Degrees in homeopathy slated as unscientific
Thu, 2007-03-22 01:05
#1
Degrees in homeopathy slated as unscientific
Thu, 2007-03-22 01:05
#2
quote:
Alternative therapies are now a degree subject at some British universities. But do they deserve these credentials? Jim Giles reports.As debate rages in the United States over whether intelligent design should be taught in science classes, another topic that many researchers see as a pseudoscience is claiming scientific status within the British education system.
Over the past decade, several British universities have started offering bachelor of science (BSc) degrees in alternative medicine, including six that offer BSc degrees in homeopathy, a therapy in which the active ingredient is diluted so much that the dose given to the patient often does not contain even a single molecule of it. Some scientists are increasingly concerned that such courses give homeopathy and homeopaths undeserved scientific credibility, and they are campaigning to get the label removed (see Commentary, page 373).
Read it [url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7134/full/446352a.html]here.[...
Thu, 2007-03-22 03:26
#3
Lord, what bullshit. I mean, okay, fine, you believe in this stuff and you get a nice placebo effect out of it, then great. More power to you. But there are people who want to see homeopathy funded by medicare and recognized as a valid medical science. What crapola.
But this article lumps homeopathy in with other alternative medicine, and I think that's a shame. Because there are other types of alternative medicine that I think are fine, like naturopathy, which focuses on prevention as opposed to treating symptoms. And good naturopaths can also recognize when remedial treatment is needed, and will work with conventional doctors. Unfortunately, I think a lot of naturopaths also dabble in homeopathy, which is too bad.
Thu, 2007-03-22 07:32
#4
quote:
Lord, what bullshit. I mean, okay, fine, you believe in this stuff and you get a nice placebo effect out of it, then great. More power to you. But there are people who want to see homeopathy funded by medicare and recognized as a valid medical science. What crapola.
In Britain there is a Royal Homeopathic Hospital funded on the NHS, it is also a common treatment option in other parts of Europe.
There is also the question "valid medical science" it is important to make a distinction between theory and practice and there are problems with both.
For instance psychiatric journals routinely publish fraudulent studies either ghost written or funded by pharmaceutical companies, data is suppressed, methodologies corrupted in order to present drugs in a favourable light. Eli Lilly is in a law suit now concerning suppression of information surrounding the drug Zyprexa.
There has been problems in the veracity of research also in major medical journals.
There are general methodological problems inherent in clinical trials, they are not the be all and end all of scientific proof.
In terms of practice clinical judgement is fraught with non-scientific approaches. Doctors frequently make quick judgements( in non emergency situations) and ignore alternative explanations as well as ignoring patients own expressions of symptoms or distress, this can lead to disasterous results.
It is difficult medical technology has allowed for some amazing life saving and altering interventions but that does not mean that there are great gaps in the understanding of human biology, health and healing.
One thing that is consistent in the maintenance and promotion of health is a trusting, ongoing and empathic relation with a health care provider. This connection is often found in connection with alternative health practicioners who spend greater time and attention in dealing with clients, this is not something to be easily dismissed.
Thu, 2007-03-22 08:53
#5
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Unfortunately, I think a lot of naturopaths also dabble in homeopathy, which is too bad.[/b]
Maybe because the [url=http://www.ccnm.edu/program.html]Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine[/url] includes Homeopathic Medicine as one of its six "major disciplines":
quote:
Six major disciplines define the areas of naturopathic practice. These are Asian Medicine/Acupuncture, Botanical Medicine, Clinical Nutrition, [b]Homeopathic Medicine[/b], Physical Medicine, Lifestyle Counselling and Prevention.Each is a distinct area and includes both diagnostic principles and clinical practice, as well as therapeutic skills and techniques. Instruction in all the naturopathic therapies is provided.
It's a scandal!
Thu, 2007-03-22 09:08
#6
quote:
It's a scandal!
Here's a suggested comparison. I provide data outlining the life-threatening and disabling side- effects of psychiatric medications/"treatments and you provide comparable information for homeopathic treatments.
Another potential comparitive study of those who go to homeopaths and those who don't is there a difference in measurable levels of health, is there a demonstatable difference in risk of death or injury in receiving treatment?
Thu, 2007-03-22 09:23
#7
M. Spector
What's your point? That psychiatry is more of a fraud than homeopathy?
