'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 22:13
VIEWED: 4648
PAGE 1 of 1

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:47 PM

This came out in the Guardian yesterday.

Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/comment/story/0,,2229446,00.html

Homeopathy should not be labelled a fraud. Those who study water know the critics are wrong, says Rustum Roy ....

A major bugaboo for "homeophobes" is the concept that a solution where the solute is extremely diluted (beyond Avogadro's number) absolutely cannot, they believe, be any different from the original solvent. Hence homeopathy must be a fraud. This has been the anti-homeopathy crowd's trump card for more than 100 years.

But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them."

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

HERO

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:13 PM

Samuel Hahnemann was a Homeosexual.

H

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:15 PM

Link to original paper here

http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

What I find weakens the argument is the disregard for the effect on so-called structured water due to the biological system it encounters. If ppm solutions can display structures, how much more of an effect on water will the biological system have ? Sorry, but without that explanation, it comes down to voodoo. Supposedly the homeopathic voodoo of a small sample is far stronger than the much larger and far more concentrated biological voodoo it encounters.

Nah.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:11 PM

Hey, if these guys believe in man caused global warming, ya can't blame them for buying into this pile of go se.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sorry, but without that explanation, it comes down to voodoo.

Thanks for finding the paper.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in the mechanistic / naturalistic paradigm. Yet unknown mechanisms aren't a valid basis for dismissing an entire theory as "voodoo."

For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo. That response doesn't make sense.

What Roy is saying is that the structure of inorganic water CAN be influenced by ultradiluted chemicals in ppm or ppb or pptrillion. He is simply establishing that this effect can exist. Now what causes these structures to change? Do they always change? What forms these structures in one solution and not in another? Those are completely different research question yet to be investigated.

But just because they haven't yet been investigated doesn't nullify his existing findings.

Regarding your concerns, the reason homeopathic water ultradiluted with chemicals is different from non-homeopathic water ultradiluted with chemicals is the action of "succussion" (banging). Hahnemann discovered that banging the solutions systematically while diluting it retains some of the chemical properties of the solute, whereas not banging the solutions results in simply ultradilutions. This explains why not ALL water is a homeopathic remedy--because no other water (inorganic or organic) is succussed while being systematically diluted.

I don't have time now, but I will post a reference of a study published in Nature that confirms Hahnemann's findings.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:00 PM

And then it goes into your stomach where it's repeatedly churned up with lots and lots of other chemicals. And still retains its "memory".

Er...... maybe (in a very quiet and doubtful voice).

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:11 PM

http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/benveniste01.pdf

IgE antibodies degranulate human basophils. Benveniste reported that in his four double-blind experiments, IgE antibodies, diluted and succussed up to 10 to the 120th, were able to degranulate human basophils. In fact, he found that as the dilution increased, the more degranulation took place. [Read the Editorial note at the end of his paper.]

Nature followed up with a report that the results were not replicated. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v366/n6455/abs/366525a0.html

However, the effects have been replicated, just published in lesser known journals.

This paper reviewed the literature and found the same effects. http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/3/1/13
The authors say the effects across the literature are not as consistent as necessary to be generally accepted, but more research should be encouraged to tease out the confounders.

Now just to be clear, I am not saying this is scientific proof of anything. I am saying that there is some published laboratory evidence to support Hahnemann's observations, so they shouldn't be dismissed categorically as impossible. Obviously, much more research needs to be done. Roy is doing some of it, adding to a small, but growing body of evidence that homeopathy is NOT impossible.

[Edited to add:]Now we just need to research under which circumstances is homeopathy possible. Why does it work sometimes and not others? Why does it work in some places better than others?

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:43 PM

"For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo."

This is like saying just b/c we don't know how nuclear materials 'decide' to decay we can't understand how an IC engine works.

In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

I forget, you take things so literally.

Just change the question to, "How did life start?"

The point remains the same, whether you nitpick the details of the example or not.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just change the question to, "How did life start?"

The point remains the same, whether you nitpick the details of the example or not.

While we're nitpicking...how life started also has no bearing on evolution.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:57 PM

Hey- if it works do we really have to know HOW it does?

I'll join ya in the Homeopathic Pride Parade....

Homeostasis Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:02 PM

Quote:
While we're nitpicking...how life started also has no bearing on evolution.

