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

Peanut

robindch wrote:

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).

Since when does physical violence equate with administering a substance to a person? It doesn't say this anywhere in homeopathy, neither does it encourage deliberately injuring people with harmful quantites of poison, for some reason.

robindch wrote:

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?)

I've no idea why you would expect it to fix a broken leg. "All the symptoms" merely implies that a single cause or mode of disease can have more than one observable symptom, nothing radical there, even with regard to mental symptoms.

robindch wrote:

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?).

It's easy for people to stop here and casually dismiss the whole thing out of hand, however to do so is a mistake, in my opinion.

KCF

Peanut wrote:

Quote from the talk this evening:

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

A quick google for homeopathic patents reveals 15,400 pages. For example this fellow has 40 homeopathic patents to his name. Methinks the good doctor was being somewhat 'economical' with the truth. In general it is possible to patent almost anything nowadays. You should also remember that many modern drugs are based upon traditional herbal remedies* and that certainly didn't stop the pharmaceuticals from patenting all and sundry.

*which offers pretty strong evidence that the mainstream pharmaceutical industry is perfectly happy to incorporate medicine that was formerly considered alternative - as long as it can be shown to work in some way, which is patently not the case with homeopathy

robindch

> Since when does physical violence equate with administering a
> substance to a person? It doesn't say this anywhere in
> homeopathy

I'm afraid that it homeopathy does claim to be effective for wounds derived from physical 'violence'. This (rehashed) commentary by David Mundy of the Galway 'College' of Homeopathy, contains the following quote:

] I have another case of the lady who fell on spikes and pierced
] her lung and she did well from Hypericum. And we know
] Hypericum is a remedy for puncture wounds.

There are plenty more examples.

> I've no idea why you would expect it to fix a broken leg.

I do not expect a glass of impure water/alcohol with no 'active' material in it to repair a broken leg -- remember that it's the homeopaths who are claiming to do this, not me. This belief is derived from the homeopaths' claim to repair "mental, emotional, and physical" illness (though, so far as I know, there's no definition of what each of these are. Unsurprisingly.)

> It's easy for people to stop here and casually dismiss the
> whole thing out of hand

I am not 'casually dismissing', but carefully dismissing it for the reasons which I gave above. If the large, very well-funded and populist homeopathic industry can provide any convincing, repeatable, independently-verified, peer-reviewed evidence from fully double-blinded, randomized trials, then I'll be quite happy to admit that homeopathy does something. Until that time arrives, however, I'm afraid that I'm going to continue to believe that the existing laws of physics and chemistry apply, and that homeopathy is the product of (at best) misguided or (at worst) unscrupulous and dishonest, quacks who take advantage of people's inability to recognise semi-religious, nonsensical, but very comforting, claptrap.

- robin.

robindch

> Treatments that can't be patented.

See this patent for a homeopathic 'cure' for HIV, AIDS, cancer and diabetes.

- robin.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> Treatments that can't be patented.
snip
- robin.

Not alone that but I believe you can get it over the internet by attaching some device to your phone which turns your ordinary water into homeopathic medicine! Bizzare.

As to patents here are some examples:

6,254,896: Apparatus and process for in situ manufacture of essence from living, uncut plants
RE37,262: Herbal compositions for treatment of gastrointestinal disorders
6,251,935: Treatment of migraine by administration of .alpha.-lipoic acid or derivatives thereof
6,242,463: Method and kit for treating illnesses
6,239,105: Homeopathic preparations of purified growth hormone
6,205,716: Modular video conference enclosure
6,174,542: Dietary supplements and food products for treating symptoms of PMS
6,159,473: Sore throat spray
6,080,401: Herbal and pharmaceutical drugs enhanced with probiotics
6,039,954: Herbal compositions for treatment of gastrointestinal disorders
6,024,734: Treatment methods using homeopathic preparations of growth factors
5,939,092: Composition and method of treatment of anhidrosis in horses
5,915,241: Method and system encoding and processing alternative healthcare provider billing
5,905,265: Method of improving skin condition
5,830,140: Apparatus and method for registering substance-specific and organism-specific energetic information
5,797,839: Homeopathic treatment selection system and method
5,797,248: Manual capsule filling device
5,712,256: Ribonucleotide preparations and uses thereof
5,683,712: Transdermal patch for the administration of homeopathic drugs
5,629,286: Homeopathic dilutions of growth factors
5,626,617: Methods for treating disorders by administering radio frequency signals corresponding to growth factors
5,603,935: Composition for the treatment of snoring and methods of use thereof
5,597,094: Device with peristaltic pump which makes it possible to draw, weight and mix liquids automatically
5,578,307: Shaped articles containing plant extract(s), in particular pellets, and their pharmaceutical or cosmetic use
5,516,765: Therapeutic method for the treatment or prevention of snoring

from http://www.health.xq23.com/conditions/part_1/Homeopathy.html

Here is something else:Homeopathy: do not accept as medicine what has no evidence and contradicts basic science

Dr. Renan Moritz V. R. Almeida, PhD

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0041-87812004000300012&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> "What is alternative medicine?

