00e22 atoms per cubic centimetre. The density of silicon is 2.33 g/cm^3, so we have 2.15e22 atoms per gram – if we multiply this by the relative atomic mass of silicon (28) then we get 6.02e23, which is Avogadro’s number.
givescienceachance said
Re your questions:
1) Any proof based on a viable scientific theory of medicine, such as one which can demonstrate a consistent curative relationship between the action of substances on the human body and symptom.
2) When medical ’science’ can predict the progress of an illness in an individual case; when it can distinguish between the effect of an ‘active’ substance and that of a ‘placebo’; and when, therefore, it has the means of providing “incontrovertible” evidence, your question will be answerable within a non-homeopathic paradigm. As it is, conventional medicine has no framework for supplying the information you want, and you do not accept it within another framework.
By the way, perhaps the fan of Avogadro’s number and a purely chemical view of the world could explain why the three quarks that make up a proton are over 50 times as massive as they are separately. Some answers do not lie within the field of chemistry, though they can have an enormous impact on it.
homeopathy4health said
Givescienceachance ‘Some answers do not lie within the field of chemistry’ may be where the stumbling block between avogrado and the observed effects of homeopathic ultradilutions may be. Because the other factor is the 100 succussions between each dilution and what this does to the solution.
homeopathy4health said
Apologies for keep saying avogrado – it sounds better to me! Avogado, avogado, avogado….
homeopathy4health said
Ok it’s Avogadro!
hcn57 said
givescienceachance did you not read the answer you were given here: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/society-of-homeopaths-unethical-lying-nitwits/#comment-1020 ?
Come on! Show a little literacy! If you want more information check out the extensive library at:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/ … also the BBC website has a very interesting interactive website on history at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ … including how some of the first medical studies were done on scurvy by James Lind.
And with a name like “give science a chance”, what kind of science are you talking about? It certainly is not the type that governs this universe. You and your cohorts mostly seem to AVOID answering simple questions. Like the ones that Gimpy posed in this blog post:
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
and
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
Now as the “fan” of Avogadro’s Number (a concept you seem incapable of understanding… were you sleeping during high school chemistry?), I will rephrase my question…
How many molecules of NaCL… or just the individual ions of sodium and/or chlorine are in one mL/cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C (also known as Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum Muriaticum)?
Remember the answer is a discrete range of numerical values. All you have to do is produce that answer. Failure to do so will show that those who believe in homeopathy are grossly incompetent in basic arithmetic and chemistry, or living in some kind of fairy tale universe.
hcn57 said
Givescienceachance, did you miss this answer to your question?
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/society-of-homeopaths-unethical-lying-nitwits/#comment-1020
Are you having problems with literacy? If you want more information on medicine from a historical perspective I would implore you to check out http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/ and also the BBC history website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ … do check out the work of James Lind in regards to scurvy.
Why is it that proponents of homeopathy cannot answer simple questions? They hem and haw, and try to cast aspersions on
regular medicine, but refuse to account about the dificiencies of their beloved two century old German dogma.
Look at this blog post… answer the two questions that Gimpy posted:
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
and
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
Stop evading and delaying… answer the questions!
If those are too hard, then answer the more basic question I have posed:
How many molecules of NaCl (or more accurately sodium and chlorine atoms) are in one cubic centimeter (also known as a mL) of Nat Mur 30C (also known as Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum muriaticum … basically a homeopathic remedy made with sea salt)? The answer to this is obvious to most kids who have taken high school chemistry.
Failure to produce the range of values will validate the gross incompetence of those believe that homeopathy works.
hcn57 said
Givescienceachance (do you really? I mean, if you have a username that says “give science a chance”… it assumes you actually do give science a chance!)…
If you want more information on medicine from a historical perspective I would implore you to check out http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/ and also the BBC history website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ … do check out the work of James Lind in regards to scurvy.
hcn57 said
Givescienceachance … do you really? I mean with a username of “give science a chance” do you really give science a chance?
Anyway (and this is the third or fourth time I’ve tried! So I am going to mung up the URLs… Gimpy why does WordPress hate me?)… if you are truly interested you would check out the National Library of Medicine’s History webpages… they are at something similar to www nlm nih gov /hmd (oh, just put dots where the space are).
And for more fun check out the BBC history website… www bbc co uk /history/ … especially the parts with James Lind, Edward Jenner or Alexander Fleming. If you fail to find out what significance these three gentleman had and you claim some allegiance to the UK… then turn in your citizenship papers, report to the nearest port and emigrate to someplace else. Someplase like India or Indonesia.
I am actually American (on the west coast). The fellow whose surname I have came over almost 400 years ago, and my great grandfather on a maternal line came from England about a century ago. Yet I know how important those three fellows are. Do you?
Now I repeat:
How many molecules of NaCl (or more accurately sodium and chlorine atoms) are in one cubic centimeter (also known as a mL) of Nat Mur 30C (also known as Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum muriaticum … basically a homeopathic remedy made with sea salt)? The answer to this is obvious to most kids who have taken high school chemistry.
Failure to produce the range of values will validate the gross incompetence of those believe that homeopathy works.
Andy Lewis said
Over on my blog, I have set a simple challenge to homeopaths. It is a simple experiment that I think will cost about £40 and require a few weeks note taking. If the test is passed, it will provide more evidence for homeoapthy than the sum total that exists right now. It would go a long way towards starting to change my mind if it was done openly, honestly and convincingly.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/simple-challenge-to-homeopaths.html
If the test failed, would it change any homeopaths’ mind? Is any homeopath brave enough and open minded enough to take the challenge?
We shall see.
GaleG said
Hi Andy,
Why don’t you take the remedies- a high potency daily, and see what happens.
-GG
Andy Lewis said
Because Gale, that would not be a objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the pills. Who knows what symptoms I might have? Do I have cold brooding? How is my bad back doing? Might be all OK? I just don’t know. And I would have no way of telling what was the homeopathy and was going to happen anyway.
This is what I do not understand about homeopaths. This is such a simple point and people like you Gale, just refuse to get it. Instead of making useless points like this, why not take the challenge? Scared?
homeopathy4health said
Andy Lewis fyi: The symptoms which would count would be symptoms that you have never had before, or in a new way. You might be used to forehead headaches, but never usually get them right at the top of the head in one small spot with a stabbing sensation, for example. And you would exclude any symptoms which had an obvious cause for example pain after stubbing your toe, but any change in your recovery from the pain from usual would be of interest e.g. having to raise it instead of icing it. You might find yourself in a different mood than you are usually. But as a novice you would not know these subtleties.
Do you think any other sceptics would accept your test Andy, it might be a complete waste of time? Do you think it would change their minds? And what do you make of the possibility of observer effect on experiments?
homeopathy4health said
..by which I mean observer bias/entanglement causing failure or success?
givescienceachance said
Hcn57, “did you not read the answer you were given here: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/society-of-homeopaths-unethical-lying-nitwits/#comment-1020 ?”
Yes. It was not an answer. Firstly the scientific method is not a scientific theory of medicine, it is only a means of discovering one. Secondly, the RCT was noted as being used mainly in medicine and other fields relating to the study of human beings, where unknown factors need to be cancelled out in experiments. In other words there is (a) no scientific theory of medicine, and (b) it is necessary to invent a means of experimenting in the absence of such a theory.
If there is a scientific theory of medicine, then given your commitment to it and against homeopathy, you would of course be able to explain it – in your own words, not by reference to someone else.
You want me to answer your questions because it is easier to ask me to do the work than to do it yourself.
I notice that you did not consider modern science relevant to your understanding of chemistry. Where exactly does your knowledge of science stop?
givescienceachance said
Andy Lewis Says:
“That would not be a objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the pills. Who knows what symptoms I might have? Do I have cold brooding? How is my bad back doing? Might be all OK? I just don’t know. And I would have no way of telling what was the homeopathy and was going to happen anyway.”
That is why the process of testing involves as wide a range of people as possible, in order to determine what is the effect of the remedy and what of other circumstances. All the symptoms are recorded in these trials, but weighting is on the basis of the number of people experiencing a symptom. In clinical practice it may turn out that some of the symptoms experienced by only one or two of those testing the remedy appear more frequently and be successfully treated by the remedy. If enough cases confirm this then the symptom will be considered as belonging to the remedy.
Good scientific method, isn’t it? Thorough, careful, avoiding jumping to conclusions, and constantly testing the evidence.
phayes said
“perhaps the fan of Avogadro’s number and a purely chemical view of the world could explain why the three quarks that make up a proton are over 50 times as massive as they are separately.”
Let’s first hear your explanation, including what you mean by “mass” in each very different case and in your own words (no copying it from wikipedia or Baez’s site or wherever!)
“I notice that you did not consider modern science relevant to your understanding of chemistry.”
The strangers from across the big water have returned with their aeroplanes and radios, but the island priests have seen pictures of jet airliners in the magazines given them by other visitors and view these little propellered contraptions as inferior and outmoded. Unsurprisingly, they’ve decided to stick with their sacred coconut, straw and wooden facsimiles.
“Where exactly does your knowledge of science stop?”
Well, there’s nothing homeopathic about the concentration of irony in that question.
hcn57 said
The scientific theory of medicine is one that uses real biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics to solve problems that occur in the functioning of a healthy human.
Over the centuries that has meant finding out that problems in health can be caused by deficiencies in diet (James Lind), or from microscopic invaders into the body which can be fought off if the body’s defense system is prepared (Edward Jenner), and sometimes the body’s defense system can be bolstered by another agent (Joseph Fleming).
There is no ONE scientific theory of medicine, but a series of disciplines that work at always improving the knowledge of biological systems, and how to work with them. Over the past century there have been changes in how things are treated, most often for the better. It takes using real science, the power of observation and the use of good experimental methods in advance medical care. Things that have happened recently include figuring out that many ulcers can be cured with antibiotics, or that the proper level of blood thinners prescribed to a stroke victim can be tuned by figuring out how certain genes react to warfarin. There have also been vast improvements in detecting and predicting illnesses through uses of sound and magnetic imaging, plus analyzing for certain genes (check out the videos explaining some of these advancements: http://www.gs.washington.edu/wednesdays/index.htm )
What improvements in care has homeopathy had in the last 200 years? Is homeopathy the standard of care many of the conditions mentioned by Hahnemann in the Organon, like syphilis and gonorrhea? Would you actually treat those illnesses, or would you do the prudent thing and send a patient to a real doctor to get antibiotics? If a patient came to you with a gash in their hand made by pruning shears, would you give them a some homeopathic pills and NOT send them to a real doctor for a tetanus booster? Is homeopathy responsible for the lack of smallpox or for the drastic declination of diseases like measles, mumps, polio and haemophilis influenza? Is homeopathy responsible for the 70% chance at long term recovery for childhood cancers? Is homeopathy responsible for the reduction of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome? Is homeopathy responsible for the improved prospects for those diagnosed with HIV?
How has homeopathy changed or advanced in the last two centuries?
Why do you all refuse to answer simple questions? Why don’t you know how many molecules of NaCl (or atoms of sodium and chlorine) are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C? It is a simple question that can be answered with a knowledge of high school chemistry and simple arithmetic.
By the way, for more information on how medicine has developed do check out the National Library of Medicine’s History websites. Also do some reading about some of the historical figures I mentioned, along with some others (the BBC does have a very interesting interactive history website). There are other people who have had interesting biographies written that show how medicine has evolved using real science. Here is a list of books I have enjoyed on the history of medicine, I believe you will also enjoy them:
Postcards from the Brain Museum by Brian Burrell
The Great Influenza by John M. Barry
Flu by Gina Kolata
Rethinking Thin by Gina Kolata
Polio: An American Story by David Oshinsky
The Cutter Incident by Paul Offit
Vaccinated by Paul Offit
Vaccine by Arthur Allen
Quack: Tales of Medical Fraud from the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices by Bob McCoy
Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill
The Emperor of Scent by Chandler Burr
A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness by V.S. Ramachandran
Phantoms in the Brain by V.s. Ramachandran, Sandra Blakeslee and Oliver Sacks
Anthropologist on Mars by Oliver Sacks
Awakening by Oliver Sacks
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks
Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks
The Island of the Colorblind by Oliver Sacks
Emergency Sex and Other Desparate Measures by Andrew Thomson, Kenneth Cain and Heidi Postlewait
All in My Head by Paula Kamen
Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC by Joseph McCormick and Susan Fisher-Hoch
Natural Causes by Dan Hurley
givescienceachance said
How naive of me, Phayes. I thought Hcn57 would run to his science teacher when he couldn’t answer a question.