In the view of some, if you can't explain this aspect of the origins of life (or the originas of the universe), then the entire theory falls apart.

My point is that it is an invalid argument. Just because you can't explain one piece of the puzzle doesn't mean the rest of what we know is hogwash.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey- if it works do we really have to know HOW it does?

I gave a friend a remedy for her urinary tract infection 2 days ago. This is her 5th infection. The previous 4 times, it lasted about 2 months. This time, it has gone on for 3 weeks already. Upon the first dose, the pain improved within minutes, then disappeared for 10 hours. She took a second dose, and it disappeared completely. It's been over 24 hours and hasn't come back yet.

Maybe it's voodoo, or placebo, or magic. Whatever you call it, it works. Now, it would be VERY nice is we could figure out WHY and HOW it works with good laboratory research. I'd really like to know more, like what makes it work better sometimes than others.

But bad research or no research at all doesn't negate the fact that it does work. It is the old fallacy that "absence of evidence (in specific journals) equals evidence of absence."

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:08 PM

Just looking for logic in the argument and finding it .... gone.

But to get to your example, it still doesn't hold up, even as amended. B/c while there is no evidence to date for 'how' life happened, there's all sorts of evidence for 'how' evolution did.

In the specific instance of homeopathy, there is very little evidence 'that' it works at all, from independent double-blind controlled studies. I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.

In addition, the ability of water to form subtle structures which may be potentially considered supportive, hasn't been shown to occur where it needs to occur - in the body. B/c the mechanism purported for dilute solutions will also act within the body for things like ATP, ADP, NAD and NADP and their 'H' forms etc - all those separate unique little molecules that each exist in ppm levels in the body.

Degranulation follows a well known biological activity curve for enzymatically or hormonally active substances. At very low levels they have the highest per unit activity, whereas at higher levels they have a biological feedback mechanism that cuts off activity.

OVERALL - and I hope you read to the end - I put homeopathy in the 'undecided' category. I would certainly try it for whatever good effect it might have (even if placebo), or if nothing else worked - I'll even try prayer in those cases. But I wouldn't rely solely on it in a serious situation.

***************************************************************
Consider me a shifty-eyed pagan - making the sign of the cross with one hand and warding off the evil eye with the other. I'll throw in with whatever local god seems to be holding sway at the moment. Or if needs be, I'll tribute as many as I can.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
B/c while there is no evidence to date for 'how' life happened, there's all sorts of evidence for 'how' evolution did.

Sigh. Fine. For argument's sake, how does that negate my point that just because you don't have all the answers doesn't mean the answers you DO have (however few there are) are meaningless?

Quote:
In the specific instance of homeopathy, there is very little evidence 'that' it works at all, from independent double-blind controlled studies.

Because very few independent double-blind studies have been done, period. And those few that have been done have inherent design flaws from an inadequate understanding of how homeopathy is supposed to work.

For example, they test homeopathy using the same model as allopathy: one medicine per diagnosis. So they give the same homeopathic remedy to everyone who has the flu, and it doesn't work in most of them. But homeopathy doesn't prescribe by diagnosis. It prescribes by the whole individual picture. So it could very well be that all those subjects would have been prescribed different remedies for the same flu.

A better design would be to test the effectiveness of one particular homeopath, rather than one particular remedy. Have subjects with the flu be treated by one homeopath. Then give half those subjects (randomly picked) a placebo, and half of them their prescribed remedies. In addition, control with similar flu patients treated allopathically (also half of them given placebos). And double-blind the whole thing. Then you can compare homeopathic effectiveness with allopathic effectiveness, and homeopathic placebo with allopathic placebo in a homogenous population.

Quote:
but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.

Again, could that be because there is very little data (anecdotal or otherwise) on homeopathy to begin with? Standard medicine's got a hell of a head start if it is a race.

Quote:
In addition, the ability of water to form subtle structures which may be potentially considered supportive, hasn't been shown to occur where it needs to occur - in the body.

Huh? It goes into the body already structured.

Quote:
B/c the mechanism purported for dilute solutions will also act within the body for things like ATP...

The mechanism purported for making dilutions bioactive is succussions. Again, there is no succussion going on in the body, so diluting ATP will not yield the same results.

Quote:
At very low levels they have the highest per unit activity, whereas at higher levels they have a biological feedback mechanism that cuts off activity.