You may well be right. But it's not the topic of this thread.
Thu, 2007-03-22 10:09
#8
quote:
What's your point? That psychiatry is more of a fraud than homeopathy?
You may well be right. But it's not the topic of this thread.
The topic is on homeopathy vs. "valid medical science."
Psychiatry is considered valid medical science whereas homeopathy is not. Psychiatry costs the public health system billions and has had a negative impact on users, can the same claim be made against homeopathy?
If psychiatry is considered valid medical science what does that say about the criteria for assessing valid medical science?
The implicit message in challenging the validity of homeopathy is that it is somehow dangerous.
The question also arises even if something is not scientifically validated can it still have health benefits. Are relationships built around exploration and promotion of health , healing in themselves. There is evidence to suggest yes.
These are just a few of the questions arise in reference to health care.
The validity of scientific evidence within such a profit driven system leads to a whole other type of question.
Thu, 2007-03-22 10:14
#9
A close family friend was a long-time fan of homeopathy. He was (otherwise) a very progressive person. He and his homeopath both ignored early warning signs of cancer - or rather, not ignored, but "treated" with quack bullshit like rhus tox or whatever. He died.
Before that, I had homeopathy up there with black cats and creationism in the pantheon of fairy tales. Now, my feelings are somewhat more violent. Many Quйbec pharmacies feature homeopathic sections, because bullshit sells. I've occasionally asked the pharmacist why they carry this stuff. I get a sort of shrug in reply.
Thu, 2007-03-22 10:35
#10
It is indeed tragic about your friend.
These things can also occur with convential medicine.
My partner's father was in hospital recently and he had a roomate who had come in essentially in perfect health, to have what appeared to be a pimple on his forehead examined after a series of bad diagnostic judgements and procedures this person is near death and has experienced severe permanent disability( his extremities are shrivelled to the point of dropping off.)Another time my partner's father was in hospital he was on a respirator and he repeatedly(over a period of hours) told the nurse that he was having trouble breathing. The nurse just checked the respirator and told him not to worry. He nearly died as a result the respirator was faulty.
Do you actually have evidence that those seeking homepathic treatment are at greater risk? That would be scientific.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 11:20
#11
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
Do you actually have evidence that those seeking homepathic treatment are at greater risk? That would be scientific.[/b]
Science has norms, even in a "profit-driven society" such as ours. Homeopathy doesn't match up to them. That's why I have no intent of debating with you. My anecdote was not for the purpose of furnishing "evidence". It was merely to explain my anger at quackery.
Thu, 2007-03-22 12:20
#12
quote:
Science has norms, even in a "profit-driven society" such as ours. Homeopathy doesn't match up to them. That's why I have no intent of debating with you.
Science is compromised by profit driven system,much that is promoted as science does not actually meet the standards of science that was my example of psychiatry.So why does psychiatry get approved as science and homeompathy not? To a large extent it is power, influence and money.
Thu, 2007-03-22 13:10
#13
M. Spector
It's fitting that this thread should be started today, on [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000268]W... Water Day[/url], since homeopathy is all about the healing power of [url=http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_ent.html?id=c0c53148d7cd... water[/url].
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 15:44
#14
If it can pass double blind testing I'm all for it. Otherwise, you're in the realm of faith and hope - which is fine but it's the last avenue that I would want to approach. Not in place of conventional medicine.
Thu, 2007-03-22 18:40
#15
quote:
I've occasionally asked the pharmacist why they carry this stuff. I get a sort of shrug in reply.
Drug stores carry it because customers request it. At the end of the day, pharmacies are a business.
[RANT]
The rise in "alternative" medicine really pisses me off, as a health care professional, because I now have to read about this crap, as well as keep up on legitimate medical advances as part of my continuing ed. The doctors I work with are stressed by people wasting their time with stuff they've downloaded like chelation "therapy," so they have to spend a good part of their days debunking nonsense. So "alternative" medicine actually is increasing the burden on our health care system by virtue of the time and resources being wasted as health care professionals scramble to keep up with all this utter bullshit in order not to lose credibility in the eyes of their patients.
[/RANT]
As far as the lack of side effects of homeopathy goes, well, any drug that has the potential to be effective is going to have side effects because it does something; ie, it will have physiological effects beyond those that are desired. So homeopathy doesn't have side effects because it doesn't do anything at all. Easy peasy.
