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

Obni

secret_squirrel wrote:

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

There is a difference between the admirable principal of never writing anything off, and the practical application of that principle when it comes to a case like that which sparked off this topic.
I don't know of a single Irish person for whom the delays in getting conventional hospital treatment, particularly when presenting at an A&E department, are acceptable. Most Irish people are gravely concerned at the risk to patients' health posed by those delays. Is there any difference in the damage caused to peoples health between an enforced delay due to an inadequate health system or the voluntary delay caused by trying out some quack cure? If the state of our health system is a cause for concern, shouldn't quacks causing the delay of treatment in individual cases be tackled just as urgently?
When a person's health is at stake, it is perhaps time to forego the niceties of scientific or social discourse and say that "this stuff is not just unproven by conventional methods, it's bull****, and potentially dangerous bull**** at that!"

secret_squirrel

Obni wrote:

Is there any difference in the damage caused to peoples health between an enforced delay due to an inadequate health system or the voluntary delay caused by trying out some quack cure?

Your words my highlights - illustrating the world of difference between the 2 scenarios. 'Nuff said. You cant totally legislate/protect people who - to put it bluntly deserve the Darwin award.

As regards the thread title - I would say that from the reports I read the 'Homeopath' in the story needs locking up. I would also say that the law needs changing to make CAM practicioners liable for Malpractise suits the same way the medical profession is. This at least would weed out the con artists (such as the story appears to be about) from the 'true believers' who at least believe that can do people good. An important difference imo.

As for Homeopathy quite frankly the theory of how it works sounds like codswallop - however I have heard enough codswallop that is believed to be true (try Quantum Mechanics and Relativity for starters) not to use that as a reason to write it off. For instance (and off the top of my head) is it not possible that the effectivity of a Homeopathic Remedy may work in a similar way to quantum entanglement? (I make no suggestion it does work like that you understand)

As you may have gathered Im a Physicist by education and inclination (but not by profession) and if there is one thing the study of Physics teaches you is that whilst it may take 1000's of measurements to show that a theory is valid, it only takes a few tiny anomalies to show flaws in the same theory. Hence my nature - is never to write off anything completely - since its a very complicated universe which we have been studying for an infinitesimal amount of time.
And incidentally as regards a lack of evidence that homeopathy - the same can (loosely) be applied to Gravity - we dont fully understand how it works - it just does. Homeopaths would argue that the same arguement could be applied. The only difference being that we can all see how Gravity works. Personally until I see the results of massive clinical trials (which to the best of my knowledge have been very restricted so far) I will keep an open mind where homoepathy is concerned. May be less of an open mind than say herbalism - (which I have personally see work on 3 people who had no luck with conventional medicine) - but a semi-open mind nonetheless.

(Plus it winds you up )

Calibos

Anyone watching RTE 1 at the moment??

Obni

Obni wrote:

Is there any difference in the damage caused to peoples health between an enforced delay due to an inadequate health system or the voluntary delay caused by trying out some quack cure?

secret_squirrel wrote:

Your words my highlights - illustrating the world of difference between the 2 scenarios. 'Nuff said.

I originally wrote the paragraph without the words "enforced" and "voluntary". I felt you might simply respond that the difference was that one was voluntary and the other involuntary or enforced, so I added the words to clarify that I knew the was a distinct difference between the nature of the situations. You responded in the way that I foresaw anyway, so I guess I wasn't making myself clear enough.

Person A and person B are suffering from the same severe illness, which is progressing at the same rate, and has reached the same stage in both of them.
Person A suffers damage to their health while seeking conventional medical help, due to the delay caused by inadequate services provided by the state.
Person B suffers damage to their health by seeking a quack remedy therefore delaying their eventual recourse to conventional medical help.

Although the circumstances are clearly different, if the delay is the same is there any difference to the damage caused to person A or person B?