That's interesting. But back to the point, that means where degranulation occured, there were "low levels" or equivalent. Low levels where people are saying there are no levels at all.

Quote:
I put homeopathy in the 'undecided' category. I would certainly try it for whatever good effect it might have (even if placebo) but I wouldn't rely on it in a serious situation.

Fair enough. I *am* relying on it in a serious situation--for my son. Incidentally, he is 3 now, eating everything except for milk and eggs, at 10th percentile and climbing slowly. He has some eczema that flares up now and then and is a little behind in his speech, but is otherwise symptom free. This is a long way from screaming in pain continuously, vomiting/ swelling after any and all foods, and not gaining any weight for 9 months.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.
Again, could that be because there is very little data (anecdotal or otherwise) on homeopathy to begin with? Standard medicine's got a hell of a head start if it is a race.

I'd have to disagree, most of the methods and knowledge that go into modern medicine are younger than homeopathy. The only way that "standard" medicine would have a head start is if you consider all non-homeopathic medicine, which since most of the methods that were contemporary to homeopathy are obsolete isn't really valid.

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:54 PM

It would be interesting to try homeopathy the way you suggested. I would address one detail thus-wise - since 'placebos' seem to be very hard to make in homeopathy, I would suggest subjects be given a non-related homeopathic solution.

There is succussion going on in the body all the time. At the place where ATP is made, for example, the concentrations are quite high. Progressive dilution takes place over space - away from the source. Overall concentrations are quite low.

I'm glad about your son. I will admit to reservations b/c the story is not yet over. Not to be a wet blanket but I've had to learn in my own family to have to wait years - even decades - for the fallout.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
most of the methods and knowledge that go into modern medicine are younger than homeopathy.

Younger doesn't mean less. Standard medicine is better financed, better funded for research, and better published by far.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:01 PM

FredG

I think I get your point. The problem with - I don't know - let's call it 'ancient medicine' and the new stuff 'modern medicine' - the problem with 'ancient medicine' is that people died in large numbers. Along comes a plague, or individual pneumonia, or diabetes, and people fell like stones. And then a lot of ancient medicine was herbal and ritual, not homeopathy. Homeopathy as a separate entity has a modern origin.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There is succussion going on in the body all the time.

What? Succussion doesn't mean progressive dilution. It is an abrupt mechanical force applied to the solution. People do it by banging the bottle of solution from a distance of about 2 feet on a firm, but flexible surface (such as a leather bound book). This sort of banging doesn't happen in the body.

Quote:
I'm glad about your son. I will admit to reservations b/c the story is not yet over.

Thank you. You're right, the story isn't over, and it is too early to celebrate. I do have hope though, because I just heard of another boy with the exact same symptoms treated by homeopathy. He is now 10 years old, of normal size and weight, and healthy. Fingers crossed!

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:06 PM

Fingers crossed for your son - me too. (Weird, that's another old ritual ...)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
most of the methods and knowledge that go into modern medicine are younger than homeopathy.
Younger doesn't mean less. Standard medicine is better financed, better funded for research, and better published by far.

True, but this brings up another point, there's no reason why homeopaths can't do a study like the one you suggested, it doesn't seem like it would be particularly expensive.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo. That response doesn't make sense.

As Fred says, and as we've been through on another thread - evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of anything. By definition. The origin of the universe and of life is a whole different puzzle than how organisms change over time to fit their environment.

As for homeopathy, I can't even begin to have the mental facilities to sort out that paper now. But I'm willing to give homeopathy a chance - not based on the amazing powers of extremely dilute something or another (that's all I was able to get out of it for the moment) but because of the power of the human mind. Placebo can do wonders. Focusing your brain's attention can do wonders.

For example, I've done reiki, and been amazed. Is it the powers of the universe focused through another person's hands, or is it my own mind being encouraged to focus on my body? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. It works, it makes me feel good, and I don't need to mess with it.

If it's working for your son - Yay! (Really -

!!! That's wonderful.) Go with it, I say.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
since 'placebos' seem to be very hard to make in homeopathy, I would suggest subjects be given a non-related homeopathic solution.

Oh no. Homeopathic solutions look like water, taste like water. Period. It would be VERY easy to make a placebo. Give them water without the remedy. The remedies themselves are sugar globules with the active ingredient diluted in them. It would also be very easy to make sugar globules without the homeopathic ingredient. Then you'd have literal placebos.

