Homeopathist fined €6.35 (again) after death of Mayo patient (again)

Poisonwood

Wicknight wrote:

Homeopathy is based on the idea that a very tiny amount of a substance can trigger the body to produce a positive health response.

Incorrect. There is no amount of the substance. It is based on the idea that the 'memory' (held somehow in water) of a very small amount of a sunbstance can influence the body.

How this happens, or even if this actually happens, is unclear.

It has never been shown to happen.

It is an "alternative" medicine in that the methods of how it work are unclear, the focus is on the results.

Its proposed methods are impossible. It doesn't work. If it did it would be called medicine.

Some studies have shown it does have a positive result on the pathent, others have shown little change.

Please reference studies which have shown positive results.

Some scientists believe that it is chemcially impossible for such a tiny amount to trigger a response in a patient.

It is chemically impossible for NO substance to trigger a response. It has also never been shown that succussing generates a memory in water of the substance and that this memory can influence physiology.

Any proper homeopath will tell you this up front.

Maybe. Most people I know who use homeopathy are incredulous when you tell them the actual theories behind the practice. Most in my experience think they are taking something akin to herbal remedies.

It is not magic, or witch-doctor stuff

It is exactly this.

nor do they claim it is a miracle cure to things like cancer.

Many homeopaths say that they can cure or treat cancer. The Big Bite last week had two homeopaths on where it was claimed that it could be used to treat cancer.

davros

Eriugena wrote:

Do you have source for this last claim?

J. Benveniste, P. Jurgens, W. Hsueh and J. Aissa, Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal by Telephone Link, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology - Program and abstracts of papers to be presented during scientific sessions AAAAI/AAI.CIS Joint Meeting February 21-26, 1997

Peanut

KCF wrote:

... if it were true, then every drop of water in the world would already be a cure for every poisonous substance in the world - we've had a few billion years of some really serious dilutions, so we would be expected to be immune to everything. For example, homeopathic remedies should be a much stronger cure for whatever dinosaur piss causes than for whatever they are actually diluted with.

KCF, please google for "serial dilution" and homeopathy. It is correct what you are saying that if a substance is just diluted "normally" then you wouldn't expect any effect, however this is not how homeopathic remedies are made.

The serial dilution of a remedy substance leaves the possibility, however remote, that there is some mechanism that "remembers" the ratio of the substance diluted in reference to the amount of substance in the previous dilution. (where "substance" at the start is the gross remedy material, and in later steps is a fixed number of drops from the previous dilution).

Since the rest of the solution (water/alcohol) remains "newly filled" in each step, this could prevent other minerals etc. in the water from being "potentized".

KCF

Peanut wrote:

KCF, please google for "serial dilution" and homeopathy. It is correct what you are saying that if a substance is just diluted "normally" then you wouldn't expect any effect, however this is not how homeopathic remedies are made.

The serial dilution of a remedy substance leaves the possibility, however remote, that there is some mechanism that "remembers" the ratio of the substance diluted in reference to the amount of substance in the previous dilution. (where "substance" at the start is the gross remedy material, and in later steps is a fixed number of drops from the previous dilution).

Since the rest of the solution (water/alcohol) remains "newly filled" in each step, this could prevent other minerals etc. in the water from being "potentized".

Thanks, but I know quite enough about homeopathy not to need google. Consider a drop of dinasour pee emitted into the water 65 million years ago. This drop has been "serially diluted" far beyond the potency of any homeopathic dilution, through an enormous number of cycles of evaporation and condensation. The big question for homeopaths is how on earth do they arrive get the pure water to dilute their substances with - according to their own (nonsense) theory, it should be impossible to purify water as it will retain memories of all the substances that were diluted into it in the past. Since the more dilute the substance is, the more powerful it is supposed to be, this means that no matter how many serial dilutions the quacks carry out, they will never achieve the strengths of dinasour pee in the water (65 million years of serial dilution in a really big body of water).

Homeopathic theory is nonsense, plain and simple. In practical terms, it is no better. If any homeopathic treatment was able to show its efficacy in scientific trials it would have been incorporated into medicine.