It's an alternative *to* medicine.

- robin.

And the alternative to being cured of cancer is?...

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

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).

Regardless of the difference between the two, CAM is big business. Why should it be given any different treatment than any other business selling products and practices to ill people? If they make claims and sell their products on the basis of those claims to people who don't have the time or inclination to check the evidence for themselves, the onus is on this industry to provide that evidence up front. They fail to do so. Why do so many people find it unacceptable to criticize and challenge businesses like this?

ISAW

Myksyk wrote:

Regardless of the difference between the two, CAM is big business. Why should it be given any different treatment than any other business selling products and practices to ill people? If they make claims and sell their products on the basis of those claims to people who don't have the time or inclination to check the evidence for themselves, the onus is on this industry to provide that evidence up front. They fail to do so. Why do so many people find it unacceptable to criticize and challenge businesses like this?

Pharmachem is the biggest business in the world. So what? This isnt about whether drug companies push drugs. It is about whether homeopathy works and the mechanism for it is valid.

At this point I want to be clear that I DON'T mean herbal medicine which DOES have a measurable effect (whether for good or ill).

Peanut

robindch wrote:

I'm afraid that it homeopathy does claim to be effective for wounds derived from physical 'violence'. This (rehashed) commentary by David Mundy of the Galway 'College' of Homeopathy, contains the following quote:

] I have another case of the lady who fell on spikes and pierced
] her lung and she did well from Hypericum. And we know
] Hypericum is a remedy for puncture wounds.

There are plenty more examples.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - that is indeed correct that certain remedies are thought of as being relevant to physical brusing etc., however in your first example you mention poking someone's wound in order to make it better. This is not contained anywhere in homeopathic practices - the idea of 'like cures like' purely refers to a drug-like substance being administered - not any type of physical force.

Incidentally, the substance does not have to be diluted to be termed homeopathic, the requirement was just that it had to create similar symptoms in a healthy person of the disease that it was meant to treat.

robindch wrote:

I do not expect a glass of impure water/alcohol with no 'active' material in it to repair a broken leg -- remember that it's the homeopaths who are claiming to do this, not me. This belief is derived from the homeopaths' claim to repair "mental, emotional, and physical" illness (though, so far as I know, there's no definition of what each of these are. Unsurprisingly.)

The example you cited was intended to claim that homeopaths could treat a broken leg, depression and short term memory loss all as part of the one 'disease'. This is not the case - the broken leg will have a well-defined causative factor, whereas the other two will not. They would not be treated as the one disease, it would be ludicrous to do so.

robindch wrote:

I am not 'casually dismissing', but carefully dismissing it for the reasons which I gave above. If the large, very well-funded and populist homeopathic industry can provide any convincing, repeatable, independently-verified, peer-reviewed evidence from fully double-blinded, randomized trials, then I'll be quite happy to admit that homeopathy does something. Until that time arrives, however, I'm afraid that I'm going to continue to believe that the existing laws of physics and chemistry apply, and that homeopathy is the product of (at best) misguided or (at worst) unscrupulous and dishonest, quacks who take advantage of people's inability to recognise semi-religious, nonsensical, but very comforting, claptrap.
- robin.

You say carefully, I say not careful enough.

In relation to clinical trials, arguing about this is not going to enlighten anyone. I could reference a number of well run, high profile trials that concluded that there was a significant effect, you will equally come up with others that will say there was no effect whatsoever.

I do completely understand where you are coming from though, and I agree that there are numerous dishonest and manipulative sections in alternative medicine in general, and that people should be made aware of this, but not at the expense of promoting extremist viewpoints on both sides.

secret_squirrel

Myksyk wrote:

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

poisonwood wrote:

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.

Again you are equating Homeopathy with all CAM - it is a small subset.
What about herbalism? - where do you think Asprin came from? Canabis for MS? The fact is that historically there have been numerous treatments that fall/fell under the heading of CAM that have been proved effective.
It is absolutely inconsistent with the stated aims of Skeptism to dismiss all CAM's out of hand as you two seem to be doing.

robindch wrote:

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

You're right I missed the linky, Point taken. Although note the phrase "Longer and Better quality of life" not cured.

robindch wrote:

Then I suggest that you try reading them again

I did, and with a few exceptions (including you) most of them are rants against homeopathy rather than the reasoned argument (thank you for yours) I would expect in a forum devoted to skepticism.

Having read this thread I would agree that there seems very little basis for Homeopathy to work - however, I dont have the time or the inclination to do any further research on it myself. It was also not the point of my argument, merely the fact that mindless rants against something appear to be against the very nature of skeptism IMHO. (has the nature of skeptism been discussed on this forum??). From this post I will confine myself to the topic at hand (Homeopathy) since I think Im starting to drift off topic.

robindch

Peanut -

> the requirement was just that it had to create similar
> symptoms in a healthy person of the disease that it
> was meant to treat

Well let's follow this line of argument and see where it goes -- to start off, what theory of life is it based upon? What evidence is there to support this idea? Something as bold and simply stated as this should be fairly easy to test, so, looking for an example of a homeopathic 'remedy', two seconds googling produces this basic homeopathic treatment for colds, summarized as follows:

] A person who chops an onion develops watery eyes, a runny
] nose, sneezing, coughing, and throat irritation, all of which are
] symptoms of a cold. The homeopathic remedy, Allium cepa,
] which is made from onion, cures a cold with similar symptoms.