Giving them a different homeopathic solution isn't a good idea. A incorrectly prescribed homeopathic remedy can cause transient symptoms. It can make things worse.

I once unknowingly gave my daughter my remedy by mistake. All of a sudden, she collapse to the floor and said, "Mom, I can't walk!" She became too weak to get up off the floor and lay there for about 1.5 hours. Then she retuned to normal. My remedy included my past history of Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome and inability to walk due to severe weakness. Given to her, it caused the same symptoms. When I went to the remedy bottles again, I realized I had grabbed the wrong bottle for her. Fortunately, I've never heard of these "aggravations" being anything more than very transient.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:17 PM

You're right about succussion - my mistake. But since it is serial dilution that's been shown to produce small amounts of water structure - not succussion - perhaps serial dilution is the more relevant process.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:uX8YRxJeQ8gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Homeopathy+ Succussion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo." I realize GIGO but I've come to appreciate the power of meta-analysis in finding trends.

Another thing that was pointed out here is that homeopathy has been tried on animals (with poor results). Duh to me. If you're going to try to rule out the placebo effect double-blind studies on animals is the way to go.

"It would be VERY easy to make a placebo." Since homeopathy works by creating very dilute solutions, it would be hard to get an 'uncontaminated' one. That's what I was referring to. So maybe the process would be to control the contamination. (B/c my work involves measuring and creating ppb and pptrillion solutions, I have concrete experience in how tough it is to make a 'blank'.)

***************************************************************
In any case, at this point it still comes down to voodoo. Without those extensive double blind animal studies, and looking at existing meta-analysis, the trend is showing a placebo effect. The proposed mode of action (dilution according to Rustum Roy) doesn't match up with the practice, and it's also self-contradicted by internal biology. This god appears to me to be a minor one and not worthy of much tribute.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've come to appreciate the power of meta-analysis in finding trends.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697022939/
fulltext
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic."

Not that I am a big fan of silly medical statistics like odds ratios, but if you want to compare apples to apples, there it is.

There is another meta-analysis:
Kleijnen, J., P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy," British Medical Journal, 302:316-323 (1991).

The BMJ website appears to be down, so I can't get a link.

Both studies make the point that the body of existing literature suggests homeopathic effects exceed those of placebo. Maybe not by much, but enough that it is not fair to dismiss it as mere placebo. It deserves more research.

Quote:
Another thing that was pointed out here is that homeopathy has been tried on animals (with poor results). Duh to me. If you're going to try to rule out the placebo effect double-blind studies on animals is the way to go.

There have been successful studies on animals. Can't do it now, but I'll find you a reference or two later.

Quote:
it would be hard to get an 'uncontaminated' one.

You're not getting it, Rue. Homeopathic remedies are not regular dilutions. The KEY to remedies is not dilutions, but succussions. Succussion doesn't happen in nature. It is unique to homeopathic preparation.

Hahnemann initially tried to dilute active ingredients to minimize side effects. He found that the more he diluted, the less active or "potent" it was. No surprise there. Then he stumbled upon the key to homeopathy. He found that if he banged the solution as he diluted it, the succusions retains the potency of the active ingredient, while the dilution got rid of the side effects. Without succussing while diluting, a solution has no potency. It's just contaminated water, which is easily used as a placebo.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:00 PM

LOL, Rue, the homeophobe.....

Some of my best friends are dilutions Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:31 PM

Sigh, CTS haven't we been through this before with the polio vaccine ? Where you deliberately find the weak and unsupported studies and skip past the good ones ? Just b/c you 'like' them better ?

Here is the one you avoided posting ...

BACKGROUND: Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias. METHODS: Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models. FINDINGS: 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0.58 (0.39-0.85) for conventional medicine (six trials). INTERPRETATION: Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

***************************************************************
At this point you're pissing me off. I hate people who lie and mislead.

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:35 PM

And to separate this point out form the previous '

"The KEY to remedies is not dilutions, but succussions."

Is that what Roy found ? No, he found the opposite. So should I skip your entire first post as being irrelevant to your own argument ? You tell me.

***************************************************************
Logic is sometimes more useful when it's bent and twisted, isn't it ?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects

But, I mean, isn't a placebo effect a good thing?
If the mind believes the body is getting better, it releases endorphins, produces more white blood and T-cells, allows greater and freer blood flow...