Peanut

KCF wrote:

Thanks, but I know quite enough about homeopathy not to need google. Consider a drop of dinasour pee emitted into the water 65 million years ago. This drop has been "serially diluted" far beyond the potency of any homeopathic dilution, through an enormous number of cycles of evaporation and condensation. The big question for homeopaths is how on earth do they arrive get the pure water to dilute their substances with - according to their own (nonsense) theory, it should be impossible to purify water as it will retain memories of all the substances that were diluted into it in the past. Since the more dilute the substance is, the more powerful it is supposed to be, this means that no matter how many serial dilutions the quacks carry out, they will never achieve the strengths of dinasour pee in the water (65 million years of serial dilution in a really big body of water).

Homeopathic theory is nonsense, plain and simple. In practical terms, it is no better. If any homeopathic treatment was able to show its efficacy in scientific trials it would have been incorporated into medicine.

KCF you are not comparing like with like, the serial dilution steps of homeopathy do not appear anywhere in the natural world that we know of, it's a very specific artifical processing of remedy and solution that uses exactly the same ratios of dilution at each step (along with succession).

You cannot just randomly take an arbitrary amount of dilution in the rain cycle example and expect it to be the same process, it's a completely different situation.

What I was trying to convey is that it is totally unnecessary for the alcohol/water solution to be "pure", all that matters in this regard is that the same alcohol/water solution is used at each step, and a *fixed* fraction of the previous *remedy solution* is used at the next step. Because the alcohol/water added at each step is *not* a fraction of the previous remedy solution, this provides a means to differentiate the remedy from the surrounding substances *if* you accept some sort of memory hypothesis.

This is not some vague guess, it is (relatively) easily shown by example *as long as* you accept the possibility of the solution having a memory of it's previous dilution ratio.

robindch

> it is totally unnecessary for the alcohol/water
> solution to be "pure"

Does you mean that it doesn't matter at all if the alcohol/water solution contains other substances in 'homeopathic' quantities?

- robin.

Peanut

robindch wrote:

> it is totally unnecessary for the alcohol/water
> solution to be "pure"

Does you mean that it doesn't matter at all if the alcohol/water solution contains other substances in 'homeopathic' quantities?

- robin.

Yes

robindch

> > Does you mean that it doesn't matter at all if
> > the alcohol/water solution contains other
> > substances in 'homeopathic' quantities?

> Yes.

So, this means that any homeopathic preparation contains not only the "memory" of the stuff that it's a preparation of, but also a "memory" of the impurities in the alcohol/water. How do you know then, what the "active" ingredient in a solution is?

- robin.

Obni

robindch wrote:

> > Does you mean that it doesn't matter at all if
> > the alcohol/water solution contains other
> > substances in 'homeopathic' quantities?

> Yes.

So, this means that any homeopathic preparation contains not only the "memory" of the stuff that it's a preparation of, but also a "memory" of the impurities in the alcohol/water. How do you know then, what the "active" ingredient in a solution is?

- robin.

It's written on the label. :rolleyes:

Peanut

robindch wrote:

> > Does you mean that it doesn't matter at all if
> > the alcohol/water solution contains other
> > substances in 'homeopathic' quantities?

> Yes.

So, this means that any homeopathic preparation contains not only the "memory" of the stuff that it's a preparation of, but also a "memory" of the impurities in the alcohol/water. How do you know then, what the "active" ingredient in a solution is?

- robin.

No, it doesn't contain a "memory" of the impurities (at least not in any meaningful way). If you accept the possibility of a memory of the previous dilution, then at each new step you are "resetting" the memory of the "impurities" to the initial state, while the remedy itself is "carried forward" because it is being added at a specific ratio. It can be shown if you abstract it out into more generalised non-homeopathic terms.

As for how to measure the "active" ingredient, I've no idea.. :rolleyes:
I'm just pointing out that there are possible ways that homeopathy could work that make the other dilution arguments irrelevant.

secret_squirrel

For a forum thats meant to look at things in a skeptical light I find most of the arguments on this thread lacking in any kind of reasoned analysis or logical consistency.

The first thing you need to realise is that extrapolating from a single case is extremely flawed - thus all this case states is that a woman - claiming to be a homeopath alledgely was a contributing factor in the death of a man from throat cancer. It has very little bearing on the validity - or not - of homeopathy as a whole.