M Simpson said
“Good scientific method, isn’t it? Thorough,”
No it isn’t. There’s no control group.
“careful”
Not really. No control group.
“avoiding jumping to conclusions”
It certainly jumps to the conclusion that there’s no need for a control group.
“and constantly testing the evidence.”
But not testing… a contol group!
Do you see the most basic problem with ‘provings’ here? Suppose most of your ‘provers’ get a runny nose: that’s only significant if there ISN’T a runny nose bug doing the rounds at that time. I really would have thought this was obvious.
phayes said
Givescienceachance, I have no connection with Hcn57 and I’d guess that your QCD question failed to attract an answer from Hcn57 (or anyone else) primarily because it was recognised as irrelevant.
If you got poor marks for your elementary trigonometry homework, you can’t expect to improve them by complaining that your maths teacher failed to cover differential geometry in the class!
Andy Lewis said
So Gale’s telling me to take a remedywould not work because I am not sensitive enough and trained enough to spot the subtelties? Why did she me ask me to do it then?
Anyway, if you have objections to my test, I suggest you pop over to my site and leave your comments there. Especially about any proposed ‘observer bias/entanglement ‘ problem. Bliding the test should remove any observer biases. No idea what entanglement means. Is it some sort of pseudo-quantum bullshit? If not, then please say how any biases might effect the experiments so that we can re-assses the experiment to take account of them. My guess is that it is watertight and you have no objections. Please be specific.
homeopathy4health said
Andy: I do not give my commitment or my refusal to your proposed test currently, you can not ‘guess..you have no objections’.
Mojo said
My guess is that Homeopathy4health has no valid objections.
Andy Lewis said
homeopathy4health – there is no need to be shy about any objections. I welcome them. If they are correctable by design of the test, I am open to suggestions.
goodscience said
To Hcn57
Homeopathy HAS evolved, but the principles of cure have not. Homeopaths are building on the very solid foundation of natural law, like cures like. By the way……..I like your book list. You may want to add; Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama.
hcn57 said
“Good”science said “Homeopaths are building on the very solid foundation of natural law, like cures like. ”
That is not a natural law, that is a wild ass guess. It has not been proven. If you have actual evidence of its proof through extensive experimentation and observation, then please tell us where to find them.
I’ve noticed that no one has even attempted to answer Gimpy’s questions. Why is that?
Anyway ‘Good’science has told us that homeopathy has evolved. How? How are the miasms described by Hahnemann now treated with homeopathy?
GaleG said
Lots going on here- I found this response to the November 2007 Lancet Article by Goldacre. Comments?
Prof. Chaturbhuja Nayak
Director, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
New Delhi, INDIA
It is established beyond doubt that randomized placebo control trial (RCT) is not a fitting research tool to test homoeopathy, where the medicine is tailored to each individual patient, but not to the medical diagnosis.
Besides considering the complaints of each patient and their variation at different times and under varying circumstances, his/her physical attributes and mental state are also taken into account to choose the most appropriate medicine. It is therefore, difficult to conduct double blind placebo control trials with homoeopathic medicines.
Masking the therapeutic intervention from the therapists can not be conceived for in-vivo trials in homoeopathy and if done, results in inappropriate conclusions in outcome assessments. But the authors of the most of the meta-analyses whose results went against Homoeopathy, have wrongly come to conclusion by advocating that homoeopathy trials were of poor/low quality, on the pretext that those did not follow the tenets of RCT.
Is it not irrational to judge a therapy by the bench mark which is not appropriate to that system, and compare two medical streams which are based on quite distinct and different doctrines and philosophies?
-GG
hcn57 said
I checked out the book Goodscience recommended. It is a book on religion and faith, and is not really a book on medicine or science. Obviously the parallel with homeopathy is that its proponents need faith in order for it to work.
Unfortunately, that is not science.
Again, where in the 80 comments is there an answer to:
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
and
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
GaleG said
“….need faith in order for it to work.”
Our heritage of Greek science has brought us many wonderful things. They gave us a systematic view of the world. They gave us the solid intellectual foundations on which the scientific view of the world rests to the present day.
But there is another body of knowledge that speaks to us about the purpose of life. It tells us what we are doing here, what our responsibilities and obligations are. It helps to give us meaning to our life; science, on the other hand, delivers to us a purposeless existence. Reality just is.
I worked in the medical field as a nurse and a midwife, and saw science work and science not work. People got well, and people died. I saw compassionate doctors try their best.
There are no guarantees in life; so I ask, what is wrong with faith? Faith in a intelligence greater than ourselves, faith in an intelligence that some call God, faith that prayer is heard and sometimes answered.
Yes, science has helped us understand our reality, but I wish to present the idea that we cannot live by science alone.
Those of us that have taken one or many homeopathic remedies, and KNOW that it has somehow shifted something within us- physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually, cannot deny it. So, we get to an impasse….. with those that only believe in science not understanding those of us that embrace both the knowledge of science and the knowledge that there are other forces in the universe that cannot be explained by science. I pray that we can learn to co-exist in a spirit of peace in this season of many lights- Christmas and Chanukah, and other spiritual traditions.
-GG
givescienceachance said
Hcn57, thank you for your answer. There are a lot of points of discussion here.
You say: “There is no ONE scientific theory of medicine, but a series of disciplines that work at always improving the knowledge of biological systems, and how to work with them. Over the past century there have been changes in how things are treated, most often for the better.”
This is absolutely true, EXCEPT that we cannot be sure it has been for the better? This is where a theory is needed. For example, success within one specialist discipline may be accompanied by problems outside of that field: your skin complaint gets better, but you develop a respiratory complaint; your psychological problems get better but you get diabetes; and so on. An understanding of the effects of action on the human organism requires a perspective that takes in the whole organism. This is one thing lacking in the orthodox medical approach, despite its extraordinary advances in specific knowledge.
You say: “It takes using real science, the power of observation and the use of good experimental methods in advance medical care.”
Absolutely true. The power of observation is something that is at the heart of homeopathy. No other medical approach records such detail of the state of the patient’s health at the start of treatment and throughout its course, including changes in mental and emotional state alongside all the physical symptoms. If orthodox doctors were encouraged to record this level of information, they would start to be able to see the patterns of change in the whole organism as a result of noxious and medical influences.
The real science of homeopathy is based on using this high level of observation to arrive at general principles, and one of these principles is known as the Law of Cure. Briefly put, it states that as a person returns to health, symptoms move from the more important organs to the less important, from the interior of the body to the surface, and from the upper parts down to the extremities of the fingers and toes. The symptoms of chronic conditions will also change, reappearing in the reverse order of their appearance. In short the symptoms become more superficial. I think you will agree that this makes sense as a general proposition, but it was not put forward as an abstract idea, but as a result of acute observation of thousands of patients, subsequently confirmed by observation of patients since.
The man who defined this law had been a sceptic who studied homeopathy to disprove it. His thorough approach led him to confirm homeopathy and extend its understanding.
I stated before that the level of proof I would need would be “Any proof based on a viable scientific theory of medicine, such as one which can demonstrate a consistent curative relationship between the action of substances on the human body and symptom.”
As you have said, orthodox medicine does not yet have such a theory, and this is the reason for the problems of side effects and of the increase in more difficult to cure chronic conditions that have occurred alongside the “successes” with acute conditions. I know you will want to attribute the increase to an increased life-expectancy, but the trend exceeds what that will explain ( see Henrik R. Wulff, Stig Andur Pedersen, & Raben Rosenberg, 1986, Philosophy of medicine: an introduction, Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications). This book does NOT support homeopathy, but it raises many interesting questions about medicine.
I wanted to discuss the improvements you mentioned. I will come back to you on those when I have some more time.
Thank you again for your response, and I hope we can continue to discuss these ideas without sniping and insults.
gimpy said
Givescienceachance, you state
Can you tell us what experiment you would design to prove that homeopathy does not work? This is not a trick question, there is no hidden agenda. I have yet to see a homeopath accept the possibility that homeopathy does not work and design an experiment that would incorporate this possibility as an outcome. Can you do it?
givescienceachance said
Gimpy, you ask: “Can you tell us what experiment you would design to prove that homeopathy does not work?” I accept that this is not a trick question. Please accept that this is not a trick answer.
If I asked you if you can you tell us what experiment you would design to prove that gravity does not work, I would expect you to say I was being ridiculous, but we cannot fully explain how it works despite tens of thousands of years living with the effects. We did not even understand that a thrown object necessarily moved in a parabola until the last 500 years, let alone starting to come to some deeper understanding of the complexities of this force.
Homeopathy is based on the premise that any science of medicine depends on there being a systematic relationship between the unique effects of every substance on the human body and the pattern of symptoms presented by the body in ill-health. I don’t think any reasonable person could disagree with this. Without such a systematic relationship all interventions become random and unpredictable. The key question is the nature of the relationship.
Basically there are two possibilities: (1) that the action of the medicinal substance is almost totally opposed to the symptoms; or (2) that the action is extremely similar. One doctor asked me at this point ‘How can you have an opposite?’ In practice this is true and obvious: for example, what is the opposite of spots or a headache or measles. In theory, though, we can conceive of the possibility, and examples of opposite acting medical practices are easy to point to: antipyretics for fever; steroids for autoimmmune problems; laxatives for constipation; opium for pain. The last three examples have known problems of bad consequences, and the first shows us another interesting side. Antipyretics were given for the fever in ‘flu until it was discovered that the fever was actually the body’s mechanism for killing the virus. Now they are given only in cases where the fever is itself life-threatening. Any homeopath would agree with this approach – you cannot treat (let alone cure) a patient who is dead.
The evidence of cow pox acting curatively on small pox (and similar examples of disease interactions) or of quinine acting in malaria cases (quinine poisoning symptoms are almost identical to malarial symptoms) showed Hahnemann that this was the key relationship. His evidence was gathered from the records of important doctors of his time and earlier, not from homeopaths, who did not exist at that time. He then tested this theory by finding out what substances did to people, by studying reports of poisonings and by conducting tests on volunteers.
I am sure you can see that the hazard of this approach is that you could poison your volunteers and patients. That was when he stumbled on the extraordinary fact that dilution and succussion (banging) made an incredible difference to his remedies. He never explained how he discovered this; he had no way of explaining how it could possibly work; all he did say was that it must be some law of nature like the action of gravity or magnetism – a real ‘force’ integral to the substance, not a mystical separate property. At least twice in his writings he makes observations that conflict with the teachings of the Christian religion he followed, because observed facts told him something different. He was a great scientist in this respect: truth mattered more than belief. I agree with him
In the end, though, the potentised remedy is only a delivery system It it not essential to the basic theory, but it makes the theory practicable, as it safer and works better than crude doses. For decades homeopaths argued about this mechanism, so scepticism is not unexpected. The evidence is in two hundred years of thorough observation.
Lastly, I would like to point out that homeopathy follows naturally from the basic principle of anatomy that our bodies are homeostatic systems. The more you push, the more it tries to push back, so a treatment that acts in the same way as the symptoms provokes a reaction in the body against the symptoms, whereas one acting against the symptoms produces a reaction that increases the symptoms (rebound effect).
I hope you will accept this posting in the spirit in which I give it: an attempt to advance understanding not to belittle or attack. It was the theory that convinced me about homeopathy, not the experience of it in practice, though that was remarkably successful. I have been trying to apply scientific reasoning to its ideas and methodology ever since.
Sophie said
“It is established beyond doubt that randomized placebo control trial (RCT) is not a fitting research tool to test homoeopathy, where the medicine is tailored to each individual patient, but not to the medical diagnosis.
Besides considering the complaints of each patient and their variation at different times and under varying circumstances, his/her physical attributes and mental state are also taken into account to choose the most appropriate medicine. It is therefore, difficult to conduct double blind placebo control trials with homoeopathic medicines. ”
I address this to GaleG but also to anyone on both sides of the argument as it’s a point that homeopath supporters keep making and I still don’t understand. The key bit is “medicine is tailored to each individual patient, but not to the medical diagnosis”- so….if I go to a homeopath what I am suffering, the medical diagnosis of, say, a throat infection, makes no difference to what I’m prescribed or what advice I’m given?