Chrisisall, who believes his pizza cures colds

KIRKULES

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey- if it works do we really have to know HOW it does?

I'll join ya in the Homeopathic Pride Parade....

Homeostasis Chrisisall

I use a homeopathic ointment for shoulder pain sometimes but I wouldn't admit it in public. Does that make me a closet Homeopath?

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:42 PM

Hi Chris,IsAll

I'll go with anything that works. But I wouldn't bet my life on a placebo effect.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi Chris,IsAll

I'll go with anything that works. But I wouldn't bet my life on a placebo effect.

Yeah, it's not so effective with strokes or major lacerations...

A man's got to know his limits Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is that what Roy found ?

Roy wasn't making homeopathic remedies, so he didn't use the key to homeopathic remedies.

Quote:
Where you deliberately find the weak and unsupported studies and skip past the good ones ?

Yes, we've been through this.

Studies often report findings equivocally. They find a result, and then they have to decide how to interpret them. Usually, they interpret in the mainstream (helps them get published, so I don't blame them). What I do is I look for FACTS that support my positions. I overlook their pro-mainstream interpretations, cause, well, that's what they are going to do. Just because they decide one thing or another doesn't make my FACT untrue.

What is the main finding of this study? The FACT that the overall odds ratio exceeds that of placebo. Were there other FACTS in the study? Sure, but I am not going to quote them since they are irrelevant to the point I am making which is: this meta-analysis found that the effects of homeopathy exceeded those of placebo, and the field deserves more research.

Now you can quote all the other findings and rhetoric you want, but I am not at fault that they are irrelevant to the point *I* was making.

BTW, I don't see YOU quoting studies that make MY points for me either.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:57 PM

"Roy wasn't making homeopathic remedies, so he didn't use the key to homeopathic remedies." In other words, your first post was completely irrelevant. Good. Got it.

MY god CTS, you'd say black is white if you wanted to believe it. Here's the conclusion from the BEST meta-analysis available - read it carefully:

This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:26 PM

And you get to decide which is the BEST meta-analysis, do you? I offered a different finding. I didn't lie. Take it or leave it.

Now about Roy and succussions. I must admit, I responded rather hastily. Here is a better thought out response.

Roy's paper is concerned about the plausibility of remedies being different from "normal" water. He asserts: 1) the structure of water can be changed regardless of the content of the water, 2) the structure of solvents can be imprinted with the solute through epitaxy under pressure, and 3) the structure of water can plausibly be altered with succussions acting as pressure.

Quote:
There is no doubt that under the “normal” succussing procedures, very respectable pressures (say in the 10 kbar range) can be generated on the different size water droplets which result from the shaking. Reasoning from analogy with such similar liquids, there will, no doubt, be many different structures of water formed both by the pressures generated in succussing and in some combination with the epitaxy on any additives...

There is no question of the plausibility of pressure induced changes during succusion. Such changes are well known in solid H2O, and Kawamoto has shown at least one phase boundary in liquid water at modest pressures [22]. Likewise the plausibility of nanobubble formation is obvious. The question is whether they can survive.

So, in summary, he DID take succusions into consideration and DID use it as the basis for his argument for changing the structure of water. Water structure doesn't change simply from getting a solute or being diluted.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
At this point you're pissing me off. I hate people who lie and mislead.

Well, then it is time for our conversation to end. Good day.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, it's not so effective with strokes or major lacerations...

You might be surprised.

There is a book called "Impossible Cure" by Amy Lansky, PhD. She is a Stanford educated computer scientist whose son's autism was cured with homeopathy. She was so impressed she left her Silicon Valley job and became a homeopath. (And wrote her book.)

One of the last chapters of her books details story after story of homeopathic cures. Stuff I didn't know was possible was in there. Severe hemorrhage from a rupture ectopic pregnancy, a serious heart attack, fingers that appeared to be fractured, kidney failure, ejection of a 4 lb cancerous tumor, HIV positive to HIV negative, severe arsenic poisoning, even a piece of embedded glass... the list goes on.

The problem with homeopathy and serious emergency conditions is this. The tools of homeopathy are incredible, but very few people know how to use them. There are over 1000 remedies produced by pharmacies. If you pick the wrong one, it won't do a thing--might even make things worse. If you are in a hurry and don't know what you're doing, you might die before finding the right remedy.