Thu, 2007-03-22 19:52
#16
quote:
So "alternative" medicine actually is increasing the burden on our health care system by virtue of the time and resources being wasted as health care professionals scramble to keep up with all this utter bullshit in order not to lose credibility in the eyes of their patients
Probably one of the bigger burdens on the medical system is the unwarranted prescription of pharmaceuticals for seniours or psych. patients. You also paint with a rather broad stroke calling "alternative medicine" bullshit including empirically validated treatments such as mindfullness meditation and acupunture, treatments that are derived from non western cultural approaches to healing that are quite distinct in outlook. Sorry but dismissing ayuvedic , traditional chineese or indigenous methods of healing is nothing short of cultural supremism. Even the presently maligned homeopathy does have some empirical support depending on whose claims you wish to privilege.
quote:
As far as the lack of side effects of homeopathy goes, well, any drug that has the potential to be effective is going to have side effects because it does something; ie, it will have physiological effects beyond those that are desired. So homeopathy doesn't have side effects because it doesn't do anything at all. Easy peasy.
I'm not talking about side effects like " dry mouth and constipation. I'm talking about disabling condtions like tardive dyskinisea, akathesia neuroleptic malignant syndrome, obesity diabetes, blood clots, liver failure,strokes, impotence and other sexual dysfunctions, to name a few not to mention blunted emotion and cognitive impairments. These are just from the use of neuroleptics and symptoms that are reported in much higher percentages in patient responses than discussed in the "scientific literature." Not to mention increased impulsivity, violence and suicidality in people taking SSRI's as well as the horrific syndromes associated with withdrawal from SSRI's and benzodiazepines. That's just psychiatry, so much for do no harm.
I am not even advocating homeopathy I am just challenging some of the hyperbole suggesting it is overwhelmingly dangerous. I am also pointing out there are any number of "conventional" medical treatments and practices that are lacking in scientific validation(let's talk ECT. There is also a great deal of quackery and non-sense coming from physicians, I constantly hear it from my clients.
To me the attraction to alternative treatments are two-fold,
1)alternative practicioners tend to spend more time with their clients, which helps build trusing and empathic relationships. Such relationships are essential( and empirically validated) for any genuine healing relationship. NOt only do such relationships reduce stress and anxiety a solid relationship is better at ensuring the patient follows a healthy regime. It was actually interesting I read an article in my UoT alumni mag and it had an interview with the head of the Wasser Pain clinic(he is a neurologist) and he spoke extensively on the importance of empathic relationship in his work.
2) The other is that people often go to alternative practiciouners to help them with chronic conditions that conventional medicical treatments have had little luck with. Anecdotaly people seem to find relief. Is this due to condition 1)? perhaps. Is it due to placebo also perhaps but one needs to understand the nature of placebo. Placebo is the belief in the efficacy of a treatment(and is therefore potentially a component in any treatment)and as such it has proven to be extremely powerful in promoting healing. It is not inert but an active psychological component of healing that should not be mistaken for "no effect." As such it could be actually argued that if someone goes to a practicioner and reaps the benefit of relational factors and placebo than that is more healing than not. This may piss off traditional health care people because frequently they are themselves not aware of the importance of relationships or placebo.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 21:01
#17
quote:
Originally posted by angrymonkey:
[b]If it can pass double blind testing I'm all for it. Otherwise, you're in the realm of faith and hope - which is fine but it's the last avenue that I would want to approach. Not in place of conventional medicine.[/b]
There is nothing wrong with Faith and Hope. But what do you have Faith and Hope in? That's the question.
Thu, 2007-03-22 21:06
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
[b]Drug stores carry it because customers request it. At the end of the day, pharmacies are a business.
[RANT]
The rise in "alternative" medicine really pisses me off, as a health care professional, because I now have to read about this crap, as well as keep up on legitimate medical advances as part of my continuing ed. The doctors I work with are stressed by people wasting their time with stuff they've downloaded like chelation "therapy," so they have to spend a good part of their days debunking nonsense. So "alternative" medicine actually is increasing the burden on our health care system by virtue of the time and resources being wasted as health care professionals scramble to keep up with all this utter bullshit in order not to lose credibility in the eyes of their patients.