All you can say is that this case under these specific conditions indicates that homeopathy was not a valid treatment for this man.
Its quite possible that this man could have died under mainstream medical treatment - where would you fling your outrage then???

Secondly as any good physicist will tell you there are few/if any absolutes in this universe. Most of the models we use to understand the universe are flawed, highly simplified or offer only an approximation of reality. A good experimental physicist will never suggest that an experiment will always produce the same results - only that it has done so far

Most of the so called skeptics on this thread seem to be plain ole rabid flatearthers. Personally I have no idea if homeopathy works or not - but Im willing to consider the possibility that it might in the right circumstances - its called keeping an open mind. Most of the posters here seem to consider skepticism the same thing as closemindedness.

Peanut

secret_squirrel wrote:

All you can say is that this case under these specific conditions indicates that homeopathy was not a valid treatment for this man.

I like the post Squirrel, however we can't even assume the above because -

a) We don't know if the woman was in fact practising homeopathy as is generally defined, or just using the title for the sake of advertising. Certainly from her actions, it strongly looks like the latter.

b) If she was legit, she may have used different criteria for establishing the case, or diagnosing the remedy, she may have just selected the wrong remedy.

c) The remedy may not have been manufactured properly, or may have since been contaminated somehow.

d) The remedy may not have been administered in such a way as to be effective.

e) Homeopathy may not have helped in this case anyway, regardless of whether it may have been effective in other cases. (your original point)


There's a very relevant talk tomorrow (Wednesday, 6pm) in the RDS from Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, outlining the integration of conventional medicine and alternative therapy. I imagine it would be well worth going to for anyone interested in the supposed dichotomy between the two.

http://www.rds.ie/members/minerva/1_2005_Minerva.pdf

KCF

secret_squirrel wrote:

For a forum thats meant to look at things in a skeptical light I find most of the arguments on this thread lacking in any kind of reasoned analysis or logical consistency.

What is it about this forum that makes every new visitor announce their arrival with a string of generalised insults?

To return to the specific, Peanut, as I understand you, you are saying that homeopathic dilutions 'cancel out' any traces of impurities in the solvent, but that further dilution increases the traces of the diluted substance. This makes no sense to me and indeed contradicts much that I know about the behaviour of matter. It also begs the question of whether the homeopathic solution is hermetically sealed before being consumed, for wouldn't any impurities in the air that might dissolve into the water 'cancel out' the homeopathic properties?

Eriugena

davros wrote:

J. Benveniste, P. Jurgens, W. Hsueh and J. Aissa, Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal by Telephone Link, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology - Program and abstracts of papers to be presented during scientific sessions AAAAI/AAI.CIS Joint Meeting February 21-26, 1997

Well, this reminds me of the time in the 1970's I think when it was announced that Mass on TV was valid. The difference being that that at least had some plausibility to it!

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

What is it about this forum that makes every new visitor announce their arrival with a string of generalised insults?

I think you started a trend.

Turley

secret_squirrel wrote:

Most of the posters here seem to consider skepticism the same thing as closemindedness.

This is true.
And at the same time, most of the posters here would not consider themselves closeminded.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

This is true.
And at the same time, most of the posters here would not consider themselves closeminded.

I think the issue revolvs around this:

1. Is there ANY evidence Homeopathy works?
2. Is there ANY evidence that the mecahnism and underylying theory of homeopathy is even better than placebo?
3. If someone recommends homeopathy (or any other CAM) over perscription are they acticing ethically, morally or legally?

Myksyk

secret_squirrel wrote:

Most of the so called skeptics on this thread seem to be plain ole rabid flatearthers. Personally I have no idea if homeopathy works or not - but Im willing to consider the possibility that it might in the right circumstances - its called keeping an open mind. Most of the posters here seem to consider skepticism the same thing as closemindedness.

There is also such a thing as 'making up your mind'.

New ideas which look promising deserve open minds regarding their validity. Other ideas like astrology, homeopathy and their ilk have been around for centuries without validation. Literally hundreds of years without a morcel of credible evidence being offered, bar "but maybe there's a way they work that we don;t know". When people have had centuries to back up their ideas and fail to do so in grand fashion, then it's time to get off the potty. As Carl Sagan I think said, it's fine having an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. I'm actually happy to take a position on homeopathy - it doesn't work, it hasn't shown that it works, it has failed to present even a credible mechanism by which it could work. It's not up to everyone else to give homeopathy the benefit of any doubt, it is up to homeopathy to show it has any benefit. I doubt it.