But if you do know what you're doing, it's pretty amazing.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:04 PM

"And you get to decide which is the BEST meta-analysis, do you?"
No. I took the word of statisticians. And you ?

"I offered a different finding. I didn't lie. Take it or leave it."
Yeah, that's the true scientific spirit. Always ready for new, more accurate data.

"There is no doubt that under the “normal” succussing procedures, very respectable pressures (say in the 10 kbar range) ..."
So, this was in your first post ? Nah. I can still safely ignore it right ? Just as I thought.

"Reasoning from analogy ... plausibility of pressure induced changes ... the plausibility of nanobubble formation " and the piece de resistance - "The question is whether they can survive." So he goes from plausible to definite in one unstated gap, and from definite to debating the properties. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? It's like that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 21, 2007 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You might be surprised.

There's still room in my 'verse for that...
My Wife had some bad neck pain, and a guy put some tiny needles into her back and neck and temple and stuff and it magically went away- can traditional medical science explain chakra points?

Open-minded Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 21, 2007 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
can traditional medical science explain chakra points?

Actually, an orthopedic surgeon named Robert Becker did some very interesting research on that. He measured electrical fields in the human body and found that they corresponded very closely to acupuncture meridians. He hypothesized that the mechanism behind acupuncture may actually be electromagnetic.

He did a lot of research on how tiny nanocurrents can trigger regeneration in non-regenerative animals, including frogs and rats. So you don't need a lot of electromagnetic influence to effect significant changes in biological systems.

The electromagnetic aspect of the human body is one that very few researchers have addressed. I think it is the future of medicine myself. In fact, I speculate that homeopathic remedies work electromagnetically as well based on what I've read.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 21, 2007 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

The electromagnetic aspect of the human body is one that very few researchers have addressed. I think it is the future of medicine myself. In fact, I speculate that homeopathic remedies work electromagnetically as well based on what I've read.

Do you have an AMA article to back up that belief?

Remember: it's not real until someone who gets paid to regurgitate a $100,000 medical education says so.

Medical anarchist Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 21, 2007 4:18 PM

Becker's articles are here.

Am J Chin Med 1979 Summer;7(2):188-93. Laplace plane analysis of impedance on the H meridian.
Reichmanis M, Marino AA, Becker RO.

Comp Med East West 1978 Spring;6(1):67-73. Physiological effects of stimulation at acupuncture loci: a review. Reichmanis M, Becker RO.

Not JAMA, but I just did a quick search in PubMed and found 111 articles on this topic in the last 50 years. So Becker has a tiny amount of corroboration.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Link&LinkName=p
ubmed_pubmed&from_uid=710080

But since these aren't AMA publications, obviously they don't count.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky, M.D.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:17 PM

One interesting thing about acupuncture - it's been tried on animals. Another interesting thing - experiments have been done on 'real' v 'sham' acupuncture - where the needles are inserted any old place - and they are equally effective - which is neither is 100%, but each partly works. So while there is evidence it works to some extent, there's evidence that it doesn't work the way people say it does.

***************************************************************
Reality-based Rue,isall.

RUE

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:26 PM

And again I need to point out that CTS has managed to portray me as some anti-alternative medical Nazi. Shame on anyone for believing that crap.

What I DON'T believe is the complete line that CTS posts and that people eat up despite obvious fraud in her arguments.

So CTS , congratulations. You've managed to turn yourself into a innocent martyr one more time. At my and reality's expense, I might add. I have concern for your children b/c they are TRULY innocent and at risk of being REAL victims. But as for you, at this point I have no concern at all. I truly hope your crackpot ideas and dishonest ways get you everything you deserve.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So CTS , congratulations. You've managed to turn yourself into a innocent martyr one more time. At my and reality's expense, I might add. I have concern for your children b/c they are TRULY innocent and at risk of being REAL victims. But as for you, at this point I have no concern at all. I truly hope your crackpot ideas and dishonest ways get you everything you deserve.

My mouth is agape.

Rue, you often make good points, and I am interested in talking with you. However, everytime I do, you end up hurling venemous invectives at me that you pull OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS.