[/RANT]As far as the lack of side effects of homeopathy goes, well, any drug that has the potential to be effective is going to have side effects because it does something; ie, it will have physiological effects beyond those that are desired. So homeopathy doesn't have side effects because it doesn't do anything at all. Easy peasy.[/b]
Despite the efforts of "Healthcare Professionals" the Death Rate remains precisely 100%.
The notion that a "real drug" has undesired effects is a fine justification, but one could say the same of shooting anyone who is sick....
It isn't a real argument. The fact is, you can't stop people dying, and it bugs you, because you live in a vain fantasy.
Thu, 2007-03-22 21:27
#19
M. Spector
Consumer Reports concluded in its January 1987 issue: "Unless the laws of chemistry have gone awry, most homeopathic remedies are too diluted to have any physiological effect. . . . CU's medical consultants believe that any system of medicine embracing the use of such remedies involves a potential danger to patients whether the prescribers are M.D.'s, other licensed practitioners, or outright quacks. Ineffective drugs are dangerous drugs when used to treat serious or life-threatening disease. Moreover, even though homeopathic drugs are essentially nontoxic, self-medication can still be hazardous. Using them for a serious illness or undiagnosed pain instead of obtaining proper medical attention could prove harmful or even fatal."
You can bleat all you want about "cultural supremism" (sic) or go on about how we're all going to die anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that homeopathy is bullshit and a fraud.
Thu, 2007-03-22 21:53
#20
quote:
But what do you have Faith and Hope in? That's the question.
I belive in reproducible results. I might have hope in many other options if I was desperate enough.
quote:
The other is that people often go to alternative practiciouners to help them with chronic conditions that conventional medicical treatments have had little luck with. Anecdotaly people seem to find relief
Or, anecdotaly, people do not become better.
If someone has an effective treatment for something - prove it.
I don't want to hear any crap about the science industry or the impossibility of accurately testing the product. This shouldn't be mysticism and there's been far too many charlatans throughout history for me to take this stuff on faith.
Fri, 2007-03-23 02:40
#21
There's no such thing as alternative medicine really; there's therapy that works and therapy that doesn't work. And the vast area constituting what we don't know is all too often occupied by quacks looking to sell their products or maybe just promote themselves as medical mavericks, taking perverse pleasure from their pariah status.
The sins of Big Pharma are legion; I personally wouldn't work for them. But surely there is a special place in hell for people who hold out false hope to the desperately sick for the sake of making a few bucks.
And yeah; homeopathy should be classed as a religion rather than a science.
Fri, 2007-03-23 06:20
#22
quote:
There's no such thing as alternative medicine really; there's therapy that works and therapy that doesn't work.
Well there is Ayuvedic and tradional chineese medicines which are based on comprehensive systems with principles that are fundamentally different than those of western medicine. Naturpaths also operate on holistic principles that are for a large part absent in traditional western medicine. So these would represent an alternative to conventional western theory and practice.
There are also plenty of medical treatments whose efficacy and scientific is questionable yet they are accepted as being scientific.
quote:
And the vast area constituting what we don't know is all too often occupied by quacks looking to sell their products or maybe just promote themselves as medical mavericks, taking perverse pleasure from their pariah status...But surely there is a special place in hell for people who hold out false hope to the desperately sick for the sake of making a few bucks.
Perhaps but to claim this is somehow representative of homeopaths or naturopaths would be dishonest. It also ignores the fact that there are innumerable physicians whose practice is suspect as a result of ignorance, arrogance,incompetence, burn out etc.
quote:
And yeah; homeopathy should be classed as a religion rather than a science
The question still remains how is it that psychiatry is accepted as science and homeopathy not even though psychiatry has no more empirical evidence to support its claims than homeopathy. Psychiatry has more power and relations to power, it has more funding(mostly from Pharma), it gets plenty of press and promotion, it has appropriated the language of physiology, genetics and neurology but it's claims are still not supported by empirical evidence. Obviously something else is at work.
Fri, 2007-03-23 09:29
#23
A few experiences over the last three weeks have primed me for a really good rant on the subject of psychiatry. I shall for the nonce restrain myself however. I will say though that if heart surgeons practiced with the same careless incompetence the stack of dead bodies would be so huge there'd be a massive public outcry.
quote:
Well there is Ayuvedic and tradional chineese medicines which are based on comprehensive systems with principles that are fundamentally different than those of western medicine.