Ok, well a cold is actually caused by a virus which kills nasal cells -- see this simple explanation of the infection and propagation mechanism.

On the onion's side, it happens that when you cut an onion's membranes, you release various chemicals which react with each other, and the air, to produce a complex air-borne compound of sulphur which gets into your eyes, produces weak sulphuric acid, which then goes on to irritate your eyes, and sometimes, other parts of the respiratory system. Summary details of the chemical reactions are here.

So these two things mean that, from an evidence-based approach, the way the cold works, and the way that onions make you cry, is well understood, all the way from basic chemistry with atoms, molecules etc, on upwards to the emergent phenomenon of crying. We can also see that there is no link whatsoever between the chemicals released by an onion, and the action of the various kinds of virus which cause the family of diseases called 'colds'.

If homeopathy claims that administering a treatment which contains some (or no) onion derivatives, then there must be a mechanism by which this treatment operates and I would like to hear an explanation of *any* proposed means by which this can occur -- just to stress the point, I don't want a hand-waving high-level detail-free explanation (I have plenty of these), but a firm, well-defined and testable proposition in terms of atoms and molecules, because that's what onions, viruses and humans are made of, and what each reacts to.

> You say carefully, I say not careful enough.

I disagree -- please see the above -- and I expect a similarly-detailed response from you

- robin.

davros

secret_squirrel wrote:

What about herbalism? - where do you think Asprin came from? ... The fact is that historically there have been numerous treatments that fall/fell under the heading of CAM that have been proved effective.

Modern pharmaceutical research is perfectly happy to take its cues from folk remedies. There are regular attempts to systematically capture the knowledge of medicinal plants among traditional practitioners.

But that's just the starting point. First, the active components of the plant must be identified and isolated. Then, all related substances will be synthesised and tested to see if the positive effect can be enhanced and negative side-effects reduced. Finally, the new drug will undergo several stages of testing to prove as far as possible that it does what it claims and is safe to administer to humans.

The aspirin example is often cited to support CAM. But aspirin is not the substance found in willow bark. The former is acetylsalicylic acid, the latter is salicin. They are related but the product we know as aspirin is the product of supplementary research by German chemists.

My point (and it has already been made on this thread) is that if it works, it will be gladly incorporated into the modern pharmacopoeia. It will also be improved, prepared to a consistent standard and proven safe and effective.

If it doesn't work, it will continue to be offered by the CAM merchants.

robindch

secret_squirrel -

> Although note the phrase "Longer and Better quality of life" not cured.

I think the doctor was probably being exceedingly cautious, as one should be in these kinds of situation. If the cancer had gone untreated for an extended period of time, then it's possible that it was inoperable and he would have been wrong to say that he could have cured it. In any case, he wouldn't have known whether it was inoperable until he'd actually done the operation and carried out a series of biopsies afterwards (which he never got the chance to do). As I said, I think the guy was being grimly honest.

> What about herbalism? The fact is that
> historically there have been numerous treatments that
> fall/fell under the heading of CAM that have been
> proved effective. It is absolutely inconsistent with
> the stated aims of Skeptism to dismiss all CAM's out of
> hand as you two seem to be doing.

You're missing the point here. First off, herbalism is not always CAM -- I don't have figures to hand, but believe that the majority of drugs currently available were first isolated from nature, then purified and verified, and not synthesized, ab initio, in the lab. The difference between evidence-based medicine (and the compounds derived from herbalism), and CAM artistry, is that, in evidence-based medicine there have been properly-conducted studies carried out in order to test the efficacy of treatments to see if they work, and if they do, to study why they work. In CAM artistry, on the other hand, generally there haven't been studies carried out, and where they have been done, the experimental methodology has generally been found wanting, at least by trained scientists.

However, go along to just about any CAM artist, regardless of area, and you'll hear very similar stories -- and I've heard all of these at one time or another -- the treatments on offer are "holistic" (whatever that is); the treatments are rubbished by "conventional medicine" (boring!); the multinational drug companies are making too much money out of non-CAM stuff; the particular CAM (generally) has a close-to-100% success rate; there are plenty of satisfied customers who will be wheeled out to testify with entirely purple prose; you have to be "open-minded" to accept treatment, or a "believer" in order to get the treatment to work; the practicioner did a short course in a non-accredited, privately-run institution; the evidence of it working is not susceptible to "conventional examination"; it's "spiritually" beneficial and the practicioner is "spiritually" "tuned into" something; nobody knows how it works, but it does! (etc, etc).