Obni

secret_squirrel wrote:

For a forum thats meant to look at things in a skeptical light ... Most of the posters here seem to consider skepticism the same thing as closemindedness.

Your post seems to be based on the assumption that this is the first time anyone here has considered the merits of homeopathy.

If the proposed mechanism behind homeopathy doesn't convince you that it's hokum, then accept the evidence of corporate greed. I spend a lot of time in pharmaceutical plants, and have seen the technical problems and the expense facing companies in the production of conventional medications. If homeopathy was anything more than quackery, then it would be bottled and sold by every pharma-corporation on the planet. Cast off your reactors, condensers, and scrubbers! Forget about emissions and EPA licences! Just buy a couple of dozen eye-droppers and install a tap. Arse!

Obni

Turley wrote:

This is true.
And at the same time, most of the posters here would not consider themselves closeminded.

Personally speaking, I have a mind like a steal trap!!!

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

There's a very relevant talk tomorrow (Wednesday, 6pm) in the RDS from Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, outlining the integration of conventional medicine and alternative therapy. I imagine it would be well worth going to for anyone interested in the supposed dichotomy between the two.

Of course alternative medicine would like to integrate with conventional medicine. It could then continue (in an even more convincing and guaranteed fashion) to piggyback on the successes of real treatments. Hidden among actually effective treatments and approaches is where CAM would love to be.

Peanut

KCF wrote:

What is it about this forum that makes every new visitor announce their arrival with a string of generalised insults?

To return to the specific, Peanut, as I understand you, you are saying that homeopathic dilutions 'cancel out' any traces of impurities in the solvent, but that further dilution increases the traces of the diluted substance. This makes no sense to me and indeed contradicts much that I know about the behaviour of matter. It also begs the question of whether the homeopathic solution is hermetically sealed before being consumed, for wouldn't any impurities in the air that might dissolve into the water 'cancel out' the homeopathic properties?

Yes, I'm saying there is a possible way where the original remedy and traces of other impurities can be differentiated against, if you accept certain features of the process in relation to recognition of previous dilution ratios.

It's not very easy to explain this with text, however it can be shown graphically - I'll try to put something together.

Myksyk

This should be interesting.

secret_squirrel

Myksyk wrote:

Hidden among actually effective treatments and approaches is where CAM would love to be.

So there is no CAM that might offer an effective treatment? - nice closedminded generalisation there.

skeptic manifesto wrote:

From skeptic.com
But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions....... The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.

Seems like there are far to many know nothing skeptics in this thread. :rolleyes:

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

Of course alternative medicine would like to integrate with conventional medicine. It could then continue (in an even more convincing and guaranteed fashion) to piggyback on the successes of real treatments. Hidden among actually effective treatments and approaches is where CAM would love to be.

Quote from the talk this evening:

"What is alternative medicine?
Treatments that can't be patented."

davros

Peanut wrote:

"What is alternative medicine? Treatments that can't be patented."

I think we could all suggest alternative answers to that question...

How often does going to a mainstream doctor result in the purchase of a patented medicine? I go to a doctor for his expertise and experience in diagnosis. I might get an off-patent generic or just a note excusing me from work for a few days. That quote is intended to imply that somehow alternative medicine is motivated by higher ideals than money. Remind me how much homeopaths charge for a few drops of water?

Poisonwood

I am aware of no CAM treatment which has provided acceptable levels of evidence for efficacy. Skeptics are more than open to changing their minds if a reliable of body of evidence is provided for particular treatments. Secret Squirrel's approach seems to be:

'assume they are or could be effective until the evidence is in' ...

sorry if that's your definition of open-mindedness then I will unapolegetically and gleefully wear my skepticism on my sleeve.