If there is no difference and the person B made an informed (or misinformed) choice of their own free will, then Darwin Awards all round.
However, if B or B's family was pressurised into making that choice by a third party, say person Q (for quack) then person Q is responsible for the damage caused to person B's health. At the moment that responsibility does not have legal culpability.

secret_squirrel wrote:

This at least would weed out the con artists (such as the story appears to be about) from the 'true believers' who at least believe that can do people good. An important difference imo.

The only two CAM practitioners I know personally are both good-hearted people who think they make a real difference to peoples lives. If you think your posts wind me up, you should see what their condescending remarks about this poor skeptic who 'just can't open his mind' do to my blood pressure. :rolleyes:

secret_squirrel wrote:

incidentally as regards a lack of evidence that homeopathy - the same can (loosely) be applied to Gravity - we dont fully understand how it works - it just does.

I know you stated 'loosely' applied, but saying we don't fully understand how homeopathy works, it just does makes a fairly fundamental claim about homeopathy; i.e. that it works at all.
As a physics enthusiast I'm sure if someone claimed Einstein was right about the nature of the the photoelectric effect, but that there was alternative mechanism by which those electrons were liberated from a metal plate. This new theory states that photons falling onto the plate 'remind' the electrons of what it was like to be a free particle and off they went in burst of nostalgic enery (a nostalgon?). You might take a little convincing. Most chemists are as nonplussed by the mechanisms claimed by homeopathy.

P.S. Electron-reminding theory is copyrighted by Obni Homeophysics Ltd.

Bucephalus

Eoghan-psych wrote:

I can be sympathetic towards those taken in with regard to sea sickness, or bags under their eyes. These are minor issues, and one could be excused from checking the evidence for or against the treatment.

That's probably not how the people who go to these places see it. They probably compare their local homeopath/chiropractor/whatever with either their local GP or their local hospital. The GP might not be terribly sympathetic and the hospital might be in a chaotic state, with the A&E a place where you wait for ages for someone to see you. Those aren't rational ground, but they may be why people are so brassed off that they turn to alternative treatment.

Education of consumers is definitely needed, and should definitely be advocated by everyone with both eyes open. Same goes for regulation of "therapists". What we *also* need to start doing is take to task those who support idiocy and quackery. When papers report on yet another email money scam, right alongside the "unscrupulous criminals" bit there should be a mention of the "naive, greedy, foolish" people who fell for it.

Unfortunately the media often promote alternative medicine as safer, kinder, gentler without offering any proof.

Bucephalus

Peanut wrote:

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.

Isn't this whole notion of a liquid having a memory of its' previous dilution ratio what we're debating here? I find the notion very vague.

Myksyk

Unfortunately the media often promote alternative medicine as safer, kinder, gentler without offering any proof.

I agree. Last night's Prime Time was an exception to this and welcome for it. Did anone else see it. It concentrated on Homeopathy and Chiropractic (specifically upper spine and neck manipulations and there connection to stroke) and referred to the case being discussed here in some detail. Paul O'Donogue of the Irish Skeptics made a contribution too.

The closing line of the programme was particularly insightful. It said that people wanted regulation of CAMs but that this was a red herring and that in fact it would be better to start with demanding they provide actual evidence that they work.

Bucephalus

secret_squirrel wrote:

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.

The problem I have with homeopathy is that the substances in the alleged cures are so dilute that you're getting just water. There are many studies showing that homeopathy is ineffective!
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.632/healthissue_detail.asp

Bucephalus

Eriugena wrote:

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!

Here's an entry from Wikipedia on homeopathy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
Relevant passage:
In 1988, a French scientist Jacques Benveniste working at that country's prestigious INSERM institute claimed to have found that high dilutions of substances in water left a ?memory?, providing in vitro evidence corresponding to homeopathy's therapeutic use of infinitesimals. The results from INSERM, supported by work at five different laboratories in four countries, were published in Nature magazine, a highly regarded science journal, but with the caveat that the findings were implausible, and that the work was financed by a large homeopathic drug manufacturer. An attempt by Benveniste to reproduce his own results, carefully scrutinized by a team from Nature, was unsuccessful, ultimately leading to the suspension of Benveniste. Later studies by a consortium of four independant laboratories, led by professor Madelene Ennis, supported his findings. In turn, BBC's Horizon failed to reproduce Ennis's results with four experts from reputable laboratories executing the experiment under the supervision of James Randi. [4] (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml) Benveniste later used a robot to prepare his samples and found that the results varied depending on who was operating the robot. His supporters see this result as suggesting that the experimenter may have an effect on the water sample, which could explain why some experimenters are able to reproduce his findings and some are not. The vast majority of scientists see such claims as typical of pseudoscience.