I had thought that ayurvedic medicine was of South Asian origen (hence the "vedic" part) but anyway, I've known people with mental health diagnoses who have benifited a great deal from it. That and similar methodologies which emphasise balance and imbalance in all aspects of life.
One of my team members at work is a practitioner of reiki, pranic healing, and yoga. He also teaches meditation and relaxation techniques.
[ 23 March 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Fri, 2007-03-23 09:34
#24
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Well there is Ayuvedic and tradional chineese medicines which are based on comprehensive systems with principles that are fundamentally different than those of western medicine.[/b]
They certainly are.
"Traditional Chinese Medicine" for example is based on the concept of balancing your "chi" or "qi". Your "chi", by the way, is a personal energy field that has never been detected by even the most sensitive of scientific instruments. In other words, it doesn't exist. TCM is founded on a myth.
Fri, 2007-03-23 09:53
#25
quote:
They certainly are.
"Traditional Chinese Medicine" for example is based on the concept of balancing your "chi" or "qi". Your "chi", by the way, is a personal energy field that has never been detected by even the most sensitive of scientific instruments. In other words, it doesn't exist. TCM is founded on a myth.
There are plenty of things that science at once did not detect but now they do. There is still much that remains known about health, physiology, and healing. Western medicine still operates to a large degree on models that are mechanistic and reductionistic, it remains lacking on understanding systems and operations.There is plenty that is unknown in physics in terms of the nature and operations of energy. You keep insisting that science has achieved some sense of perfect knowledge. It seems you don't have much of an understanding of how science operates. This is more of a representation of the faith and hope you have for western intellectual traditions than anything that could be demonstrated empirically. It also is clearly demonsratably culturally supremist.
There are plenty of components of experience that cannot be "detected" science i.e. love, hope, consiousness itself...The extreme logical positivists of behaviourism rejected any reference to cognitive events because they were not observable. Is this your position?
quote:
I had thought that ayurvedic medicine was of South Asian origen (hence the "vedic" part) but anyway
It is I was saying that Ayuveda and Chineese medicine are two different and comprehensive systems.
Fri, 2007-03-23 10:54
#26
If you're going to compare things I think it would be more fair to compare homeopathy with antibiotics, anti-inflamatories, cancer treatments, etc.
Fri, 2007-03-23 11:00
#27
I love these arguments like "psychiatry and homeopathy both have no evidence to support them - so let's go with homeopathy!!!".
Fri, 2007-03-23 12:07
#28
quote:
I love these arguments like "psychiatry and homeopathy both have no evidence to support them - so let's go with homeopathy!!!".
If that's what you get out of the arguments than I can only suggest that you are empirically challenged.
Fri, 2007-03-23 14:50
#29
I have used homeopathy and found it helpful. I would not use it instead of seeing a doctor if I had cancer or a broken arm. I prefer it for PMT cos otherwise I have to take hormones, or mega vitamen doses, or some strange plant. I know the homepathy will not harm me with any side effects, and it does seem to help. If it's placebo I don't care, if it's working I'm happy. Why has no one spoken about acupuncture? how does sticking needles in people help? Is it scientific?
Fri, 2007-03-23 15:30
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Southlander:
[b]Why has no one spoken about acupuncture? how does sticking needles in people help? Is it scientific?[/b]
You want to talk about needles, start a new thread.
Whoops.
Fri, 2007-03-23 16:18
#31
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]There are plenty of things that science at once did not detect but now they do. There is still much that remains known about health, physiology, and healing.[/b]
So the problem is that modern science doesn't yet possess instruments sufficiently sensitive and sophisticated to detect [url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html]"Chi"[/url]?
They can measure electrical charges of atomic particles, but they can't detect this bodily energy field that is supposed to be so strong that it's the "vital energy" controlling our individual health and well-being, and needs periodic "adjustment" by practitioners of TCM - for a small fee, of course.
Maybe the TCM people could tell us what advanced and sensitive instruments [i]they[/i] use to detect "chi" and the "meridians" through which it circulates. I'm sure scientists would be eternally grateful for the knowledge.
Fri, 2007-03-23 16:54
#32
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
If that's what you get out of the arguments than I can only suggest that you are empirically challenged.[/b]
Before I believe in your homeopathy superstitious nonsense, I may as well go whole hog and believe in God, Heaven, the Afterlife, the Whole Holy Nine Yards. The Eternal Rewards are much greater that way.