It's for all of these reasons, usually unvarying across the entire CAM marketplace, and their marked similarity to the simple, straight-forward, effort-free and warmth-producing, selling strategies favoured by religions, that skeptics smell a rat -- let a medical treatment stand on its supporting evidence (or lack of it) and *not* on the strength of its marketing, or its propagators, or the manipulation of the untrained, well-meaning, innocent and thoroughly gullible, public.

- robin.

Peanut

Robin, thanks for the good reply,

"Similia similibus curenter" - let like be cured by like, was a far older principle dating back to the time of Hippocrates, and built upon by various figures until it was re-appropriated by Homeopathy. (http://www.similima.com/org.21.htm)

Because it's a very general and old idea, there was no such reliable theory of life to back it up or to base it upon, more so it seemed to come about from empirical observation of what medicines produced what effects (perhaps with a little imaginative thought from the various proponents throughout history)

In terms of theories of disease, the overriding philosophy at the time was the idea of the vital force, with disease being the manifestation of a 'disorder' in this force (this was the early 1800's, about 50 years maybe before Pasteur and germ theory).

You describe the different modes of operation between a cold virus and effects from cutting an onion, however when homeopathy was being developed, it seems like they weren't so much interested in the mode of operation, as opposed to the symptoms produced. It didn't matter if the supposed disease and cure were both completely different processes, the only relevant issue was whether they produced the same symptoms.

Let's forget about dilutions for a minute and look at the example you gave.
Is it unreasonable to expect that given a cold could cause a runny nose, and cutting onions could cause a runny nose, that there are at least some shared mechanisms between the two?

At least they both occur in (roughly) the same location, and produce similar effects.

Given this, is it not reasonable to think that there is a chance that the two might interact somehow? The sulphur compounds in the onion can strongly affect the nasal area, the virus inhabits the cells in the nasal area and may in some cases produce similar effects.
In general terms, any processes which share common aspects like this are more likely to interact, because they are operating in a similar mode to each other. In other words, the same symptoms of runny nose etc are unlikely to be produced by entirely separate processes in the body, it wouldn't make sense.

(apologies if the above is too high level, but I believe the point stands regardless.)

Having said all that, I think the idea of like curing like was a product of its time (and a pretty good one at that), however it continues to be phrased in the terms of two centuries ago, which brings it at odds with modern approaches. As a methodology it is far too generalised to be broadly used in a modern setting (what exactly does 'like' mean?), however that doesn't mean that it can't be applied validly in certain conditions.

Even though this was originally the real core of Homeopathy, it's clear that the dilution claim is the most contentious, so I think it's worthwhile looking at that very closely, as it's the one aspect which has very clearly defined physical rules attached to it. Like you said there's no point fluffing about with high level generalisations, they don't tend to lead anywhere useful.

ISAW

secret_squirrel wrote:

Again you are equating Homeopathy with all CAM - it is a small subset.

I asked you above not to depart into herbal medicine. Please no "what abouts". they are red herrings.

What about herbalism? - where do you think Asprin came from? Canabis for MS? The fact is that historically there have been numerous treatments that fall/fell under the heading of CAM that have been proved effective.
It is absolutely inconsistent with the stated aims of Skeptism to dismiss all CAM's out of hand as you two seem to be doing.

A couple of things here. Denying an antecedent/affirming a consequent for one.

B: Gerard is a great footballer.
A:All Liverpool footballers are dire but I just happen to think Stephen Gerard is dire.
B: What about all the other Liverpool players.
A: them as well but Gerard is dire.
B: But you just said all Liverpool players are dire. It does not follow from what you said earlier


It DOES logically follow.

In any case one need not go off into a general discussion of whether ALL Liverpool footballers ever have been dire in order to discuss one footballer.

The subject was homeopathy we dont have to gpo into CAM or herbalism. If you wish we can but NOT HERE. Open another thread on that if you want.
This is NOT a discussion of CAM it is a discussion about Homeopathy.

Having read this thread I would agree that there seems very little basis for Homeopathy to work - however, I dont have the time or the inclination to do any further research on it myself. It was also not the point of my argument, merely the fact that mindless rants against something appear to be against the very nature of skeptism IMHO. (has the nature of skeptism been discussed on this forum??). From this post I will confine myself to the topic at hand (Homeopathy) since I think Im starting to drift off topic.

Thank you for that. Now who posted the mindless rant comment. You see those who CLAIM homeopathy works have the onus on them to provide EVIDENCE. I accept mere gainsaying is not good enough but it IS better than unfounded claim.

A: I have a dragon in my garage.
B: No you don't prove it! I think that is a silly claim. You dragon people really annoy me with this.

B is ranting here. Who do you think has to show they are right A or B?

Who do you think is the skeptic A or B?

Now if A then claims he doesnt have the time to prove the dragon is there do you think it should be left at that and the claim left standing?

davros

I think this is the point where a thread takes a right turn towards hectoring instead of discussion. Let's keep it calm and polite, please.