I refused to respond to you for a time, but since you hadn't been nasty in a while, I decided to give you another chance. And here you are, accusing me of fraud and lies and dishonesty. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I have tried, and tried, and tried to be civil to you. But this is it. You don't fucking deserve it. I am through talking to you.
--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:53 PM

AWESOME !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:07 PM

Now that I'm free to examine the information without dealing with CTS

http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
"What I find weakens the argument is the disregard for the effect on so-called structured water due to the biological system it encounters." Now apparently this was posted to demonstrate some kind of point about homeopathic 'medicines'. But the succussion so (apparently) necessary for a good preparation wasn't mentioned at all. When challenged on this point reference to this article was dropped in favor of some other article(s) written by the same person (Roy) with a different argument. The other articles, as cited, were in serious error - b/c assumptions were confused with facts. The points of the originally posted article never surfaced again. Ultimately, the argument was diverted away from this question, and so it went unanswered.

This was CTS's take on this paper http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/benveniste01.pdf : "Benveniste reported that in his four double-blind experiments, IgE antibodies, diluted and succussed up to 10 to the 120th, were able to degranulate human basophils. In fact, he found that as the dilution increased, the more degranulation took place." Aside from the fact that the paper is from 1988, further papers report the difficulty of deciding if basophils have degranulated or merely decolorized (which happens easily). And as noted in the next paper CTS cited, many results are inconclusive.

The next cited paper from 2006 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/3/1/13 in fact made that point several times, moved the goal posts (not looking for overall degranulation per se, just an increased variability in granulation), and in the end could not come up with a positive conclusion. Here is the exact quote: "In the future, if reliable and reproducible models for analyzing the effects of homeopathic dilutions are established, it will be possible to deepen our knowledge of the biological and physical bases of the phenomenon, evaluate the drug stability over time, identify any causes of decay, and standardize preparations by comparing activity of different sources and dilutions of raw materials." It reminds me a lot of cold fusion. Results are inconsistent, incomplete and weak. After nearly 20 years there should be more to show for it.

Now in answer to my challenge a fallacious argument was made (b/c you don't know how the universe started you can't discuss evolution). When I pointed out the illogic I was accused of being "too literal"; and further accused of being "nitpicky" when I posted the problems with the amended argument. Apparently one is required to address every argument CTS makes with complete disregard for logic, evidence and applicability.

I posted my reference (link and quote)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:uX8YRxJeQ8gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Homeopathy+ Succussion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo." Which CTS chose to interpret as the exact opposite: "What is the main finding of this study? The FACT that the overall odds ratio exceeds that of placebo. Were there other FACTS in the study? Sure, but I am not going to quote them since they are irrelevant to the point I am making ..." In other words CTS lied, plain and simple about the conclusions of the study. Now when I had the temerity to describe it as the best meta-analysis available CTS accused me (essentially) of being arrogant for calling it such. In FACT, I took the statistician's word for it. (Something CTS would have found had she bothered to read the paper.)

What I see is a pattern of skewed sources, red-herrings, misrepresentation of the papers, personal attacks for posting contrary information, flat-out lying about a study's conclusion (not a good idea when the link is posted), and other odd and sundry misdeeds.

If one has to do that to make an argument, I propos

SIGNYM

Friday, December 21, 2007 8:37 PM

I tried looking at independent sources for the whole "water memory" controversy. The first source that I came across was good ole Wikipedia, which had this to say (in brief):

.........................

The most prominent advocate of this idea was the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste... The team diluted a solution of human antibodies to such a degree that there was no likelihood that a single molecule remained, but when human basophils were exposed to the solution they responded by releasing a chemical substance as they would have if they had encountered the original antibody (part of the allergic reaction). The effect only worked when the solution was shaken violently...

{Another} team traveled to Benveniste's lab and the experiments were re-run. In the first series the original experimental procedure was carried out as it had been when the paper was first submitted for publication. The experiments were successful, matching the published data quite closely. {But when the trials were} double-blinded... Although everyone was confident that the outcome would be the same.. the effect immediately disappeared.

Benveniste {later}... claim{ed} the effect could be transmitted over phone lines... An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the US Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several "positive" results were noted, however, but only when a particular one of Benveniste's researchers was running the equipment. ...

Third party attempts at replication have generally produced mixed results. Nature published a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find any effect in 1993, as was the result of an independent study published in Experientia in 1992. A major multi-lab effort directed from France reported marginal-but-positive results. Following up on this experiment, an international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed to have succeeded. Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis' experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with the Horizon team failing to prove the memory of water.