If you have detected a certain sarcastic dismissal of homeopathic, naturopathic, acupunctural, meditative, and all other bunkum sops to the desperate - your radar is working at 100%.
Fri, 2007-03-23 20:30
#33
quote:
If you have detected a certain sarcastic dismissal of homeopathic, naturopathic, acupunctural, meditative...
Hasn't it been proven that if you are really stressed out you are more likely to get sick? If that is the case, wouldn't stress reduction techniques like meditatation help somewhat in the battle against illness? I relize of course that it should be coupled with other healthy lifestyle choices like not smoking and not eating at Mcdogfood's. However couldn't it be considered one component in a healthy life style? I relize there is a lot of snake oil on health food store shelves, and a lot of psudeo science that gets foisted on an unsuspecting public by "all natural" gurus(Hey kids, guess what! You shoud be drinking unpasturized milk!)
but surely there are things that can be learned from eastern philosophies that can benefit us here in the West. What about Yoga and Tai Chi? Don't they both constitute great excercise?
[ 23 March 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 23 March 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Fri, 2007-03-23 20:50
#34
quote:
Before I believe in your homeopathy superstitious nonsense, I may as well go whole hog and believe in God, Heaven, the Afterlife, the Whole Holy Nine Yards. The Eternal Rewards are much greater that way.
What is truly miraculous and beyond the comprehension of any scientific inquiry is your ability to consistently pull such idiocy out of your ass.
MY homeopathy? How am I supposed to have a discussion with someone who can't even demonstrate basic reading comprehension. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
At least we do have one thing in common neither of us know what the fuck your talking about.
Fri, 2007-03-23 20:56
#35
NR Kissed, you should check the section in 'The Rebel Sell' on 'alternative' medicine. The authors ask some pertinent questions. I mention this because you contrast alternative medicine against western supremism. There is a history of natural medicine in the West which has largely been done away with and rightfully so. We no longer do bloodletting, apply leeches or talk about the black bile. J'espere. Why can we apply the litmus test to these traditions but not others?
Also I can never understand the reaction against science and modern medicine. It definitely wasn't alternative medicine that taught us about germs. And doing something as simple as washing hands to prevent infections.
Fri, 2007-03-23 21:10
#36
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]
but surely there are things that can be learned from eastern philosophies that can benefit us here in the West. What about Yoga and Tai Chi? Don't they both constitute great excercise?[/b]
I agree. But when medical claims are made, they must be verifiable by accepted international scientific norms, which are the same in all countries of the world. All the more so for hocus-pocus fields like homeopathy, which are not an "adjunct" to scientific medicine, but rather a pure "alternative", based on the underlying premise that scientific medicine is incorrect.
As for stress, yes, relief of stress can make people feel better. But stress doesn't cause physical or major psychiatric illness.
Fri, 2007-03-23 21:17
#37
My mother in law was a homeopatic doctor in Germany. She started as a conventional doctor, but switched to homeophaty when she figured she was doing more harm then good with conventional medicine, mind you she would refer her patients to conventional doctors if she thought they could do a better job on a particular problem.
It would seem unscientific to assume that something would disappear just by diluting it.
Fri, 2007-03-23 21:19
#38
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
MY homeopathy? How am I supposed to have a discussion with someone who can't even demonstrate basic reading comprehension. [/b]
My apologies, I thought it was you who had posted this (among others in the same vein):
quote:
Even the presently maligned homeopathy does have some empirical support depending on whose claims you wish to privilege.
I guess it's just my problem of reading comprehension, but if someone said:
quote:
Even the presently maligned creationist thesis does have some empirical support depending on whose claims you wish to privilege,
I would consider it in order to ridicule [i]their[/i] creationism.
Again, my sincere apologies if you didn't get my point, and even more humble apologies if you're still having difficulty with it.
Fri, 2007-03-23 21:29
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]It would seem unscientific to assume that something would disappear just by diluting it.[/b]
Well no, it is very scientific, because all the "somethings" in question are composed of molecules. Also, "dilution" doesn't just mean adding water indefinitely - it means adding water and then removing some of the solution, adding more water, removing more solution, etc.
Let's say you have a gallon of water containing just one molecule of iron in it. You pour this into a two-gallon container, and add another gallon of water to "dilute" it. You then re-fill the original one-gallon container from the 2-gallon one. The iron molecule will either remain, or it will have "disappeared".