Homeopaths seem to make a great deal of highly ‘individualised’ medicine that takes more into account than mere symptoms- but so do GPs. Doctors prescribe different medecine based on the “mental state” of patient (i.e. they’ll steer clear of some if the patient has been depressed) and on their “phsyical attributes” (different weights/blood pressures etc) They focus on the entire being- checking diet, exercise levels, stress levels, living conditions and offering referrals to trained professionals in each area if necessary. This image of doctors throwing drugs at any problem regardless of the individual is utterly ridiculous- I’m sure there are some around, there’s bad apples in every profession- but from personal experience my family doctor has got to the bottom of some of my health problems with a few well aimed questions about my home life.
Sorry for jumping in but I want to know exactly why homeopaths consider their approach to be any different except on a chemical level. (And finally Ben Goldacre has already outlined how an RCT could fit in with homeopathic approach. It’s no excuse.)
Sophie said
Woops, jumping in again having just read post 86- interesting btw, and can be summarised thusly-
–200 yrs ago Mr H observed an effect, one he could not explain- (let’s take the analogy that he saw a brick falling) didn’t know why. All well and good.
–In past 200 years homeopaths had debated in all good faith why the brick falls. Long winter evenings fly by.
–Recently various very clever people have said ‘hang on a sec, does the brick actually fall? Or is this strange thing placebo (amongst other things) only making it *appear* to fall?’
–Homeopaths suddenly have to prove to everyone’s satisfation that brick falls. Cannot, as yet, do so- pandemonium and cross letters to newspaper editors ensue….
–…..as do various conspiracy theories as to why the falling brick must be hidden by the establishment and evil corporations (there is a tom cruise moveie in this somewhere)
Alright, I’m done, actually going to start writing that essay now.
givescienceachance said
Sophie
With respect, your summary is slightly wrong. My argument (to use your image) is that no-one could have any problem with the brick, but when Mr H basically said a feather falls at the same speed, everyone got worked up. You need a vacuum to prove it, not available at the time, but able to be used later to confirm the law of things falling.
eveningperson said
A homeopath presumably uses criteria to determine what remedy or remedies to use for the patient, however complex or individual the patient’s set of symptoms and circumstances may be. And the homeopath presumably also has an outcome in mind that will be used to judge ’success’ or ‘cure’. In that case, there is no theoretical reason why a randomised controlled trial could not be carried out.
There is not, as far as I can see, any requirement for the patients to have all the same set of symptoms. Only that there is a genuine correlation between the outcomes and the criteria used to determine treatments for the patients.
There may be practical reasons (not enough patients or resources) but as homeopaths keep telling us how popular homeopathy is becoming I don’t see that there should be a problem finding the money and a few thousand patients for quite a convincing trial. Surely the manufacturers and high-street sellers of homeopathic remedies would be glad to fund such a trial to increase their sales.
The only reason why an RCT could not be carried out, given the resources, is if there is no genuine set of criteria for assigning a treatment to a patient, or if the outcomes are too vaguely defined (or both).
GaleG said
Dear Sophie,
In terms of your question about individualizing a remedy to the person, I submit the following:
When I see my homeopath for a sore throat the questions I have been asked are:
Is one side more painful than the other? If so, which side?
Do hot drinks make it better or worse?
What about cold drinks?
Do I want to have my neck covered or left open?
Do I feel like eating?
Do I have any other symptoms? How am I feeling emotionally?
And there may be more……
My unique answers will lead to a remedy that matches these symptoms. Like curing like.
In summary, a homeopath may see four people in the same day, all with sore throats, and give four different remedies.
Hope that helps-
-GG
eveningperson said
‘That is a ratio of one part remedy component (like NaCl for Nat Mur) to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parts of solvent. That is a “1? followed by 60 zeros. ‘
In practice, even the very purest available water will contain between parts per trillion and parts per billion of numerous impurities. There are likely tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of impurities in the form of molecules and ions at this level. Of course, we don’t expect homeopathic remedies to be prepared with water this pure, which is used for chemical analysis in labs. We happily drink water with much higher levels of impurities because we know that even at those levels they have no significant affect on the human body.
So, supposing that a homeopathic remedy is prepared with the very purest available water, there may still be something like 1,000,000,000,000 molecules of impurity in a C30 remedy, and absolutely nothing of the original remedy. Of those molecules, some molecules of each impurity have been through the whole dilution/succussion cycle, so presumably the impurities have been ‘potentised’ too. So a homeopathic remedy is actually the effect of many thousands of uncontrolled chemical substances. No?
GaleG said
Lsughingmysocksoff has been doing research for us all. These may be the best sorts of studies to evaluate homeopathy- outcome and patient satisfaction studies.
(*) Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: A comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders. Witt, C, Keil, T, Selim, D et al. Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2005) 13, 79-86. German study concluding from an analysis of outcomes for 493 patients that patients seeking homeopathic treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment.
Homeopathic medical practice: Long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. Witt, Claudia M, Lüdtke, Rainer, Baur, Roland, and Willich, Stefan N. BMC Public Health 2005, 5:115. A total of 3,981 patients were studied including 2,851 adults and 1,130 children. Ninety-seven percent of all diagnoses were chronic with an average duration of 8.8 years. Almost all patients had received conventional treatment (95%) prior to the start of this study. Disease severity decreased significantly (p<0.001) between baseline and 24 months. Disease severity and quality of life demonstrated marked and sustained improvements following homeopathic treatment period.
Homeopathic Treatment for Chronic Disease: A 6-Year, University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study. Spence, David S and Thompson, Elizabeth A. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Volume 11, Number 5, 2005, pp. 793-798. Observational study of 6544 consecutive follow-up patients during a 6-year period in a hospital outpatient unit within an acute National Health Service (NHS) Teaching Trust in the United Kingdom. 70.7% of patients receiving homeopathic treatment reported positive health
-GG
GaleG said
By the way, here is the link to the above mentioned site:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/lies-damn-lies-and-socks/
-GG
eveningperson said
Givescienceachance:
Evidence-based medicine is not based on imaginary ‘laws’ about one thing influencing another. It is based on what is found to work, and is only used when it is thought that the benefits will outweigh the risks and disadvantages.
Of course, science tries to understand why treatments work. We now know that quinine treats malaria, not because quinine causes fever if you poison yourself with it, not because ‘like cures like’, but because the chemical substance interferes with part of the life-cycle of the plasmodium parasite within the human body. This is real understanding: the knowledge of the cause of malaria, and how it is transmitted by mosquities, was won through imaginative thought, diligent research and a lot of very hard work. Hahnemann knew nothing of quinine, of molecules, of plasmodium, or of the cause of malarial fever or the causes of disease generally.
(I probably owe my life to chloroquine, by the way, as I contracted malaria on a visit to Pakistan about 20 years ago. One dose, no side-effects, back at work in 48 hours. If you believe in anecdotal evidence, then that is a testimony to scientific medicine.)
Andy Lewis said
Let’s get back to
Dr(lets not use irrelevant facts – gimpy) Gimpy’s question: What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?Givescienceachance has not answered the question again. I quote: If I asked you if you can you tell us what experiment you would design to prove that gravity does not work, I would expect you to say I was being ridiculous.
But physicists are testing gravitational theory all the time to a degree of accuracy you could not imagine. Many scientists expect that we will soon see deviations from standard theory right now. Spacecraft are being monitored to look for tiny discrepancies away from the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. Gravity wave detectors will create shed loads of data that may well shed whole new ways of understanding gravity. Scientists are pushing hard to show are understanding of gravity is wrong, or at least incomplete.
But no homeopath I have ever met has shown that they too are striving to show where the cracks are in their theory. It is simple to conceive of an experiment that would show gravity to be not an inverse square law. It is also simple to conceive of experiments to show that homeopathy is hokum – no matter how much you believe it to be true. And yet no homeopath appears able to countenance that possibility.
I am quite open about an experiment that would show cracks in my understanding. It is my $100 challenge and it is on my web site. Without blowing my trumpet, am I brave to take such a stand? Have I the courage of my convictions? Do homeopaths? What would you conclude if a homeopath took my test and only got 1 out of 6 right?
givescienceachance said
Eveningperson said: “Evidence-based medicine is not based on imaginary ‘laws’ about one thing influencing another. It is based on what is found to work, and is only used when it is thought that the benefits will outweigh the risks and disadvantages.”
You are right about evidence based medicine (EBM) in so far as it is about “what is found to work”. But that is not science, that is empiricism. Science is about explaining why things work and predicting what will work. It is about theory as well as evidence. Without a theory, you can not properly assess the results of any experiments, as ‘better’ may be ‘worse’ in other more important ways. The classic example is a flashing temperature warning light in a car: remove the light and the immediate problem is solved, and then the radiator boils … If you do not understand the whole, evidence based on the part can be dangerously wrong.
You also said: “A homeopath presumably uses criteria to determine what remedy or remedies to use for the patient, however complex or individual the patient’s set of symptoms and circumstances may be. And the homeopath presumably also has an outcome in mind that will be used to judge ’success’ or ‘cure’.”
This is true, and the subsequent assessment includes identifying when a mistake has been made in the choice of remedy, because there are a range of outcomes indicating different states of the patient and the relevance of the remedy to the case.
You go on: “In that case, there is no theoretical reason why a randomised controlled trial could not be carried out.”
As you will have understood from the above, it is impossible to assess a result if you do not know what the intervention was. In a double-blind trial a no-change result could be because it was the wrong remedy, the wrong potency or because the patient only had a placebo. Follow-up in such a case can easily lead to the wrong action, and confusion.
You add: “There is not, as far as I can see, any requirement for the patients to have all the same set of symptoms. Only that there is a genuine correlation between the outcomes and the criteria used to determine treatments for the patients.”
That is precisely what homeopaths do all the time. Their records are the fullest evidence of this process at work that one could possibly have. This evidence does not require statistical analysis as it is the direct testing of the theory in practice. Every patient is a repetition of the scientific experiment which tests the laws of homeopathy.
The RCT only produces statistical results, which have little relevance to individual cases. This is like saying that because most people need one size of shoe, it must fit everybody. It doesn’t and produces side effects.
By the way, Hahnemann did know about quinine – it was how homeopathy was discovered.
Andy Lewis said
Givescienceachance – ducking the question again…
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
phayes said
I’ve never seen anything like this before.
Not even on crank.net or in the BBC S&N message boards. I had no idea it was possible to stray so far from rational argument and plumb such depths of stupidity and wilful ignorance.
Madness… Utter, utter madness.
eveningperson said
givescienceachance says:
+++You are right about evidence based medicine (EBM) in so far as it is about “what is found to work”. But that is not science, that is empiricism. Science is about explaining why things work and predicting what will work. It is about theory as well as evidence. Without a theory, you can not properly assess the results of any experiments, as ‘better’ may be ‘worse’ in other more important ways. The classic example is a flashing temperature warning light in a car: remove the light and the immediate problem is solved, and then the radiator boils … If you do not understand the whole, evidence based on the part can be dangerously wrong.+++
Medicine is not science, although much of it is based on science. It would certainly be foolish to base any treatment on theory that contradicted well-established science (such as our knowledge of Avogadro’s constant). And, of course, science may suggest approaches to treatment, such as using quantum chemistry to design molecules to interact with virus particles, as is now being done.
However, since physiological systems are so complex, it is impossible to imagine theory suggesting a treatment that could be used without ever being tested. Just as aircraft are designed with heavy use of theory, but still have to be tested before the public can fly in them.
Your example of the flashing radiator light is a good analogy for Hahnemann’s reasoning, though.
+++As you will have understood from the above, it is impossible to assess a result if you do not know what the intervention was. In a double-blind trial a no-change result could be because it was the wrong remedy, the wrong potency or because the patient only had a placebo. Follow-up in such a case can easily lead to the wrong action, and confusion.+++
No, you have got it exactly the wrong way round.
It is impossible with any certainty to judge the effectiveness of a treatment from clinical experience alone. You may guess, and you may guess right, but you may equally guess wrong. When a patient recovers, you have no way of knowing whether the patient got better by herself or by your treatment. It is well known that people tend to interpret results according to their beliefs or wishes, rather than by the facts. (Gimpy has just posted an example of a homeopath doing exactly that.) It is also known that clinicians can become more and more confident in their expertise whilst consistently interpreting the facts wrongly.