Bucephalus

Obni wrote:

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!

By a similar argument this proves that nobody uses web browsers - after all, IBM doesn't market one...

Homeopathic remedies are widely available - does this count as the makers of homeopathic remedies being greedy?

robindch

> Last night's Prime Time was an exception to this and
> welcome for it. Did anone else see it.

Nope, never even heard about it. Did anybody record it who'd be prepared to lend out the tape?

If people do know in advance about things like this which turn up on RTE or elsewhere, please post a message on the board and let us all know

ISAW

Bucephalus wrote:

By a similar argument [insert ISAW i.e. that if homeopathy worked then the pharmachem industry would sell and market it] this proves that nobody uses web browsers - after all, IBM doesn't market one...

The argument is logially the same.

His is

A: If a mechanism works then industry will market it (if p then Q)
B: Industry does not market it ( not Q)
C: Therefore the mechanism does not work (not P)

yours is:

A: If IBM markets a browser then everyoune will use it
B: IBM does not market a browser
C: Therefore nobody uses it

I think that in spite of denying the antecedent people can make up their own mind as to whether the premises are equivalent.

i.e. they are not really the same are they?

Homeopathic remedies are widely available - does this count as the makers of homeopathic remedies being greedy?

but what is "widely availabe"? does it include the argument you just advanced i.e. that pharmachem support homeopathy?

Obni

Bucephalus wrote:

By a similar argument this proves that nobody uses web browsers - after all, IBM doesn't market one...

Microsoft, Netscape, and Opera market web-browsers.
If no corporation marketed web-browsers then your argument would almost work. However, it would still have one flaw, as the effectiveness of web browsers can be demonstrated.

Bucephalus wrote:

Homeopathic remedies are widely available - does this count as the makers of homeopathic remedies being greedy?

There are undoubtedly sincere, if deluded, homeopathy practitioners making up small batches of treatments by hand for their friends and family. Many other individuals making such treatments do it simply to make money, and all companies making such treatments must make money. I don't think the fact that a desire to make money drives the production of homeopathy is an argument against it, any more than the argument that a desire to make money drives the production of other products by, for example, Microsoft or Coke. It is the lack of interest in homeopathy by companies with the resources to produce this stuff in enormous quantities, in existing plant, with marketing and distribution structures in place, that I was highlighting.

It is not the commerce but the fraud of homeopathy that I find objectionable.

secret_squirrel

Obni wrote:

It is the lack of interest in homeopathy by companies with the resources to produce this stuff in enormous quantities, in existing plant, with marketing and distribution structures in place, that I was highlighting.

I must say I find this the most convincing evidence against homeopathy .

However, some of the homeopathy companies must be parts of the corporate machine? (The tobacco companies might be good candidates )

The chemist say it shouldnt work arguement isnt convincing in my mind since it should be obvious that the we have got a very, very long way to go before we understand the inner workings of the universe.

Obni

secret_squirrel wrote:

The chemist say it shouldnt work arguement isnt convincing in my mind since ...

Come on, admit it!
As a physicist you just can't stand to give credence to anything coming from as lowly a life-form as a chemist, or even worse a biologist!

KCF

secret_squirrel wrote:

The chemist say it shouldnt work arguement isnt convincing in my mind since it should be obvious that the we have got a very, very long way to go before we understand the inner workings of the universe.

Of course any decent scientist will agree that we can never proclaim about any subject with 100% certainty. However, there are very good heuristic rules that we can apply to effectively ignore a whole load of theories.