The true calculation is much more complex and is based on probabilities. [url=http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,77.0.html]Here is an example of how it is done[/url] to debunk the homeopathic jokers.
No offence to your mother-in-law, but homeopathy is crap.
Fri, 2007-03-23 21:38
#40
Much about dilution in this extremely skeptical article about homeopathy...
quote:
Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.
Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."
[url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html]Homeopathy: the ultimate fake[/url].
Fri, 2007-03-23 21:50
#41
C'mon, homeopathos, don't give up so easily. There's $$$$$$ to be made, and not just by selling your little vials of water and sugar pills!
The James Randi Educational Foundation has offered $1 million US to anyone who provides convincing evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy. The American Physical Society has agreed to monitor any submissions.
In 2002, the [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml]BBC's Science and Nature program [i]Horizon[/i][/url] greedily took up the challenge:
quote:
The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.
To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been.
In short, the jackpot is still untouched. [b][i]GO FOR THE GOLD!!!!!!!!![/i][/b]
[ 23 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Fri, 2007-03-23 22:29
#42
quote:
Again, my sincere apologies if you didn't get my point, and even more humble apologies if you're still having difficulty with it.
You seem to have difficulty in making simple distinctions. I've never claimed homeopathy works by the mechanisms claimed. I did question the irrational hysteria around it's harmfulness. I did suggest that seeing a homeopath could actually actually be health promoting due to relationship factors and placebo. I also stated that there have been articles published making empirical claims in terms of it's efficacy. If you actually have evidence that refutes any of the above your welcome to provide it. None of the statements above actually are evidence of a belief in homeopathy. Your default postion is always you have to be fer or agin something. It is truly difficult to have a discussion with someone that reduces everything to such simplicity. It is also next to impossible to discuss questions of science with someone that doesn't have an even basic understanding of its methods mechanisms or related epistemological assumptions.
quote:
As for stress, yes, relief of stress can make people feel better. But stress doesn't cause physical or major psychiatric illness.
That has to be one of the most absurd statements ever.
Fri, 2007-03-23 22:40
#43
M. Spector
It appears you are claiming to be neither for nor against homeopathy.
And yet homeopathy is the subject of this thread and you have made approximately a third of the posts in it. Most of those posts try to paint homeopathy as warm, fuzzy, and basically harmless.
Why would it surprise you that those who oppose homeopathy would identify you as the prime defender of homeopathy in this thread?
Fri, 2007-03-23 23:10
#44
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]And yet homeopathy is the subject of this thread and you have made approximately a third of the posts in it. Most of those posts try to paint homeopathy as warm, fuzzy, and basically harmless.[/b]
Most of the others are along the lines of: [i]You say homeopathy's bad and unscientific? Well, look at psychiatry; gee it's even worse and just as unscientific and more harmful![/i]. Leaving aside the apparent ignorance of psychiatry, this is like defending a thief by saying "Look! Murderers and rapists!".
But.. Oh, sorry, I forgot... N.R.KISSED is not defending homeopathy. Never mind.
Sat, 2007-03-24 07:05
#45
It seems a little simplistic to see the world as just consisting of a latice of different types of molecules. It is far more complex then that. Just type into google "list of sub atomic particles". Much to be discovered yet.
Sure some people make money from homeopathy, but how does that compare to the pharma-cons? Conventional medication seems a disaster in the making.
[url=http://www.ascp.com/publicrelations/upload/Complex%20Problems.pdf]Here is but a small sample. Homeopathy is harmless by comparison.[/url]
I once had a case of Bells Palsy, my conventional doctor offered to treat it with cortizone ( if I remember right), but also said that there was a 90 percent full recovery rate in 12 to 14 weeks without any treatment. My homeopath gave a small injection and a few session of facial massage, and in eight weeks I could whisle again and in ten weeks the recovery was complete. I do not have any other homeopathic experiences to give you.
Sat, 2007-03-24 08:54
#46
M. Spector
My Bell's palsy was cured in two weeks with prednisone.