I am really interested to know why you (any many others it seems) give the CAM lobby such an easy ride. If a pharmaceutical company came to you and said we have a fantastic new drug which we have no evidence for but all our friends say its great, would you be happy for it to be released on the market? No, you'd be skeptical and you'd be right to be so. CAM therapists and their endless variety of unsubstantiated nonsense on the other hand can enter the market place and not a whiff of a questioning attitude will be tolerated. If you question those who sell CAM you are labelled closedminded, intolerant, arrogant or whatever the insult de jour happens to be. Why? Because you have the temerity to demand that evidence for efficacy be provided!! The CAM lobby have managed to become a huge industry based on little evidence while at the same time maintaining a little-earned right to storm indignantly against those who question their credentials. Surly if we have the right to rigorously question the pharmaceutical industry, our ministers of health, our doctors etc etc then we have the same right to rigorously question the CAM industry.

Peanut

davros wrote:

I think we could all suggest alternative answers to that question...

How often does going to a mainstream doctor result in the purchase of a patented medicine? I go to a doctor for his expertise and experience in diagnosis. I might get an off-patent generic or just a note excusing me from work for a few days. That quote is intended to imply that somehow alternative medicine is motivated by higher ideals than money. Remind me how much homeopaths charge for a few drops of water?

I think the point being made at the talk was not that alternative medicine is motivated by higher ideals, rather that there are large financial motivators for conventional medicine, especially in cases where a drug can be patented.

Whatever amount of money Nelsons and Weleda are making on (non patented) homeopathic products, it is a drop in the ocean (sorry!) compared to the like of Pfizer etc.

The biggest international homeopathic manufacturer is probably Boiron.
From their financial data below, total sales for 2003 were 305 million euro.

Compare this to the $44.7 billion (34.6 billion euro at current rate) revenue in the same period for Pfizer, you will notice that one is over 100 times larger than the other (no doubt "because they make drugs that have an effect!", however it serves to illustrate the difference in financial clout between the two sectors).

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/groupe_boiron/economie_groupe_chiffres.htm
http://www.pfizer.com/annualreport/2004/financial/p2004fin01.htm

robindch

secret_squirrel:

> I find most of the arguments on this thread lacking in any
> kind of reasoned analysis or logical consistency.

Then I suggest that you try reading them again

> All you can say is that this case under these specific
> conditions indicates that homeopathy was not a valid
> treatment for this man. Its quite possible that this man
> could have died under mainstream medical treatment -

The following text is from the Irish Times link which I supplied (which you don't appear to have read):

] Dr Iqdam Tobbia, the consultant pathologist who
] carried out a postmortem at the request of south
] Mayo coroner John O'Dwyer, told the inquest
] Mr Howie's tumour was localised and could have
] been removed, treated by radiotherapy or chemotherapy
] to provide a longer and better quality of life.

...which suggests, according to, presumably, a trained doctor who's been to a real medical school, that the quack concerned was largely responsible for the man's death.

> I have no idea if homeopathy works or not

In that case, it would probably be good for you to learn something about it, rather than slagging off those people around here who've gone to the trouble of doing so, and, from that, found it to be a load of old cobblers. Look, for example, at this page for a listing of 'symptoms' and 'cures' from homeopathy's high-priests and see if you can find *anything* which makes the slightest sense (you don't have to bother, you won't).

Anyhow, from this page, we learn that we must believe the following:

1. A disease is cured by a medicine which creates symptoms similar to those the patient is experiencing in a healthy person (ok, try stabbing somebody and seeing if the wound is healed by poking it with a needle; or giving hemlock to somebody who's suffering from hypothermia).

2. A single medicine should cover all the symptoms the patient is experiencing: mental, emotional, and physical. (ok, you're depressed, you're suffering short-term memory problems, and you've got a broken leg; why on earth should a single 'something' fix all three?)

3. The effect of homeopathic medicines is strengthed upon successive dilutions as long as the medicine is violently shaken between each dilution (don't understand what 'dliution' means; at what point does something stop becoming 'weaker' and start becoming 'stronger' and more effective?).

The problem with homeopathy, as has been already mentioned, is that it has no proposed mechanism of operation, virtually no *reputable* studies to back it up, is built upon extraordinarily silly propositions which violate the known laws of physics, uses a reference model which is so thoroughly garbled as to be comical, and, as far as I can make out, has more in common with a religion (in its thoroughly uncritical cult worship of its founder, Hahnemann and his followers) than anything else.

- robin.

robindch

> "What is alternative medicine?

It's an alternative *to* medicine.

- robin.