It is precisely because of these problems that controlled trials and their associated statistical techniques were developed. They are the only way you can separate genuine effectiveness from the placebo effect and other interferences. In fact, the placebo effect was discovered this way.
+++You add: “There is not, as far as I can see, any requirement for the patients to have all the same set of symptoms. Only that there is a genuine correlation between the outcomes and the criteria used to determine treatments for the patients.”
That is precisely what homeopaths do all the time. Their records are the fullest evidence of this process at work that one could possibly have. This evidence does not require statistical analysis as it is the direct testing of the theory in practice. Every patient is a repetition of the scientific experiment which tests the laws of homeopathy.
The RCT only produces statistical results, which have little relevance to individual cases. This is like saying that because most people need one size of shoe, it must fit everybody. It doesn’t and produces side effects.+++
Of course you need statistical analysis. And control groups. The clinical experience of homeopaths is not a scientific test, because there is no way the supposed laws of homeopathy could ever be falsified by clinical experience. If the patient gets better, the homeopath claims a success. If he doesn’t, oops, it’s the wrong treatment, let’s try another, again and again, until the patient dies (not my fault) or loses interest. The records of homeopaths are totally worthless as a test of homeopathy, because there is no way the homeopath could ever lose under her own test protocol.
But in any case, the point I was making is that there is absolutely no reason why the central claims of homeopathy could not be properly tested with a well-designed RCT.
+++By the way, Hahnemann did know about quinine – it was how homeopathy was discovered.+++
No, he didn’t. He used an extract of ‘peruvian bark’ (or whatever he knew it as). The discovery that it contained a chemical identified as quinine and having a particular chemical formula and structure came later, as a result of scientific research.
hcn57 said
Eveningperson said “In practice, even the very purest available water will contain between parts per trillion and parts per billion of numerous impurities. ”
I know that, but you will never get a homeopath to admit that. They claim to have passed chemistry and possibly even beginners algebra, yet they fail to understand the magnatude of the dilutions required to get 30C or 200C. These are people who claim it is “nano” pharmacy or technology, skipping the tiny detail that “nano” has a real definition of 1/1000000000. Why would they care that their dilutions are physically impossible?
They also claim they are trying to educate us on homeopathy, but just like the worst teachers one would have in school… they refuse to answer basic questions. Has anyone even attempted to answer Gimpy’s questions on the top of the page? The leaps of logic and diversions they take to avoid answering basic questions is an amusingly entertaining window into some seriously delusional thinking. It was not surprising that one linked to his/her website that featured a youtube video from a guy that speaks at a “Conspiracy Con” with David Icke.
If reptilian aliens are real, then homeopathy must work!
M Simpson said
“Every patient is a repetition of the scientific experiment which tests the laws of homeopathy.”
Homeopaths often (by their own admission) try one remedy, then when that doesn’t work try another, then another, until something works. What does that tell you about this ’scientific experiment’?
I can demonstrate a ’scientific experiment’ which proves that swearing at traffic lights causes them to change from red to green. Of course, every traffic light is different and an experienced swearer has to take into account the type of junction, the time of day, the colour of the car at the front of the queue – but swearing definitely makes the lights change. If the first swearword shows no change, it may be the wrong word or said in the wrong way, so an experienced swearer will try a different word or try shouting or whispering. When the right word is said in the right way, the lights will change. Every time.
Of course, sometimes they revert to red again, but that just means that they need another, different swearword.
givescienceachance said
OK if you do not want an intelligent discussion, I leave it to you to explain why the RCT is so good when it is based on at least 8 unproven assumptions (detailed below). Perhaps you can also explain why chemistry and physics are not based on RCTs if they are so good a scientific approach. The appropriation of technology based on true sciences does not confer scientific status on medicine, it has to have its own scientific theoretical framework to do that. Instead it has a belief system as orthodox and intolerant of question as any other religion, and as founded on faith in the unprovable:
Assumptions underlying RCTs
1 Common symptoms are more significant than individual symptoms.
Unproven and is a product of a further assumption (2).
2 Illness can be successfully treated without a consistent theory of the nature of symptoms.
Unproven, and difficult to believe.
3 Common responses are more significant than individual responses.
Unproven, contradicts evidence of side effects and is a product of a further assumption (4).
4 Partial causes can be treated as complete causes.
Unproven and a logical impossibility.
5 Responses to a single factor can be determined from its interaction with part of a complex system without reference to other factors or the rest of the system.
Unproven, difficult to believe, and contradicts the evidence (such as the study of nutrition).
6 Unknown factors are insignificant if allegedly balanced between control and placebo strands.
By definition it is impossible to balance unknown factors, and it is impossible to balance their variable effects on the reaction to an intervention.
7 Statistical interpretation of results leads to conclusions scientifically valid in their own right.
Unproven, contradicts repeated evidence of past experience, and logically impossible since lack of certainty in results indicates the importance of other factors not taken into account.
8 Positive outcomes can be determined for a complex system without a model of what constitutes positive and negative outcomes for the whole system.
Unproven and nonsensical.
Andy Lewis said
givescienceachance – are you making this up? Do you have any references for these bizarre assertions?
pv said
To be precise, homeopathy wasn’t discovered. It was invented. It’s an important distinction that is always lost on the committed homeopath.
gimpy said
105 and posts and not one homeopath has answered my questions. Here they are again:
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
and
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
Norbury said
Assumptions underlying RCTs
1 Common symptoms are more significant than individual symptoms.
Unproven and is a product of a further assumption (2).
- Surely a set of common symptoms is how you define a disease? Not everyone with a disease develops all the same symptoms, that is well known, but there must be some which are common for it to be the same disease.
2 Illness can be successfully treated without a consistent theory of the nature of symptoms.
Unproven, and difficult to believe.
- What do you mean? What is the ‘nature of a symptom’?
3 Common responses are more significant than individual responses.
Unproven, contradicts evidence of side effects and is a product of a further assumption (4).
- If you mean that when ten people respond the same way to a treatment then it’s more significant than when only one person does, then yes. This is the basis of statistical significance. This is how all effects are determined, including side-effects, so I’m not sure how it ‘contradicts the evidence of side-effects’?
4 Partial causes can be treated as complete causes.
Unproven and a logical impossibility.
- Eh? Who has ever said that?
5 Responses to a single factor can be determined from its interaction with part of a complex system without reference to other factors or the rest of the system.
Unproven, difficult to believe, and contradicts the evidence (such as the study of nutrition).
- Is it just me or is this gobbledegook? What are you trying to say? Please give an example.
6 Unknown factors are insignificant if allegedly balanced between control and placebo strands.
By definition it is impossible to balance unknown factors, and it is impossible to balance their variable effects on the reaction to an intervention.
- Again I have no idea what you’re talking about.
7 Statistical interpretation of results leads to conclusions scientifically valid in their own right.
Unproven, contradicts repeated evidence of past experience, and logically impossible since lack of certainty in results indicates the importance of other factors not taken into account.
- How can you be certain of your results without statistical significance?
8 Positive outcomes can be determined for a complex system without a model of what constitutes positive and negative outcomes for the whole system.
Unproven and nonsensical.
- What do you need a model for? Positive and negative outcomes are normally self-explanatory, e.g. tumour shrinks/patient feels nauseous.
eveningperson said
Givescienceachance:
I am not aware of RCTs being based on any of these assumptions.
Statistical trials are used to identify correlations, in the presence of complicating factors. For example, between patients getting better more often or more quickly and having homeopathic (or any other) treatment. That’s all.
They certainly do not depend on any knowledge of the mechanism of cause and effect in what is being studied (which requires further study). They do require that you should define in advance the criteria by which you will judge the outcome.
M Simpson has pretty well summed up the ‘method’ of homeopathy – which you yourself claimed to be ’scientific’ – in his swearing/traffic light analogy. Or in what way would you consider your homeopathic practice differs from that?
What outcome would you consider would falsify one of your homeopathic ‘laws’? How would you identify an incompetent or bogus homeopath from his results?
ambrielle said
Is Givescienceachance supposed to be irony?
Sorry, as you were.
hcn57 said
But Ambrielle, the “science” that Givescienceachance is not the science most of us who have taken chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics in high school and university learned… it is only that which can be attributed to Hahnemann, a divine revelation!
I posted this on the other thread:
http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/homeopathy/homeopathy-pdf/homeobook.pdf
Here are some select quotes:
“The real importance of the miasm theory, it seems to me, is the insight it gives into Hahnemann’s character. We shall not understand the man unless we realize that for him, homeopathy was much more than a mere medical theory; it was a divine revelation. I am not exaggerating here. We know from his own writings that the idea of homeopathy came to him as the solution to a religious dilemma.”
and
“But whose authority are we to acknowledge? Presumably Hahnemann’s; but surely Hahnemann was a man, and therefore no more exempt from error than other men? Not so, Kent implies, for Hahnemann had discovered a divinely ordained law. Homeopathy is an inspired science, which is the only true kind of science; all the rest is mere opinion. It is therefore not merely foolish but actually impious to question Hahnemann. By implication it is also impious to question Kent.”
The key quote is “Homeopathy is an inspired science, which is the only true kind of science; all the rest is mere opinion.”
You see, they have a different definition of science. To us what looks like a delusional religion of cult like proportions, is to them a divine science that they dare not question. We are the blasphemers for daring to make them open their minds to the “other” kind of science, which they regard as mere opinion.
I guess if I was to choose a moniker other than my initials it would be “GiveRealityAChance.”
givescienceachance said
You say you believe in (and know about) science.
You say you believe in (and know about) RCTs.
So …
Why has nobody understood my last posting?
Why has nobody explained the basis of RCTs without using any of the assumptions listed?
Why have some people felt it is safer to ignore it and trot out tired old (and false) arguments?
Because …
It is easy to believe in science, but harder to understand it.
It is easy to believe in RCTs, but most people never bother to think about the theoretical principles on which they are based.
It is easy to believe in someone who gives the appearance of knowing what they are talking about, but much much harder to learn to think for oneself.
One person tried to think it through but stopped. Don’t give up, Norbury, but don’t post on the subject until you have thought about it a bit more. Most people will forgive ignorance, but stupidity is just annoying. You don’t know the answers, and you can never learn by sticking with only what you already know. This is not an impossible challenge, but working on it will teach you a lot more about the world around you.
The eight propositions are not made up. They are statements of principle unclouded by “the obvious” and “habits of thought”. They are the equivalent of reminding you that the sun does not rise every morning, however obvious it seems to be that it does. The Earth turns, but the science of that is more complicated than looking out of a window. The same is true of RCTs.
I would suggest you stop believing anything anyone says against homeopathy until they cannot prove they know what they are talking about in respect of RCTs. After all they insist that RCTs are the gold standard of scientific testing, and we all know that it has been a long time since economists have used the gold standard.
M Simpson said
Why are you – you personally and homeopaths in general – so absolutely OBSESSED with randomised controlled trials?
eveningperson said
I’m waiting for givescienceachance to show how an RCT rests on these supposed ‘assumptions’. He could, for example, produce a paper by a mathematician proving his assertion. At the moment, all he’s said is that he considers he has thought about it and we have not. Well, if he has thought about it he will be able to produce a proof (a proof is possible here because it is a mathematical matter).
Andy Lewis said
givescienceachance – you say these propositions are not made up, but they look like pseudoscientific gobbledegook to me.
Again, did you just pluck them out of thin air, or can you reference them? Has someone actually thought through these propositions in a way that we can read and analyse them. Or is it just you trying to sound clever?
Genuine question. Would appreciate a straight answer.
colmcq said
“They certainly do not depend on any knowledge of the mechanism of cause and effect in what is being studied (which requires further study). ”
Irrelevant – ‘knowledge of the mechanism of cause and effect’ will have no bearing on the results.
eveningperson said
colmcq Says:
+++“They certainly do not depend on any knowledge of the mechanism of cause and effect in what is being studied (which requires further study). ”
Irrelevant – ‘knowledge of the mechanism of cause and effect’ will have no bearing on the results.+++
What I said.
colmcq said
“What I said.”
you did
Niall said
A couple of reactions to Givescienceachance:
“Perhaps you can also explain why chemistry and physics are not based on RCTs if they are so good a scientific approach.”