ISAW

Peanut wrote:

Robin, thanks for the good reply,

"Similia similibus curenter" - let like be cured by like, was a far older principle dating back to the time of Hippocrates, and built upon by various figures until it was re-appropriated by Homeopathy. ...
it seemed to come about from empirical observation of what medicines produced what effects (perhaps with a little imaginative thought from the various proponents throughout history)

Appeal to authority. Furthermore ther was a LOT of imaginative thought. ancient Greeks were VERY clever people. Their theories lasted till the nineteenth century in Medicine and almost as long in Astronomy. some of their political and educational theories still survive. But they were not by and large EMPIRICAL. I accept the logical and rational foundation of modern science is founded in ancient Greece but any appeal to the authority of the Greeks as an EMPIRICAL basis is a very weak basis for an argument.

In terms of theories of disease, the overriding philosophy at the time was the idea of the vital force, with disease being the manifestation of a 'disorder' in this force (this was the early 1800's, about 50 years maybe before Pasteur and germ theory).

As I understands it the homeopathy mechanism is an appeal to this authority (which is NOT a strong basis) but homeopathy theory, rather than being ancient is about 200 years old. The idea is similar to the "chi" energy which is also not proven but rather than depart again how does homeopathy suggest we measure this "vital force"? What units does it come in? And if you cant measure it what is the difference between a dragon you cant measure and NO DRAGON? Isn't it more reasonable to assume NO dragon?

... the only relevant issue was whether they produced the same symptoms.

There are wavy lines on the surface of Mars.

A: WE know on Earth that such lines are produced by wave action and wind mechanisms. We can measure the size of them and determine what might have caused them.

B: If there were aliens or if there was an Atlentian civilization with space travel which is now undectable because they left Earth or were destroyed in a cataclysm they could have gone to Mars and put the lines there.

A: I like my theory and I can provide experiments to measure it.

B: It doesn't mean my theory IS wrong even if yours has evidence to support it.

Who will you believe A or B?

Let's forget about dilutions for a minute and look at the example you gave.
Is it unreasonable to expect that given a cold could cause a runny nose, and cutting onions could cause a runny nose, that there are at least some shared mechanisms between the two?

Please return to the dilutions later but first YES I agree therre is a shared mechanism. It is called causality. Cause and effect. DIFFERENT causes have THE SAME effect. When you hear galloping think horses not zebras.

Now it could well be zebras but not unmeasurable dragon zebras!

At least they both occur in (roughly) the same location, and produce similar effects.

Coincident causality happens when events occur at the same time and place (and the above ISNT at the same time) only means they correlate not that they are linked. Your "roughly" above is also not a good idea

Given this, is it not reasonable to think that there is a chance that the two might interact somehow? The sulphur compounds in the onion can strongly affect the nasal area, the virus inhabits the cells in the nasal area and may in some cases produce similar effects.

But EVEN IF ( and it is a BIG if ) the causes lead to the same effect it doesent mean that the causes are related. Let us say there is a serial killer who slices up his victime like a surgeon.

A rational thing to do would be for the police to treat surgeons as suspects. an irrational thing to do would be for all people who have had surgery to assume the slasher did it!

In general terms, any processes which share common aspects like this are more likely to interact, because they are operating in a similar mode to each other. In other words, the same symptoms of runny nose etc are unlikely to be produced by entirely separate processes in the body, it wouldn't make sense.

It does make sense. It is called a mucus membrane and the body has several. What doesnt make sense is assuming that because seperate causes and seperate mechanisms result in the same outcome that those causes MUST be related. Space aliens are not related to wind action though BOTH might result in the same thing!

Having said all that, I think the idea of like curing like was a product of its time (and a pretty good one at that), however it continues to be phrased in the terms of two centuries ago, which brings it at odds with modern approaches. As a methodology it is far too generalised to be broadly used in a modern setting (what exactly does 'like' mean?), however that doesn't mean that it can't be applied validly in certain conditions.

Now the argument is reversed! Just because modern medicine has a germ theory of vaccination (which was developed only in the last 100 years or so) does NOT mean homeopathy works or has an theory similar to the germ theory.

Even though this was originally the real core of Homeopathy,

It WASNT the original theory. You are robbing the clothes of modern medicine and claiming it is based on homeopathy. IT ISNT. You are also appealing to a very weak authority as you did above.

it's clear that the dilution claim is the most contentious, so I think it's worthwhile looking at that very closely, as it's the one aspect which has very clearly defined physical rules attached to it. Like you said there's no point fluffing about with high level generalisations, they don't tend to lead anywhere useful.

Thank you for coming back to that but lets not dismiss the unfounded mechanism for homeopathy either eh?

ISAW

davros wrote:

I think this is the point where a thread takes a right turn towards hectoring instead of discussion. Let's keep it calm and polite, please.

Please dont confuse my ATTACK on a argument for an ATTACK on the person. I could use the word "one" instead of "you" but my point is not what kind of person secret squirel is but whether the argument he advances has any basis.

actually I have no idea who secret squirrel is but I respect his open minded approach to the subject and certainly dont intend any PERSONAL comment on him. If he is advocating a philosophy this to me has no basis I cant apologise for dismantling that philosophy though can I?