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:01
#47
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b] It is also next to impossible to discuss questions of science with someone that doesn't have an even basic understanding of its methods mechanisms or related epistemological assumptions.[/b]
Who real ated and pissed on my logical assumptions!?
quote:
[b][Re stress not causing physical or major psychiatric illness:] That has to be one of the most absurd statements ever.[/b]
Sure it's absurd, if you're just hurling around vacuous rhetoric. But what happens when you need to invoke evidence? Stress aggravates symptoms of all kinds of physical conditions, and it can inhibit people taking proper health measures. But all the old "theories" (stress "causing" ulcers, miscarriages, allergies, IBD, breast cancer, heartburn, hypertension, Tourette's, acne, infertility, schizophrenia, MS, eczema, etc. etc. etc.) have been debunked and buried, one after another, with the advance of scientific research and knowledge. And, not so coincidentally, the success rate in treating and/or curing many conditions has advanced as well - once the hocus-pocus is deleted.
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:03
#48
You people are just all homeophobes.
I really couldn't resist. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:13
#49
quote:
It appears you are claiming to be neither for nor against homeopathy.
And yet homeopathy is the subject of this thread and you have made approximately a third of the posts in it. Most of those posts try to paint homeopathy as warm, fuzzy, and basically harmless.Why would it surprise you that those who oppose homeopathy would identify you as the prime defender of homeopathy in this thread?
Funny I didn't realize this was the dichotomous thinking thread, where one had to discuss homeopathy from a dichotomous thinkers perspective.
If there is one thing I am oppossed to is dichotomous thinking and other lapses of logic.
If by "warm and fuzzy" you mean discussing the psychophysiological impact of a therapeutic relationship or mechanisms of the placebo effect than you talking about two effects that have received wide spread empirical support. I'm curious why you find it necessary to hold interpersonal relationships or emotional processes in contempt.
I did contend that homeopathy was harmless but that is hardly a ringing endorsement. I might think disco music is harmless but that doesn't make me a fan(the same of course can not be said about new country, that is truly dangerous.)
I proposed homeopathy was harmless to counter hysterical claims coming from medical fetishists, that it is foretelling the end of the world. Such hysteria is hardly necessary for science or any other discipline.
quote:
Most of the others are along the lines of: You say homeopathy's bad and unscientific? Well, look at psychiatry; gee it's even worse and just as unscientific and more harmful!. Leaving aside the apparent ignorance of psychiatry, this is like defending a thief by saying "Look! Murderers and rapists!".
I thought the question I was asking was fairly simple. What are standards by which a discipline is accepted as scientifically valid? Psychiatry is generally accepted as being a valid part of medicine and scientifically valid. Yet a closer critical examination of psychiatry reveals a myriad of methodological errors and a lack of empirical support for their claims. Yet most people including those considered reputable scientist never bring critical awareness to the discipline of psychiatry so it's status as a credible science remains. I find that curious. I find it germane to this discussion because if you are to compare alleged "valid scientific medicine" to something else than certainly the same standards should be applied, otherwise it is reasonable to assume that a non-scientific bias is operating.
It was never my intention to defend homeopathy, it has been my intention to encourage some critical awareness and examine underlying assumptions that lead to sloppy reasoning.
I think it is crucial in these discussion to be aware of a dominant discourse that fetishizes science or medicine and makes unverifiabe claims to truth or knowledge. If one operates from a position that science allows uncritical certainty or is privy to unchallengable truths then one is actually taking a position in opposition to scientific enquiry. This position is dogma and that leads to truly dangerous conclusions. If one also reaches a conclusion that anything that is presently unknown, unverified or undiscovered than it is non-existant than that is also dogma and a deeply absurd position that a brief glance at the history of science would dispel.
It seems what certain people have trouble with is genuine skeptism, which demands that one never develop to firm an attachment to conclusions, it also suggests becoming comfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity, indeterminancy and probabilities. To me that is the true nature of intellectual enquiry but hey maybe I'se wrong innit.
[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:23
#50
edited because this post is completely unecesary.
Unionist has made my point for me.
[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:32
#51
M. Spector
Why don't we abandon the thread topic altogether and just talk about all the pseudoscientific nonsense in the world that passes for "alternative" medicine?
Let's see now. We've done homeopathy. Likewise psychotherapy. TCM was dispatched without a fight.
Next we could tackle:
Aromatherapy
Colonics
Ear-candling
Faith healing
Iridology
Magnet therapy
Orgone therapy
Reiki
Rolfing®
Therapeutic Touch
Urine therapy