For example, the moon _could_ be made of cheese - in a weird and wonderful universe, who can say it is impossible? But, of course, any sane individual will not give this theory any credence. Why not? Because it fails both the important tests: theoretical plausibility and practical expanatory power. If somebody was to come up with a plausible theory of how a lump of cheese might have got into the earth's orbit, then we might give the theory the time of day. Similarly, if somebody was to observe a phenomenon which was consistent with the moon being made of cheese, but was otherwise mysterious, then the theory would be worth examination. In the absence of both, then we can safely assume that the theory is false. That's not to say that we will make a definite judgement on the matter. New evidence can always challenge our assumptions and provide us with a phenomenal or theoretical justification for re-evaluating the theory, but the falseness of the theory becomes a safe working assumption - which is what science is all about.

The claims of homeopathy are analogous to the cheesy moon claim. If we had evidence that homeopathic treatments did indeed cure people, then we would have a reason to examine the notion - we don't. In short the theory has no explanatory power. If we had a plausible theoretical mechanism for how something like homeopathy could work, then again it would be worth our while investigating the concept to see if we could produce experimental evidence to validate the theory - once again we don't. Therefore, until somebody comes up with either a plausible theory or phenomenal evidence, we can safely file it with cheesy moons.

secret_squirrel

KCF wrote:

we can safely file it with cheesy moons.

But moon cheese cures cancer. Everyone knows that.

obni wrote:

Come on, admit it!
As a physicist you just can't stand to give credence to anything coming from as lowly a life-form as a chemist, or even worse a biologist!

Shhh

Poisonwood

secret_squirrel wrote:

The chemist say it shouldnt work arguement isnt convincing in my mind since it should be obvious that the we have got a very, very long way to go before we understand the inner workings of the universe.

I find this an extraordinary statement if indeed squirrel is not being tongue in cheek here.

If I understand correctly this boils down to saying that we shouldn't make assessments of reality on the basis of the robust, reliable knowedge we currently have (in this case about chemistry) but instead should give the benefit of the doubt to knowledge we DON'T have on the basis that we MIGHT some day have it and that when we do it MIGHT contradict current knowledge ... as well as providing a credible mechanism for homeopathy to boot!?!?! Do they have a smilie icon for 'shaking your head in complete bemusement'??

robindch

From http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/health/2005/0412/2695121602HS12HOMEOCLIPHS12COM.html which needs an account to login and view, so here's the relevant bit:

A national working group to advise the Minister for Health on future measures necessary for the regulation of complementary therapists in Ireland was set up in May 2003. This working group, which is chaired by journalist Teri Garvey, has members from complementary therapies such as acupuncture, homeopathy, medical herbalism, as well as representatives from the umbrella organisation, the Federation of Complementary Therapy Associations , and the Consumers Association of Ireland. It is due to issue its first major report to the Minster for Health Mary Harney this autumn. [...] The third area which the National Working Group on the Regulation of Complementary Therapists has focused on is the need for a public information campaign on complementary therapies. "Members of the public have got to be very careful and ask questions such as 'What are your qualifications in this therapy?' 'Are you a current member of a professional register?'" says Garvey. However, she believes voluntary self-regulation of each therapy by its professional body is the way forward and not statutory regulation.

There was another piece which appeared in the (Irish) Independent last friday or saturday, but I can't find it -- the gist (from a quick glance) was that Mary Harney was worried at the death of the man in Mayo and was leaning towards regulation, rather than voluntary self-regulation. Does anybody have any up-to-date info on this? Is anybody prepared, and knowledgeable enough, to contact the working group to testify that this arrant nonsense is dangerous?

- robin.

Myksyk

As usual they side-step the FIRST question that should be asked which is "Is there any relaible evidence that this therapy works?". Without such a body of evidence, qualifications and regulation are irrelevant and potentially dangerous. I will pass this on to Paul O'Donoghue who I think has a sound knowledge of the area and may be anxious to write regarding this issue.