Obni

secret_squirrel wrote:

What about herbalism? - where do you think Asprin came from? Canabis for MS? The fact is that historically there have been numerous treatments that fall/fell under the heading of CAM that have been proved effective.
It is absolutely inconsistent with the stated aims of Skeptism to dismiss all CAM's out of hand as you two seem to be doing.

I don't dismiss herbal remedies out of hand. One of CAM's flagship products Ginko-Biloba, which is revered almost to the level of Ginseng or St. John's Wort, has been the basis for products being churned out by a pharmaceutical plant in Cork since at least 1988.
Neither skeptics nor big pharma-corps dismiss herbal remedies.

There are other CAM treatments that are less convincing, and at the bottom of the barrel along with therapies such as crystal-healing, and applied kinesiology, is homeopathy. It is in fact the single item that spurred me to join ISS. My best friend's wife was going on holiday to Vietnam. Having listened patiently for years to stories about acupuncture, reiki, etc.., which I had listened to with polite nodding and non-commital grunts (after all who am I to destroy the placebo effect of a treatment that makes someone feel better?) I was informed that her safeguard against malaria would be a homeopathic preparation. Feeling all warm and fuzzy after a reiki massage is one thing, no real benefit beyond the physical massage, the calming effect and any placebo benefits, but more importantly no harm done. Now, it was a case of someone risking their health with a very real and very dangerous parasite with nothing but a bottle of very expensive water for protection. A life of recurring attacks of malaria, the suffering she would undergo, the burden on her family, and the distress caused to all concerned was too much to let pass, so off I went on my crusade of enlightenment blah-blah-blah...

Needless to say she still thinks I'm a close-minded uptight science-fetishist, and as the trip was cancelled due to the SARS outbreak the matter was never resolved between us.

However, it takes something fairly outrageous to stir me up (I'm a great one for the quiet life), but homeopathy does it.

Homeopathy is nonsense.

Peanut

ISAW wrote:

Appeal to authority. Furthermore ther was a LOT of imaginative thought. ancient Greeks were VERY clever people. Their theories lasted till the nineteenth century in Medicine and almost as long in Astronomy. some of their political and educational theories still survive. But they were not by and large EMPIRICAL. I accept the logical and rational foundation of modern science is founded in ancient Greece but any appeal to the authority of the Greeks as an EMPIRICAL basis is a very weak basis for an argument.

I'm not claiming that they conducted extensive clinical trials, I'm merely pointing out the history of the idea and where it came from.

ISAW wrote:

As I understands it the homeopathy mechanism is an appeal to this authority (which is NOT a strong basis) but homeopathy theory, rather than being ancient is about 200 years old. The idea is similar to the "chi" energy which is also not proven but rather than depart again how does homeopathy suggest we measure this "vital force"? What units does it come in? And if you cant measure it what is the difference between a dragon you cant measure and NO DRAGON? Isn't it more reasonable to assume NO dragon?

Yes the modern aspect of homeopathy is about 200 years old, however as stated earlier, some of the thinking goes back a lot earlier, of course that doesn't mean that it's correct. The 'vital force' idea in my opinion was a reasonable effort at the time in order to try to establish some sort of modus operandi, however vague.

ISAW wrote:

There are wavy lines on the surface of Mars.

A: WE know on Earth that such lines are produced by wave action and wind mechanisms. We can measure the size of them and determine what might have caused them.

B: If there were aliens or if there was an Atlentian civilization with space travel which is now undectable because they left Earth or were destroyed in a cataclysm they could have gone to Mars and put the lines there.

A: I like my theory and I can provide experiments to measure it.

B: It doesn't mean my theory IS wrong even if yours has evidence to support it.

Who will you believe A or B?

The idea wasn't to find out what caused the symptoms as such, the whole focus was to find substances that could produce those symptoms.

Your example is not appropriate, because we know a) there is a disease and b) there is a drug we administer, in other words there are two processes which will give similar effects, and this is known beforehand. Your example implies that there is only one of two processes that creates the result, an "either/or" relationship, whereas homeopathy states that there is an "and" relationship.

ISAW wrote:

Please return to the dilutions later but first YES I agree therre is a shared mechanism. It is called causality. Cause and effect. DIFFERENT causes have THE SAME effect. When you hear galloping think horses not zebras.

Now it could well be zebras but not unmeasurable dragon zebras!

The point is that they are both concerned with the action of hoofs moving on the ground.

ISAW wrote:

Coincident causality happens when events occur at the same time and place (and the above ISNT at the same time) only means they correlate not that they are linked. Your "roughly" above is also not a good idea.

But EVEN IF ( and it is a BIG if ) the causes lead to the same effect it doesent mean that the causes are related. Let us say there is a serial killer who slices up his victime like a surgeon.

A rational thing to do would be for the police to treat surgeons as suspects. an irrational thing to do would be for all people who have had surgery to assume the slasher did it!

Of course if the causes lead to the same effect it doesn't necessarily mean they are related, they don't have to be - all that is required is that they utilise the same processes when coming to that effect - in this case, injury using a sharp instrument. We don't really care who or what the initial causative agent was, all we are concerned about is whether the result looks the same.