Actually, most good scientific experiments are based on using some form of randomisation (randomly allocating cell samples to particular cell culture plates etc), they all (should) use controls and a trial is just an experiment… So there’s really just a diference in terminology here. The difference with basic sciences is that you can generally “intervene” at a much lower level in the processes in which you are interested, and can exert greater control over your experimental units. The RCT is the biomedical sciences approach to achieving the same degree of control within the practical and ethical limitations imposed by working with human subjects.
“The appropriation of technology based on true sciences does not confer scientific status on medicine, it has to have its own scientific theoretical framework to do that.”
We can assess all sorts of things “scientifically”, even things that are not in themselves scientific, if this actually means anything – I’m not sure what you mean by “scientific theoretical framework” – there’s plenty of theory in medicine as far as I can see, so you perhaps need to be a bit more precise in what you mean by this.
The same comment applies to most (all?) of your claimed RCT assumptions – e.g. “1 Common symptoms are more significant than individual symptoms”: what do you mean by “common” and “significant” here? Common = (frequently observed in population)? Significant = (has major impact on individual’s health)? At what stage of an hypothetical RCT are you suggesting this becomes important?
I would comment on two more points though: “6 Unknown factors are insignificant if allegedly balanced between control and placebo strands.” Actually, this is the power of randomisation – if you are sampling truly randomly and without bias (and so not over- or under-representing particular subgroups of your populations that may have unusual characteristics) then in the long run (by which I mean over a large number of identical trials) you will average out the
unknown confounders by randomising participants to groups. Of course, the “in the long run” aspect of the argument means that there is still a chance that any given trial will still have biases, or imbalances due to chance, but this is one reason why some trials give false positive results – hence caution in interpretation is always required. Secondly, “7 Statistical interpretation of results leads to conclusions scientifically valid in their own right.”: statistical inference is mathematically consistent, so in that sense they are scientifically valid. Again, I’m not sure the meaning of your objection is clear, and until we establish what the conversation is about, we won’t make very much progress!
GaleG said
Hi there-
Has any one of you held a very sick child or a dying animal in your arms? Any one of you stayed up all night with a fretful feaverish, very ill child? In other words, have any of you dealt with life and death and the real world?
-GG
hcn57 said
Gale pleads “Has any one of you held a very sick child or a dying animal in your arms? Any one of you stayed up all night with a fretful feaverish, very ill child?”
Yes.
I’ve also had charletens try to sell me “cures”, which in reality only enrich their bank accounts and do not have any means to deal with the very real health issues. Just a few weeks ago I had someone suggest a homeopathic head massage to cure the neurological damage… now how is it supposed to repair Broca’s and Wernicke’s ares of the brain?
Why do you ask?
Wait, she continues “In other words, have any of you dealt with life and death and the real world?”
Well, that’s the point isn’t it. In the world of homeopathy “science” is that which was thought up by Hahnemann two centuries ago. The reason none of you could answer my simple high school level chemistry/algebra problem is that it shows how homeopathy is so empty. In the “real” world kids who are denited real medical treatment actually die:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/death-of-baby-gloria-sparks-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/1194117959740.html
nash said
GaleG asks “have any of you dealt with life and death and the real world?”
Yes I have.
And your point is?
hcn57 said
That reminds me, I do have a child with multiple health issues. I have often asked homeopaths questions on how their remedies would be better, and none have answered satisfactorily. Can you?
So, if you have a child in the throes of Grand Mal seizures do you:
1) Call a homeopath for an emergency consultation, and for what remedy to grab out of your “Homeopathy Emergency Kit” (and there are several for sale!)?
or
2) Call the emergency number (999 or 911 depending on where you live)?
Also, how would a homeopath be better at treating hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? What benefit would there be in abandoning the cardiologist with the twice yearly EKG and once a year echocardiogram, plus the daily dose of beta-blockers and instead going to a homeopath? Please be specific with your answer, do include the real scientific evidence of the studies showing how homeopathy has treated this condition. (by the way, a quick google search shows there are homeopaths who have actually claimed to treat this condition… A condition where I decided not to participate in the parent’s forum because it was just too depressing due to the numbers of those who have lost children to “sudden cardiac death”).
Please answer my questions, GaleG. No one has tried… well, no one has even attempted to answer my high school level chemistry/algebra question!
How would you deal with real medical issues?
nash said
GaleG comes out with the usual Hoe arrogance about “only homeopaths care”
I do care about those who are sick, so don’t assume you have a monopoly on compassion. I care so much that I want to do the right thing by those that are sick. This includes making sure they are not prayed on by those such as you, who take adavntage of them when they are desperate and weak.
GaleG said
Dear Hcn57-
I am sorry to hear of your child. I am not a homeopath so I cannot answer your specific questions.
But as a parent, if the seizure was the first one, I certainly would call 911 and get emergent medical help. I would then weigh my options after receiving emergency care.
I cannot comment on cardiomyopathy, but again, would do my own research and weigh my options. I do not see homeopathy as replacing follow-ups with medical specialists, nor medication at first. My ultimate goal would be a healthy child.
These are good questions you are posing. It is up to us as consumers to seek out the help we want for ourselves and our family members.
There are no guarantees with any therapy; sadly, children die suddenly while under the care of cardiac specialists and taking medications. I know- I worked as a nurse in a pediatric cardiac care unit.
-GG
eveningperson said
GaleG Says:
++++
Hi there-
Has any one of you held a very sick child or a dying animal in your arms? Any one of you stayed up all night with a fretful feaverish, very ill child? In other words, have any of you dealt with life and death and the real world?
++++
I had a brother and a sister who died around 30 years ago in their 20s/30s. They were born with cystic fibrosis (CF), which is the most common genetically-transmitted condition amongst people of western European descent. Although they died young, what is remarkable is that they were amongst the earliest CF patients who did not die in early childhood of a horrible lung and wasting disease or of its complications. This was entirely due to increasing scientific knowledge of the disease, and the improvements in diagnosis, treatment and care that the increased knowledge made possible. It may be that CF children born now will have the chance of living into middle age, or even longer.
Various aspects of the disease had been recognised as far back as the 1700s (apparently, there was a warning “Woe to the child kissed on the brow who tastes salty, for he is cursed and soon must die” referring to what was later recognised as CF), but the first full clinical and pathological characterisation of CF was made in the late 1930s. When I came to start a family I went to see a geneticist, but at that time he could give me no more than general advice about my chance of passing on the disease. The mutations on a chromosome, and later the gene that is responsible, were identified in the 1980s, so now concerned intending parents can seek informed genetic counselling. No contribution from homeopathy is evident.
In the UK, CF patients are now helped (on the NHS) by a whole set of measures, from early diagnosis, through dietary supplements (including the pancreatic enzyme that is deficient in CF patients), antibiotics and other treatments to control the infections that CF sufferers are liable to, physiotherapy to keep the airways clear, and intensive care when managing the disease fails, to genetic counselling for CF patients and their relatives who may carry the defective gene. Perhaps one day gene therapy may remove the threat of the disease. I’m sure that CF suufferers are not the only people whose lives have been immeasurably improved by advances in medicine.
Then, on the other hand, we have charlatans who simply prescribe a fake pill based on 18th century magic to credulous middleclass hypochiondriacs and witter on about ‘holistic treatment’. The irony should be obvious.
hcn57 said
Then please, try and try very hard to find real data and evidence to support your belief in homeopathy. Show it to us, don’t try the tactic of “Oh, you guys don’t know anything, you have never held a sick child” tactic.
Get real evidence that is supported by real science.
hcn57 said
My last post was addressing GaleG, I did not know Eveningperson had one waiting for moderation. I know this one will need to be moderated, so I’ll just go all out. Though I will not include the other crud sold to parents of disabled kids like patterning therapy, cranial sacral therapy, chelation, RNA drops, and a myriad of other questionable ways that quacks use to take money away from desperate parents.
I will note that GaleG said “These are good questions you are posing. It is up to us as consumers to seek out the help we want for ourselves and our family members.”
As a consumer you need to know EXACTLY what people are recommending to solve a family’s medical issues. A consumer should know what homeopathy is, and how much “active” ingredient is in each remedy. They need to know exactly what the efficacy is for specific conditions.
Believe it or not, more than one diabetic person has had very ill results from a homeopath telling them to stop taking their insulin (I can’t find the news stories, Google found too many homeopath websites promising to help or even cure diabetes!). We all know how well an Australian homeopath did with his baby daughter and her eczema, she died (one of my sons had eczema, all he needed was some cortisone cream, mild soap and even a little petroleum jelly… he never even one bacterial skin infection!).
Much of what I learned about homeopathy comes from a pair of veterinarians on the JREF forums (http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php). They both have had to deal with animals that had suffered because their owners went to a homeopath and the condition the animal went untreated for far too long. A person whose profession is to treat animals becomes very very upset when an animal is mistreated, or must suffer needlessly:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=553649
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=360104
So have other veterinarians:
http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#newcombe
http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#farr
http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes5.html#edwards1 (read what happened when someone bought a “homeopathic” vet practice!)
(While searching for specific posts, which I never found, I did find one dedicated to a child who died of epilepsy because her parents decided to listen to a homeopath. Unfortunately I cannot find the newslinks because Google found too many homeopaths willing to treat seizures, but only this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=15225 )
A consumer must learn that homeopathy is not the same as herbal or naturopathic medicine. They need to know how literally EMPTY homeopathy is of both ingredients and promises.
So again I say to GaleG:
Get real evidence that is supported by real science.
Claire said
“…There are no guarantees with any therapy; sadly, children die suddenly while under the care of cardiac specialists and taking medications. I know- I worked as a nurse in a pediatric cardiac care unit.
-GG…”
The loss of a child is soul-destroying – I know too well. But the putative parents of the child under specialist medical care have, at least, the comfort of knowing that they were doing their best. Can you imagine how it would feel to lose a child and then have to be told that the death would most likely have been preventable if the parents had pursued proper medical care and medication rather than alternative therapies? I have spoken to a couple such parents, and it is very difficult for them.
GaleG said
Hello everyone-
To all of you who have suffered the loss of loved ones, my heart goes out to you- thank-you for sharing and of course I do hear your sincere concern for others.
For a good discussion about homeopathy going on right now with a family physician in Glasgow who now also uses homeopathy go to http://heroesnotzombies.wordpress.com/homeopathy/
You know, I worked many years ago as a midwife in a jurisdiction where it was not “legal”. The only option was a doctor in a hospital, and there were many of us that wanted midwives and homebirth to be an option.
I was attacked many times as being irresponsible, putting lives at risk etc. But after twenty years, midwives are now part of our health care system as is home birth, and the statistics show that a well-screened woman choosing a home birth is as safe, if not safer, than in the hospital. This has been government sanctioned after designing a “home-birth demonstration project”.
And I have been the midwife who had to support a family after a death subsequent to an emergency transfer to hospital. I was the midwife who had to support them when the specialist said that this death would not have happened if they had been in hospital…. They were both professors, had chosen a homebirth after much research, and they always were supportive of both me and their choice, even after the stillbirth of their son. (They went on the have two healthy children).
That incident went to a coronor’s inquest- the coroner found it an accidental death, no blame to me, except to the government who had not integrated homebirth and midwives properly into the system. It was a landmark decision that paved the way to the legalization of midwifery. (A documentary film was made partially featuring them and and me, going over what had happened, and why they felt that midwives and homebirth were an important option to birthing families).
I have also supported families whose babies have died while in a hospital under the care of an obstetrician. Sometimes they felt that everything had been done that could have been done, and sometimes they had extreme anger towards their doctor and the care they received.
Claire, any loss of a child causes extreme grief, and the tendency to want to blame and find fault in normal. Sometimes that leads the way to growth and important change, and sometimes that causes the grief to be prolonged.
My comment about the child who died from excema- that case seems to me to be more one of child abuse and neglect than an indictment of homeopathy. Very sad indeed.
With love,
-GG
hcn57 said
GaleG, the child who died from excema was only treated by homeopathy. Her father is a homeopath, and even took her to India for more homeopathic treatment. They even skipped scheduled appointments to Australian health services to take her to India for homeopathic treatments. Go back and read the Australian news reports.
It was child neglect due to a religious belief in homeopathy.
Homeopathy killed that child.
GaleG said
Dear HCN57-
Your second to last sentence is actually the correct one- child neglect due to exteme religious belief. The child’s death was due to the neglect of the parent, NOT the homeopathic remedy or treatment.