In your example, we conclude not whether it was the surgeon or the criminal who caused the deaths, but rather that they were most likely done using a sharp instrument.

From the posts in this thread, I see that there is a common misunderstanding running through them -

The assumption is that homeopathy states that the remedy must be the same or similar to the disease being treated - this is absolutely NOT the case - the only requirement is that the symptoms of each be similar. This is a very important point.

ISAW wrote:

It does make sense. It is called a mucus membrane and the body has several. What doesnt make sense is assuming that because seperate causes and seperate mechanisms result in the same outcome that those causes MUST be related. Space aliens are not related to wind action though BOTH might result in the same thing!

Please see above.

ISAW wrote:

Now the argument is reversed! Just because modern medicine has a germ theory of vaccination (which was developed only in the last 100 years or so) does NOT mean homeopathy works or has an theory similar to the germ theory.

That's right, a theory of disease doesn't necessarily prove anything, in this case it was before more modern developments, however this doesn't mean that it DIDN'T have some valid ideas.

ISAW wrote:

It WASNT the original theory. You are robbing the clothes of modern medicine and claiming it is based on homeopathy. IT ISNT. You are also appealing to a very weak authority as you did above.

I don't claim any effect based on the authority of any civilization. I don't believe modern medicine is based on homeopathy either, it may have contributed in a small way but it was certainly not one of the main forces behind it.

The theory of similars was in fact the original principle of Homeopathy, this is easily verified by looking at any history of the subject. The idea of serial dilutions was developed later, motivated by the toxic effects of giving some of the substances in large doses.

ISAW wrote:

Thank you for coming back to that but lets not dismiss the unfounded mechanism for homeopathy either eh?

I've no intention of doing so

secret_squirrel

ISAW wrote:

This is NOT a discussion of CAM it is a discussion about Homeopathy.

Agreed - but if you would like to check back I was neither the person who first brought CAM up OR the only one who keeps mentioning it. I would also ask you to note that Im not among those who keep defining CAM to exclude anything that has been adopted by Mainstream medicine.
You should also note that the mods are happy to discuss it on this thread!

ISAW wrote:

Please dont confuse my ATTACK on a argument for an ATTACK on the person.

Just for the record I havent taken your posts personally. Im enjoying playing devils advocate with you.

davros

Peanut wrote:

The assumption is that homeopathy states that the remedy must be the same or similar to the disease being treated - this is absolutely NOT the case - the only requirement is that the symptoms of each be similar. This is a very important point.

You are right but the idea is still bizarre on a couple of levels.

I learned something just now. I was under the impression that during a homeopathic "proving" (during which they figure out which medicine matches which illness), somebody actually had to ingest a significant quantity of candidate substance. Then they would be watched to see what sort of negative consequences accrued from, say, chewing on a whole honey bee.

But it seems that these provings can be done with normal homeopathic dilutions so that not a molecule of the donor bee need pass the lips of the healthy volunteer.

That means the Law of Similars contains two remarkable claims. First, that you can actually "poison" a healthy volunteer with water imprinted in some magical way with essence of honey bee. Second, that even if this is accepted, giving an ill person the same substance will not make their condition worse. Far from it - it will actually cure them.

I can't see any reason for accepting these claims at face value. They are just not plausible. The implausible can still be true - it just means someone had better supply some solid proof, and fast, if we are not to regard the claimants as seriously misguided.

davros

secret_squirrel wrote:

I would also ask you to note that Im not among those who keep defining CAM to exclude anything that has been adopted by Mainstream medicine.

I'm assuming that the "alternative" part means "not in mainstream medicine". But if you would like to offer a different definition, I'd be interested to hear it.

You should also note that the mods are happy to discuss it on this thread!

True. I think the original topic has been usefully generalised. There is some dispute over whether the woman involved is entitled to call herself a homeopath. Either way, it doesn't change the skeptics' point that anyone can claim curative powers for any old codswallop, flog it openly and unquestioned and lead the sick away from treatments that can actually help them.

secret_squirrel

davros wrote:

But if you would like to offer a different definition, I'd be interested to hear it.

I was refering to the posters on here who were slamming all CAM's but then saying but you cant include herbalism as a CAM. Since there are some herbal treatments that can work. I was merely pointing out that its a false premise to say homeopathy is a CAM therefore all CAM's are invalid.

davros wrote:

lead the sick away from treatments that can actually help them.

Agreed - but I would also contend that the corollary applies that practioners of any stripe shouldn't be actively disuading people from a free choice of treatments , other than providing the facts as they see them in a rational manner. I also believe if you get no satisfaction from conventional medical treatments its worth considering alternatives - However you should do so in an intelligent, inquiring manner.
IMHO the medical profession walks a very fine line between promoting patient confidence and claiming infallability, and crosses that line more often than is wise. Admitidly societies perceptions of the medical profession need to be more skeptical too imo. But unfortunately this can lead the gullible to be more easily swayed by utter frauds as the 'homeopath' in the article seems to be.

ISAW

secret_squirrel wrote:

I was refering to the posters on here who were slamming all CAM's but then saying but you cant include herbalism as a CAM. Since there are some herbal treatments that can work.

this is EXACTLY what I asked you NOT to do! I told you already I was discussing homeopathy and a discussion of herbal medicine is NOT a discussion of homeopathy.

I was merely pointing out that its a false premise to say homeopathy is a CAM therefore all CAM's are invalid.

The Permise is usually a single statement without the "therefore" inference.
what you refer to above is a composite clause without a conclusion.
If the propositon is "CAM is invalid"
Then the conclusion that "homeopathy is invalid" CAN be drawn from the statement "homeopathy is CAM". But I was NOT doing that! I was pointing to the invalidity of homeopathy on its own and even outlined that I was not talking about herbal medicine ore other CAM.

I already mentioned the fact that I was not making a point about OTHER CAM nor was I generalising (in the particular argument about homeopathy) so the fallacy you allude to has already been pointed out by me.

Why are you so keen to go into the general debate berore the specific case of homeopathy is finished with?

Now since you raised it I ALREADY pointed out that madicines are made from plants and herbs. That does not necessarily make such medicines alternative medicines. But as I ALSO stated I would rather deal with homeopathy first.

Where is the evidence for the mechanism working?

Agreed - but I would also contend that the corollary applies that practioners of any stripe shouldn't be actively disuading people from a free choice of treatments , other than providing the facts as they see them in a rational manner.

No I disagree. If they think astrology witchcraft or other mumbo jumbo is not valid they should say so and actively dissuade people and insist on evidence! The idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion of equal weight just IS NOT acceptable. I dont think a holocaust denier, a slavery advocate or a pederast is entitled to equal position to others.

I also believe if you get no satisfaction from conventional medical treatments its worth considering alternatives - However you should do so in an intelligent, inquiring manner.

Great let us begin with homeopathy. Where is the evidence it works?

IMHO the medical profession walks a very fine line between promoting patient confidence and claiming infallability, and crosses that line more often than is wise. Admitidly societies perceptions of the medical profession need to be more skeptical too imo. But unfortunately this can lead the gullible to be more easily swayed by utter frauds as the 'homeopath' in the article seems to be.

I suppose you know the "one true homeopath" like you know the "one true scotsman" ? I am tempted to ask about you supplying examples of medical practitioners claiming infallability and getting yourself into a legal case of defamation but I won't because I don't want to be drawn into a defence of medicine which CAN be criticised. I want you to tell me how homeopathy works and where the proof of that is. Could you do that please?

secret_squirrel

ISAW wrote:

...ranting.....

Firstly I suggest you go and have a lie down.

Secondly it may have escaped your notice but there are posters on this thread other than you - and they have made statements to include CAM's whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Thirdly how much of my last post was directed specifically at you...errr none of it.

Forthly find a post of mine that explicitly defends Homeopathy, I am merely arguing against totally writing anything off.

Fifthly I suggest you tone it down a notch, you can make your points without CAPITALS.

davros

Hmm, yes, what secret_squirrel said.

ISAW

secret_squirrel wrote:

Firstly I suggest you go and have a lie down.

Secondly it may have escaped your notice but there are posters on this thread other than you - and they have made statements to include CAM's whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Thirdly how much of my last post was directed specifically at you...errr none of it.

Forthly find a post of mine that explicitly defends Homeopathy, I am merely arguing against totally writing anything off.

Fifthly I suggest you tone it down a notch, you can make your points without CAPITALS.

First, I have a tendency not to lie.

Second, I chose not to since I am concentrating on the thread title and am interested in discussing homeopathy and only in CAM (as far as this thread is concerned) in the legal sense of advising people not to use medicines.

Third, if you were directing NONE of your post at me then why cite me using particular quotations from me? Your logic evades me. Were you using me as an example of some group was not a member of?

Fourth, I am NOT concerned whether you are specifically against a general point. I AM concerned if you are suggesting we dont tackle homeopathy , which is what I am interested in in this thread. If you are suggesting we dont write it off you are appealing to 2absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But you are wrong. It is NOT PROOF of absence but the complete absence of evidence showing homeopathy works IS evidence of absence of it.

Fifth others use bold and italics I use capitals. I am only learning the interface. If you can direct me to a list of tags for italics capitals etc. I will use them.

Now back to MY point. when you are done with criticising me personally will you please supply some evidence that it works or withdraw the suggestion that it MIGHT work?

robindch

Politeness, please...

> If you can direct me to a list of tags for italics capitals etc.

Click on the [FAQ] link, just to the right of [User CP] at the top of the page, then select [Reading and Posting Messages], and within that, the [Are there any special codes/tags I can use to markup my posts?] link which points you to the complete list of tags which the editor supports. Go easy on the capitals + fancy formatting -- less is usually more in this case.

davros

You might also find the Test board useful. You can freely practise all the markup/fancy stuff there and try pushing all the buttons in the editor to see what they do.