Don’t get me wrong. I share your concern that any parent would let their strong belief cloud their better judgment. It is just that I don’t support your last statement.
-GG
Claire said
“Your second to last sentence is actually the correct one- child neglect due to exteme religious belief.”
So, homeopathy is really a religion then?
GaleG said
Hi Claire,
I should say “….extreme beliefs” not “…extreme religious beliefs”. Those were Hnc57’s words.
Homeopathy is not a religion to me- it is a choice for my health care, one among many I make.
-GG
hcn57 said
Oh, sigh… why and how are you exactly trying to delude yourself, GaleG?
The father was a homeopath, they went so far as to take her to a homeopath in India. They were NOT neglecting her. What they were doing was using homeopathy to cure her, and it worked as well as could be expected: it failed.
If a diabetic decided to use only homeopathy instead of insulin, it would fail (and that has happened). If someone with epilepsy used homeopathy instead of anti-convulsants, it would fail (and that has happened). If an asthmatic used homeopathy instead of real medicine, it would fail (and that has happened:
http://wskrz.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/previous-experiences/ )
What exactly is homeopathy supposed to work for?
Do you understand that the dilutions in homeopathic remedies have absolutely no actual ingredients? It is not herbal medicine, it is not a form of talk-therapy… it is something that was thought up two centuries ago. Its basic premises violate several chemistry and physics principles.
Try this: List the non-self limiting ailments that homeopathy would be a better choice than real medicine. Tell us why, and show the scientific evidence that homeopathy has been proven to be better for these ailments.
GaleG said
Dear Hcn57-
I will leave it that we will have to agree to disagree.I am not a scientist nor homeopath. I wish you and your friends well in this holiday season- I am getting ready for the holidays and vacation time with my family.
Best wishes,
-GG
hcn57 said
Just answer the question: What ailments are treated better with homeopathy than real medicine?
You seem to feel that it helps, but you have not mentioned for WHAT and how! You claim to not be a scientist, yet you keep dragging your nursing credentials into the discussion. You have an opinion that homeopathy works, but you have failed to tell us for WHAT.
Before you call us big ol’ meanies who don’t care about sick children again, I suggest you find a way to answer some of our questions.
phayes said
“I wish you and your friends well in this holiday season”
Likewise.
Ohreally said
Hcn57: “List the non-self limiting ailments that homeopathy would be a better choice than real medicine.”
Define an “ailment”
Define “self limiting”
Define “better choice”
Define “real medicine”
hcn57 said
Ohreally…
Do you not own a dictionary? Try this: http://dictionary.reference.com/
Just answer this: What sickness is homeopathy better for than anything else?
Give references.
When I mean references, I mean stuff we can look up and verify. Stuff with good notes and published in a journal indexed at http://www.pubmed.gov. Stuff that will not get someone sued for “keeping inadequate records.” In other words: NO anecdotes.
Failing your understanding of standard English: Show evidence that homeopathy actually works better than doing nothing.
In further explanation: Would homeopathy be better than insulin for a diabetic? Would homeopathy be better than antibiotics for syphilis, strep throat, tetanus, or a staph infection? Would homeopathy be better for epileptic seizures than anticonvulsants? Would someone be more protected with a homeopathic vaccine than with a real vaccine for tetanus, yellow fever, measles, polio, mumps, or diphtheria
Further evasion will show that homeopathy is as empty as its list of active ingredients.
While you are at it… tell us exactly how many chlorine and sodium atoms are in a cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C. The answer in a NUMBER. It should include one of several of the keys on top of the keyboard just below the function keys (if you are typing blind, or don’t know what function keys are, the answer should include one or more of the following: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,0 — only for a homeopathic enthusiast would I have to define what a number answer entails!).
hcn57 said
Oh, crap… I just realized you want to know what “better choice” is.
Not dying from a treatable illness. Look at the case of Gloria Thomas. She was just a baby with eczema. Lots of babies have eczema, and she even had an appointment with someone in the Australian Health services to deal with it. But, NO.. her parents take her to a homeopath in India.
Did it work. No.
She died painfully from sepsis, a bacterial infection.
A “better choice” is not being dead.
Do try to answer the questions we skeptics have posed. Stop being language idiots.
(by the way, there have been other stories of people being dead because their diabetes, epilepsy and cancer was treated with homeopathy — I tried to find them but they were overshadowed by the homeopaths promising cures for diabetes, epilepsy and cancer!)
Ohreally said
Hcn57
If I use a different dictionary from one you like, you will tell me I used the wrong definition. You tell me what definition you are using and I will answer the question. I have seen this happen again and again. Even when someone does answer the questions you pretend they haven’t. So make it clear what the question is, and I will give a clear answer. If you just ask garbage questions it is easy to say the answers are garbage.
Perhaps you don’t know that there are at least two totally different definitions for the word “cure”, which should be an easy word to agree on. It is the same for other things to do with medicine too.
Ohreally said
About eczema. This comes from an old edition of the British National Formulary:
Topical corticosteroids are used for the treatment of inflammatory conditions of the skin other than those due to an infection, in particular the eczematous disorders (for further details see section 13.5.1).
Corticosteroids suppress various components of the inflammatory reaction while in use; they are in no sense curative, and when treatment is discontinued a rebound exacerbation of the condition may occur. They are indicated for the relief of symptoms and for the suppression of signs of the disorder when potentially less harmful measures are ineffective.
I think “treatable” needs to be defined too.
gimpy said
Ohreally, thanks for commenting. Now we can play our silly little games over semantics, synonyms and plain old humpty-dumpty reasoning over definitions in language or you can choose to answer the two questions at the top of this page.
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
and
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
No trickery there. Just two very simple straightforward questions which remain unanswered by homeopaths.
Ohreally said
They are not straightforward, and givescienceachance answered the first one:
“1) Any proof based on a viable scientific theory of medicine, such as one which can demonstrate a consistent curative relationship between the action of substances on the human body and symptoms.”
What was wrong with that? I don’t know if givescienceachance is a homeopath, is that the problem?
The second question needs defining more clearly. You said to GaleG that a non-self limiting condition is:
“one that would not, over time, be cured so that the condition would not now be diagnosed in the patient without some form of medical intervention.”
Do you mean a condition which requires medical intervention if it is to cease to be present in the patient? Or do you mean a condition which requires medical intervention if it is to be cured? These are not the same.
You also need to make it clear which definition of “cure” you are using.
Also what is a “condition” and how does it relate to the actual symptoms experienced by a patient? Or do you think these are the same?
The second question looks like a garbage question to me.
nash said
For Ohreally
1. Define an “ailment” = illness. Something homeopaths can’t do anything about unless 2 below applies.
2. Define “self limiting” = an illness such as a cold that gets better anyway without treatment. The only conditions that homeopaths can treat.
3. Define “better choice” = not choosing a homeopath
4. Define “real medicine” = the opposite of homeopathy.
Ohreally said
I’m sorry you think that BNF is talking about semantics when it says corticosteroids are “in no sense curative” and should only be used “when potentially less harmful measures are ineffective”
gimpy said
Ohreally, ok then design an experiment that has the possibility that homeopathy does not work as one of its outcomes or email the quackometer to take part in LCNs experiment. Now stop equivocating over the second question, I’ll make it easier for you. Can you give me a single example of one of the following diseases or disabilities being incontrovertibly cured by homeopathy to the point where that person would no longer be diagnosed as having the condition?
HIV
Cancer
Autism
ADHD
Any auto-immune disease.
*hint* homeopaths claims these can be successfully cured. The evidence must be out there if their claims were accurate.
Ohreally said
HIV can be self-limiting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2283351.stm)
Cancer patients may experience remission
Two autism patients may have almost entirely different symptoms, and autism cannot be cured by orthodox medicine
ADHD can be grown out of and can only be managed by orthodox medicine
Auto-immune diseases can only be managed by orthodox medicine and can have periods of remission
What is the point of suggesting those? If I give an example you can reject it as being a result of some other factor. As I said, a garbage question.
What was wrong with the answer to the first question? You did not ask for an experiment you asked for “a level of proof”. Looks yo me like you got it but don’t like it. Could it be that you don’t have a good enough theory of medicine?
gimpy said
Ohreally, so you do accept that homeopathy cannot be used on non-self-limiting conditions (although I would strongly argue against HIV being self limiting)? Perhaps you’d like to have words with all those practitioners claiming differently.
The problem with your answer to the first question is that if you can accept the possibility that homeopathy does not work then you can design an experiment to test this. If you cannot do this then it exposes your position as untenable.
Ohreally said
Don’t be silly.
The only medical theory “which can demonstrate a consistent curative relationship between the action of substances on the human body and symptoms” is homeopathy. It cannot disprove itself.
When you produce a straight form of the second question I will be able to answer it. As long as you leave an out for yourself there is no point.
gimpy said
Oh FFS Ohreally, I asked you to design an experiment with a possible outcome showing that homeopathy does not work. Not one in which the outcome is predetermined.
Ohreally said
You asked “What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?”
I thought givescienceachance had given a good answer. Without a scientific framework for the experiment, it is meaningless. With a good scientific framework the answer will be the same 100% of the time.
What level of proof would you need to accept that gravity does not work? What experiment would you suggest to show it might possibly not work?
Have you given up on asking a straight second question?
gimpy said
Take two airtight tubes of reasonable length. Create a vacuum in each tube. Drop one object weighing 1g down one tube and one object weighing 1000g down the other simultaneously. If theories of gravity are correct both should hit the bottom of their respective tubes at exactly the same time.
See dead easy experiment. The fact that every time you repeated the experiment the result is the same would confirm existing theories of gravity. Should that not happen then gravity would be rethought. So, now do the same to homeopathy.
We’ll ignore the second question till you answer the first.
Ohreally said
What if I do the experiment in outer space?
What if I use three very large bodies, say the size of planets? Can you predict what they will do? After all planetary motions do not quite fit the theory, do they?
Really you are just creating an artificial special case and saying it proves gravity in general. The level of proof is not good enough.
Do you have a theory of medicine which predicts the same result every time?
nash said
Ohreally said
“What if I do the experiment in outer space?
What if I use three very large bodies, say the size of planets? Can you predict what they will do? After all planetary motions do not quite fit the theory, do they?”
So Earth isn’t the size of a planet?
Planetary motions do fit the theory. That was how Neptune, Uranus and Pluto were discovered. It is how the 200+ exo-planets have been discovered.
If the theory is wrong then satellites cannot orbit the Earth. Probes wouldn’t have got to the other planets in the solar system, and the Hubble telescope could not stay in position, or do you think these pictures are given to us by the hob-goblins that live in telescopes?
Ohreally said
Nash has never heard of Einstein perhaps?
Nash is also perhaps unaware of the three body problem? Even the simple inverse square law is not easy to apply in practice in some cases, so dealing with the issues of homeostasis in a complex organism is bound to be harder.
Anyway Gimpy did not provide the design of an experiment with a possible outcome showing that gravity does not work?
hcn57 said
Ooooh, Ohreally thinks he/she knows some science! How about you share some of that with us.
Tell us how many sodium and chlorine atoms are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C.
Do not ask us to define “one”, “cubic”, “centimeter”, “sodium”, “chlorine” and the phrase “how many”. If you need a recipe on what Nat Mur 30C, I think I saw one on Usenet. By the way, the answer in a number. Do you need a definition for what a number is?
Ohreally said
“Pearls before swine” comes to mind in your case, hcn57
nash said
Talking of swine, Ohreally
“Nash has never heard of Einstein perhaps?”
Yes I have
“Nash is also perhaps unaware of the three body problem?”
Yes. Have homeopaths a solution? It may be contained as a hidden message in verses of the Organon. Or maybe Peter Chappell has a vibrator that solves it?
“Even the simple inverse square law is not easy to apply in practice in some cases, so dealing with the issues of homeostasis in a complex organism is bound to be harder.”
If you knew what homeostasis is, what has it got to do with gravity?
None of this shows that homeopathy is no better than a placebo.
hcn57 said
So, Ohreally, you actually are unable to answer that simple high school level chemistry/algebra problem? I’m sorry to see that. You might try getting a hold of this book:
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781592575145,00.html
Andy Lewis said
Ohreally. Gimpy has given you a perfectly reasonable answer to your question about gravity. But now you are acting as if you asked – “show me gravity works in all cases”. Two different quesions – one reasonable and one unreasonable. Gimpy has doen the first – now it is your turn – “can youcome up with an experimental design of an experiment with a possible outcome showing that homeopathy does not work?” If you cannot you demonstrate that your mind is completely closed.
Ohreally said
What Gimpy has avoided answering is the equivalent of:
What level of proof would you need to accept that homeopathy does not work?
Every time you let something go you test gravity. Every time a homeopath treats a patient they test homeopathy. Understanding the consequences depends on understanding of the laws governing each. Proof that either does not work involves disproving these laws and creating better laws to explain what happens.
It is easy to devise a test which ignores the laws of gravity and then claim that it disproves those laws. As easy as devising a test for homeopathy which ignores its laws and using that to claim you have disproved it. What is harder is coming up with better laws of gravity or medicine. The latter has not been done.
gimpy said
Ohreally, the point is that theories of gravity allow one to make testable predictions, what testable predictions does homeopathy make?
Ohreally said
Any theory allows you to make testable predictions. What theory does orthodox medicine have?
gimpy said
Ohreally, are we to assume that your reluctance (inability?) to establish a testable prediction from theories of homeopathy is a tacit admission of its unscientific nature or are you actually going to answer the question?
nash said
ohreally
“What theory does orthodox medicine have?”
How about if you drink water containing cholera bacteria you will develop cholera.
Do you need a definiton of “water”, “drink”, “how, “about”, “you”, “develop”, “cholera”, “bacteria” and “will”?
Rob said
On 31st December, Ohreally said “Anyway Gimpy did not provide the design of an experiment with a possible outcome showing that gravity does not work?”. Let’s all laugh at Ohreally for being unaware that many such experiments have been done, and are still being done.
Ohreally said
Nash: “How about if you drink water containing cholera bacteria you will develop cholera.”
This is not true. In fact one opponent of the theory of cholera being caused by bacteria actually performed this experiment to prove his point. He did not get cholera. If you think about it you will be able to come up with any number of examples of people failing to get ill when others do.
Ohreally said
Gimpy: I refer you to post 162: “Every time a homeopath treats a patient they test homeopathy. “
Ohreally said
Rob: Laugh all you want. The joke’s on you. When you learn to understand what you read, you will see why.
Rob said
“Laugh all you want. The joke’s on you. When you learn to understand what you read, you will see why.” Sorry, Ohreally, but I’m not seeing it. Perhaps my brain’s stuck in the wrong paradigm. Do please enlighten me.
gimpy said
Ohreally, I am asking you to make a testable prediction based on theories of homeopathy. It is a very simple, perfectly reasonable straightforward question and I cannot see why you cannot answer it.
Ohreally said
Gimpy: If you want to lie, at least remove the evidence that you are lying first.
gimpy said
Ohreally, I am asking you to make a testable prediction based on theories of homeopathy.
Ohreally said
By the way, overdosing on “It is a very simple, perfectly reasonable straightforward question and I cannot see why you cannot answer it” is not good for your credibility.
Andy Lewis said
Ohreally said ” In fact one opponent of the theory of cholera being caused by bacteria actually performed this experiment to prove his point”
References please. That is truly astonishing.
Rob said
Ohreally: I’m baffled. Gimpy challenged thus: “I am asking you to make a testable prediction based on theories of homeopathy.” to which you replied “If you want to lie, at least remove the evidence that you are lying first.”
What’s Gimpy supposed to be lying about? This morning Gimpy asked “what testable predictions does homeopathy make?” On repeating this question (which is very simple and perfectly reasonable and straightforward) you accuse him of lying. What’s Gimpy’s lie?
phayes said
“References please. That is truly astonishing.”
Not very astonishing when it’s not misrepresented: I suspect Ohreally is referring to Max von Pettenkoffer. According to Skrabanek, in his Follies and Fallacies in Medicine, in 1892 Pettenkoffer drank a very non-homeopathic concentration of cholera bugs simply to demonstrate the difference between necessary and sufficient cause. Apparently, there were a bunch of people around at the time called Kochians, who were almost as lacking in logical reasoning ability and critical faculties as today’s homeopaths.
phayes said
Hmmm… It seems that either Skrabanek was wrong or that Koch did at least later recognise that particular flaw in his postulates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch’s_postulates
hcn57 said
oh, gee, I thought Ohreally might actually want to deal with real science. But s/he/it cannot even answer my simple high school level chemistry/algebra problem.
This is obviously a person without a clue (nor a dictionary).
nash said
Nash: “How about if you drink water containing cholera bacteria you will develop cholera.”
This is not true. In fact one opponent of the theory of cholera being caused by bacteria actually performed this experiment to prove his point. He did not get cholera. If you think about it you will be able to come up with any number of examples of people failing to get ill when others do.
In the case of Cholera do you know why this is? In my case, there is something about my physiology that would make it certian. Any idea what this might be? The answer is not in the Organon.
jdc325 said
“Tell us how many sodium and chlorine atoms are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C”.
You may have to be patient, Hcn57. It took Sharma nearly a month to not answer that question.
mugsandmoney said
Hey, Nash. It’s possible to be immune to cholera – you can either survive a cholera infection, or else have a vaccination from your local GP.
More here
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40025006/
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=2307§ionId=151
nash said
Mugsandmoney
It’s in blood types. If you are AB then you are more resisent, but not immune as you point out. Being blood type O, my chances are zero.
If Pettenkoffer was AB then he may have got away with it. In the UK population, type AB is about 3%, O is about 45%, with A making about 40% and B making up the rest. (source Donor Magazine 2006)
I donate blood and would encourage any of you don’t to do so. The Donor Magazine is a quarterly magazine they send out to donars.
Oddly, the Organon doesn’t have any verses that tell you about blood types, which is odd for such a comprehensive system such as homeopathy.
phayes said
“If Pettenkoffer was AB then he may have got away with it.”
He did get away with it and it doesn’t matter what his blood type was. The whole point of his experiment, however reckless, was that whatever the probability that he would contract cholera after drinking the cholera bugs, it could not have been a certainty.
nash said
Would you care to repeat his experiment?
Shannon said
Hi Nash,
The Organon was written about 200 years ago. I don’t think they knew about blood types then.
Re Testable predictions based on theories of homeopathy? That’s exactly what we are doing every time we give a remedy. If you want to see specific examples, there are “cases” written up in many places, and people involved with homeopathy can offer scads of them at the drop of a hat. But oh yeah, all of that is “anecdotal”, and we’re too dumb to know whether or not something is really helping us…
M Simpson said
“and we’re too dumb to know whether or not something is really helping us…”
Clearly there ARE people out there who for whom this is true because there are homeopathic remedies for chicken pox. So there must be people so dumb that they think those remedies are helping them, people so dumb that they don’t realise that chicken pox clears up naturally in a week or two anyway.
“Testable predictions based on theories of homeopathy? That’s exactly what we are doing every time we give a remedy.”
Yet we are constantly told by homeopaths that the first remedy given will have no effect in many cases (50 per cent or so is a commonly cited figure) so a different remedy is given on a second consultation, then another if that still doesn’t work. What does all that say about testable prediction?
hcn57 said
M Simpson said “Clearly there ARE people out there who for whom this is true because there are homeopathic remedies for chicken pox. So there must be people so dumb that they think those remedies are helping them, people so dumb that they don’t realise that chicken pox clears up naturally in a week or two anyway.”
Unless, of course, the person develops a secondary bacterial infection. So how effective is homeopathy for that?
Speaking of bacterial infections, how have the bits in the Organon about syphilis been tested recently with homeopathy? Since Hahnemann made several claims that his methods worked much better than others for syphilis, obviously they should be the only thing required, not those pesky antibiotics.
So how is syphilis treated for in the 21st century?
Nash said
Shannon
“The Organon was written about 200 years ago. I don’t think they knew about blood types then.”
Exactly. The Organon is totally useless.
Ohreally said
“If Pettenkoffer was AB then he may have got away with it.”
Phayes Says:
“He did get away with it and it doesn’t matter what his blood type was. The whole point of his experiment, however reckless, was that whatever the probability that he would contract cholera after drinking the cholera bugs, it could not have been a certainty.”
Correct, and it pays to look further. You will find he was not the only one, there were a group of them. The experiment was repeated elsewhere with the same result, including at the Pasteur Institute, where someone finally got the symptoms of cholera.
Also the general rule should not be forgotten. As I said: “If you think about it you will be able to come up with any number of examples of people failing to get ill when others do.” (post 168)
Nash said
Ohreally
“If you think about it you will be able to come up with any number of examples of people failing to get ill when others do.”
But the mystical claptrap in the Organon can’t explain why. Blood types is one explanation as to why some succumb to illness and disease more easily than others.
hcn57 said
There are other genetic variations that affect disease and response to therapy. Here is a list of lectures that can be viewed that explain some of those genetic variations (especially for reactions to warfarin):
http://www.gs.washington.edu/wednesdays/index.htm
Now how are those variations addressed in the Organon? And how has homoepathy progressed in the last decade, or even last two centuries?
Ohreally said
Nash refers to: “the mystical claptrap in the Organon” What mystical claptrap do you mean? Provide some examples.
Perhaps Hcn57 could explain how exactly the fact that “There are other genetic variations that affect disease and response to therapy.” is included in the process of drug testing as opposed to observations of drug failures in clinical practice?
I somehow doubt they will be able to do either of these.
hcn57 said
There are clear and interesting explanations in the videos that you can download from that website, with pictures and everything (including very smart people fumbling with audio visual equipment). It includes bits on protein receptors and interactions on cells at the molecular level. The lectures were designed to explain things to the layman, so they are very clear.
Though you may have a bit of trouble if you cannot understand this question: How many sodium and chlorine atoms are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C ?
Ohreally said
Hcn57, I take it that your answer to how genetic variation is included in the process of drug testing as opposed to observations of drug failures in clinical practice, is “I don’t know.”
Perhaps you know how sodium and chlorine are bonded in sodium chloride? Perhaps you can explain it without bringing physics into the answer? And perhaps you can explain why physics is considered irrelevant to medicine?
Niall Anderson said
@ Ohreally (re post 196),
Pharmacogenetics studies are quite popular at the moment. These look at the efficacy of drug interventions stratified by genotype for candidate genes known to be important for pathways invovled in the relevant disease processes. Thus “genetic variation included in the process of drug testing”.
Happy to help
hcn57 said
Ohreally said “Perhaps you know how sodium and chlorine are bonded in sodium chloride?”
Is that true for a solution? If it there is actually bonded NaCl in Nat Mur 30C then tell us how many molecules. Anyway, just give us the answer as a number. Why do you always avoid giving us that simple number? Show us you can do some simple chemistry and algebra. Go for it, and I am not even asking you to show your work.
How did you like the videos? Which ones did you watch?
Ohreally said
Niall Anderson: “Pharmacogenetics studies are quite popular at the moment. These look at the efficacy of drug interventions stratified by genotype for candidate genes known to be important for pathways invovled in the relevant disease processes. Thus “genetic variation included in the process of drug testing”.
The problem with this approach is in defining “efficacy”, “candidate genes” and “disease processes”. A mistaken definition of efficacy will render all the results invalid; an error in assessing what constitutes part of the disease process will have the same effect. Finally the stratification by genotype involves an increase in specificity but is still a process of generalisation rather than one based on recognising the wholly individual character of each patient and their pattern of illness.
Niall Anderson said
OhReally,
Yup – ask the wrong research question, and you’ll get the wrong answer back – that’s the joy of research, all right… I was simply intending to provide an example of something you appeared to think didn’t happen (with apologies if I have misinterpreted you).
I suspect much of the disagreement (in general) between Homeopathy advocates and sceptics comes down to your last point re individualisation vs mechanisms/processes. Not sure we’ll ever reach consensus there…
hcn57 said
Niall Anderson said “I suspect much of the disagreement (in general) between Homeopathy advocates and sceptics comes down to your last point re individualisation vs mechanisms/processes. Not sure we’ll ever reach consensus there”
Actually much of the disagreement comes from simple chemistry and algebra. When Nat Mur 30C is made it goes through a series of dilutions and succussion to where the ratio of NaCl to solvent (sometimes alcohol, other times water) is 1 to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, for a pill a drop of that is put onto a sugar/lactose pill (you may have noticed that my question on the quantity of sodium and chlorine in one cubic centimeter of that remedy has NOT been answered). Plus, in classical homeopathy Hahnemann told practicioners to not look for the actual cause but only deal with the symptoms! More information here:
http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html
So for the last 200 years homoepaths have been diluting and shaking to create “stronger” remedies, and dealing only with the symptoms. While real medicine has created many different ways to diagnose ailments (sonograms, blood tests, measurements of electrical potentials, etc), plus many different effective treatments (antibiotics, beta-blockers, surgery, etc) and preventions (vaccines).
What advances has homeopathy done in the last two centuries for the following conditions:
epilepsy, meningitis, tetanus, stroke, Addison’s, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, etc ?
Niall Anderson said
(Re: 201)
Yes, there’s that, but as the homeopathic position is that diseases are not resulting from anything as pedestrian as a physical mechanism (it’s all in the vitalism, don’t you know), the quantity of active substance in a 30C dilution isn’t really relevant, is it?
it was funny the first time Niall, your blushes are spared – gimpy
hcn57 said
Perhaps the actual amount is not relevant, but the bare fact that there has not been a real answer to the question is very telling on how strong homeopaths are with critical thinking.
Of course none of them have answered this question:
Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?
I am also waiting for them to tell us how homeopathy works for miasms that Hahnemann mentioned in the Organon. Miasms like syphilis and gonorrhea.
Never an answer, just a bunch of hand waving and diversions.
Ohreally said
Re: 200
Niall, the differentiation of diseases in orthodox medicine is stopped at a point when it is considered that there is sufficient distinction between one and another to establish what one could call a “disease identity”. However this is an arbitrary point at which to stop the process, since the ultimate distinction is between the actual symptoms experienced by one patient as compared with another. At that point one is dealing with actual symptoms, not with a particular selection of them.
The problem is then how to find an individual medicine for each individual’s illness, but that is necessarily the starting point for a science of medicine. Despite the nonsense in some of the posts above, homeopathy is based on the principle that there is a consistent relationship between the effects caused by a substance and the symptoms it can cure. For there to be a science, this has to be the case, and repeatedly the evidence confirms that the relationship is one of similarity.
No opponent of homeopathy has yet come up with an alternative foundation for a science of medicine, and their arguments all start from the idea that chemistry somehow exists independently of physics. Bizarre, irrational, call it what you will it is not a scientific approach to the world.
John R said
“No opponent of homeopathy has yet come up with an alternative foundation for a science of medicine, and their arguments all start from the idea that chemistry somehow exists independently of physics. Bizarre, irrational, call it what you will it is not a scientific approach to the world.”
Where have you seen anybody state that chemistry is independent of physics? I have not seen anybody say that anywhere on here. I don’t understand what you mean by an alternative foundation for a science of medicine. The human body is quite a complicated machine and to suggest a theory of medicine can be reduced to a small set of principles is rather a narrow view.
Ohreally said
John R: “The human body is quite a complicated machine and to suggest a theory of medicine can be reduced to a small set of principles is rather a narrow view.”
Let us all welcome another person ignorant of science to the blog. The complexity of the human body arises from the combination of only 4 molecules. Complex results regularly have the simplest of causes (e.g. the three body problem). The whole rationale of scientific endeavour is based on the idea that complexity can be described in simple forms (e.g. mathematics).
To suggest that the theory of medicine CANNOT be reduced to a small set of principles is a view which ignores the evidence of the mature sciences, and is theoretically unjustifiable.
I also think that you need to be very clear about what you mean by “machine”. It is a term which can lead to a lot of false conclusions about living organisms.
Lastly, chemical interactions involve properties explicable only by physics, so NaCl (for example) has a bond based on electrical charges. To assume that dilution (and succussion) is only explicable by the analyses of the field of chemistry is to reject these physical properties as meaningful. This is stupid and unscientific.
nash said
re 206
But physics shows that continued dilution and succussion (it’s in the wrist action?) of one substance in increasing amounts of another then less and less molecules of that substance will be present in when a substance is diluted. That what dilution means. It is getting weaker, weaker means less effect. If this wasn’t true then you wouldn’t be able to clean anything.
Are you going to pull the “Quantum physics” card next?
also you state that the human body is made up from 4 molecules. How do the no molecules of sodium in Nat Mur 30C effect any of these molecules in my body?
As to mystical claptrap in the Organon, start with verse 1.
Do you need definitions for any of the words above? I’ve also used a number. Do you know what numbers are? If you do then you can answer HcN57 question.
Ohreally said
Nash: Tell me what change there is in the number of molecules in a bar of iron after it is magnetised, and how you would measure the effect chemically?
And what do you have against quantum physics?
And “The complexity of the human body arises from the combination of only 4 molecules”. I have yet to see a human being so small that they are made up of only 4 molecules, or one that only utilises only 4 molecules in expressing its complexity.
Perhaps you should quote the first paragraph of The Organon for the benefit of those who don’t know it. I think it would be hard to find anyone who would disagree with a single word of it. (By the way it is not written in verse.)
I only have problems with definitions when people do not understand the words they read and use – people like you. Then I ask them to define what the words mean for them, so that we can at least discuss the same thing.
nash said
I have nothing against quantum machanics, what I don’t like is it being misused by alt-practioners as if proves their nonsense.
As to definitions, this seems to be one of your replies.
Can you answer HcN57’s question?
“And “The complexity of the human body arises from the combination of only 4 molecules”. I have yet to see a human being so small that they are made up of only 4 molecules, or one that only utilises only 4 molecules in expressing its complexity.”
I didn’t mean I was or anyone else was made of only 4 molecules. I refer you to what you said in 206. Stop changing the subject.
gimpy said
Ohreally,
Go away and read a high school chemistry or biology textbook. Your ignorance is embarrassing.
hcn57 said
Some books for Ohreally to look at:
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Browse/BrowseStdPage/0,,265287_2_Title_text_PS0,00.html
Ohreally said
Ohreally: “The complexity of the human body arises from the combination of only 4 molecules.” (post 206)
“Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material of cells. The information directing the chemical processes that occur in organisms and therefore determine their characteristics is contained in DNA. … Both DNA and RNA consist of basic building blocks called nucleotides. … DNA has two strands of nucleotides. Each nucleotide of DNA contains one of the organic bases: adenine, thymine, cytosine, or guanine.”
Rod R. Seeley, Trent D. Stephens & Philip Tate, Anatomy and Physiology ([no single place of publication]: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2000), pp. 50-52
Nash: “you state that the human body is made up from 4 molecules” (post 207). “I didn’t mean I was or anyone else was made of only 4 molecules.” (post 209).
Gimpy: “Your ignorance is embarrassing.”
Too right! You don’t even know who you should be addressing your remarks to.
Ohreally said
By the way, Nash, you have not given us the quote yet. Could it be because:
A) You realise what a fool you will look?
B) You have never read The Organon?
C) You do not have a copy to quote from?
Or is it all three? The options do not look good for your self-esteem.
hcn57 said
Another good read for Ohreally:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
hcn57 said
Also, the Organon is online. I have even bought a paperback version to give away (being sure to leave a couple of notes on the more silly pages).
Here it is for easy reference:
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html
This is verse 1:
The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. 1
1, His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
Ohreally said
“The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.”
Exactly. So who disagrees with that?
hcn57 said
Why are you ignoring the bolded part?
jdc said
Ohreally is ignoring the bolded part because it is inconvenient. Homeopaths also ignore other things they find inconvenent. Like studies showing that homeopathy has no effect above placebo.
Rather than looking for a hypothesis that fits the facts, they look for facts that support their hypothesis. If a fact happens to be inconvenient to them it is ignored.
Ohreally said
The part in bold is a footnote. In the footnotes Hahnemann expressed his opinions and expanded on his ideas about what certain statements mean in practice. These are not integral to the theoretical outline, but are useful. At the time doctors were constructing theories around such activities as blood-letting without researching the facts. Hahnemann was passionate about relating the facts to the theory, and about modifying the theory in the light of the evidence. The scientific method, as we now call it.
Actually I agree with much of what Hahnemann says in the footnote, but you and I would disagree about what he is referring to.
hcn57 said
So in the bolded part a homeopath is to not go into WHY there is disease, nor to investigate inside. That means no temp taking, no blood pressure tests, no stethoscope, no sonograms, no EKGs, no blood tests, no strep swabs, no urine tests and definitely no investigative surgery. So how do they diagnose diabetes, bacterial infections, heart conditions, metabolic disorders, cancer and most other ailments? Please be specific how these conditions are diagnosed by a homeopath.
Also what kind of progress has homeopathy had in the past decade? Or in the past two centuries?
What is its effectiveness with the following chronic diseases:
diabetes
seizures
asthma
epilepsy
syphilis
hepatitis A, B or C
multiple sclerosis
Please tell what homeopathy has been proven to be better than modern medicine, and give some real evidence.
While you are at it, please tell me how many sodium and chlorine atoms are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C (did you think I would forget that you cannot do a basic high school level chemistry/algebra problem?).
Ohreally said
The following is the comment on this footnote by two doctors (not homeopaths):
“The claim as to the primacy of practical interests over the construction of theories and hypotheses regarding ‘the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the invisible interior of the organism’ can be explained on the grounds of the scientific backwardness of the era (early nineteenth century), in which really very little was known about such processes. On the other hand, such a claim might appear thoroughly unscientific: for a scientist, giving up any attempt to understand the mechanisms underlying vital processes is unacceptable. In actual fact, the most likely interpretation of this first paragraph is that Hahnemann was not disputing the study of the natural laws governing the functioning of vital processes, since all the rest of the work bears witness to a substantial rational and investigatory effort, this being the only approach allowing an effective form of therapy based on real awareness. The author, evidently, wished to stress that the ‘internal essential nature’ of vital processes is unknowable, and in this sense his claim could hardly be more modern, in the light of recent discoveries regarding biological complexity and chaotic systems, as we shall see in detail below (Chapters 5 and 6). It is likely that the author also intended to criticize those in medicine who limited themselves to devising hypotheses and theories which, though appearing complicated and astonishingly impressive, actually proved utterly useless when it came to solving the patients’ practical problems.”
Paolo Bellavite M.D. & Andrea Signorini M.D., The Emerging Science of Homeopathy; Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2002)
I think that is a very fair analysis, and I recommend the book.
Shiritai said
Ohreally,
“Nash: Tell me what change there is in the number of molecules in a bar of iron after it is magnetised, and how you would measure the effect chemically?”
Do you seriously believe that electromagnetics isn’t importaint to chemists? Or are you arguing that there’s a clear boundary between chemistry and physics?
Anyways, water-based homeopathic “remedies” can’t be differentiated from distilled water by either scientists or homeopaths. What makes you think the two liquids are different?
Ohreally said
But it appears that they can: J Altern Complement Med. Oct;11(5):807-12.4 2005
John R said
Yes, by the labels. see the answer to question 538:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldsctech/166/7022105.htm
Also:
‘Ohreally: “The complexity of the human body arises from the combination of only 4 molecules.” (post 206)
“Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material of cells. The information directing the chemical processes that occur in organisms and therefore determine their characteristics is contained in DNA. … Both DNA and RNA consist of basic building blocks called nucleotides. … DNA has two strands of nucleotides. Each nucleotide of DNA contains one of the organic bases: adenine, thymine, cytosine, or guanine.”
Rod R. Seeley, Trent D. Stephens & Philip Tate, Anatomy and Physiology ([no single place of publication]: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2000), pp. 50-52″
If adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine are the four molecules you are refering to, perhaps you could use your scientific knowledge to explain how you can make all the nucleotides in DNA using only these four molecules.
Ohreally said
John R: “If adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine are the four molecules you are refering to …” Were there another 4 you were thinking of?
And no, I am not going to teach a course in biochemistry. The reference I gave is easily accessible, and you get your answers from there.
gimpy said
Ohreally, I don’t think anybody is asking you to teach a course on biochemistry, they just want you to demonstrate a basic understanding of the subject.
John R said
Thankyou OhReally but I don’t need any lessons in biochemistry from you. In fact I’m trying to be generous and give you a lesson in biochemistry. Consult your text and tell me how you can make nucleotides using only those four molecules.
hcn57 said
An apt description of some of the homeopathic bloggers:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Ohreally said
I stand corrected. Anti-homeopathic bloggers are based on asinine, soricine, monkeyshine and viperine.
Humber said
I like the sound of viperine. I accept.