.......................

This is, indeed very much like "cold fusion".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:25 PM

Don't know about homeopathic treatments, but I just burnt my finger on the oven taking out the Turkey. Rubbing a leaf broken off my Aloe Vera plant is the first 'cure' that has actually worked for me for burns.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is, indeed very much like "cold fusion".

Yes, it is, isn't it? Food for thought.

While I am posting, I just want to say something in my defense. As far as I am concerned, Rue is a troll. If anyone really cares to follow the arguments in this thread, one will see that there was no paper switching or misrepresentation or any such thing. Just because he accuses doesn't mean it's true. I quoted from the link Rue provided for Roy's paper. When he said meta-analysis showed no effect beyond placebo, I found him a paper that had different findings. That's it.

(Signy, you know Rue in real life. Does he have an evil troll twin that comes out once in a while and spits paranoid nastiness at people he has chosen to hate? Never mind, don't answer that.)

I hate to have to stoop to defending myself from a troll, but I know no one is gonna take the time to actually read through all that technicality and nastiness. So here it is: I didn't lie, I didn't switch papers, I didn't misrepresent anything. You guys know me. You know I don't do that.

I don't even necessarily support Roy's arguments. My physical chemist husband didn't read the paper, but from my summaries he thought it was very flawed.

But whether Roy is right or not, it doesn't matter. Maybe he didn't figure out how succussions cause water to become "potentized." However, I am glad he is open-minded enough to try to imagine it. Isn't that what science is about? Exploring possibilities that could explain anomalies, instead of simply dismissing something as categorically impossible?

I don't even care if anyone uses homeopathy or not. Not trying to make converts. Just wanted to start a thread that was interesting to me.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Monday, December 24, 2007 4:00 AM

Poor CTS

Snark, misrepresentations, red-herrings, and lies ... and you've been 'nothing but civil' while I've been the troll.

Poor baby.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

MAL4PREZ

Monday, December 24, 2007 4:09 AM

CTS, I think I'm actually more on Rue's side of the debate, but, as often happens, I'm shocked by how she (I think she) turned this thread into something personal and insulting and accusatory. You have my sympathies. You don't deserve that, not at all.

But I don't think Rue is a troll. I think, from past experience, that she's overly defensive and can't debate without being hostile and mounting an attack at a petty and rather pathetic level. Really, I'd like to see her write an actual rebuttal to a scientific paper in the tone she uses here - oh, wait, that wouldn't happen, because the editors of any real journal would throw her rants in the garbage and stick to reasoned, dispassionate arguments.

Rue:

Quote:
And again I need to point out that CTS has managed to portray me as some anti-alternative medical Nazi.

No, that was all your own doing. Go back and read your posts, dear. What would you think of you?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

FREDGIBLET

Monday, December 24, 2007 7:01 AM

Mal, I agree completely.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 24, 2007 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But I don't think Rue is a troll. I think, from past experience, that she's overly defensive]

Well, Rue is not a regular troll. But I think he has an evil troll twin....

Mal4Prez and FredG, thank you for comments. I tend to be sensitive to certain types of accusations (such as fraud). Rue knows this and likes to push those buttons. It is reassuring to me that you guys are smarter than to believe accusations just because someone says so.

BTW, Rue is a "he." Signy knows him in real life, and he has corroborated Rue's claim to be a guy.

My husband says that Roy's arguments don't hold water. (Hehe) That's ok. I still use homeopathy for me and my family (and friends who ask me) because they work. I don't much care if it is a placebo effect. If you had a way to get the placebo effect on command, wouldn't you use it?

Finally, I just want to say that I absolutely don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me on this debate, or any debate. I am a divergent thinker; I like opposing points of view. I learn from them. That's why I come here.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CITIZEN

Monday, December 24, 2007 1:46 PM

I've never heard of this water memory thing, or how it relates to homeopathy. My understanding of homeopathy has always been more natural remidies, the aforementioned aloe vera plant for burns (I've never really tried westernised medicine burn treatments, but the Aloe Vera worked a treat, it was like it never happened a few minutes after application). I've taken Arsen-Alba (containing arsenic) for sore throats and so on.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 24, 2007 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Aloe Vera worked a treat, it was like it never happened a few minutes after application). I've taken Arsen-Alba (containing arsenic) for sore throats and so on.

Aloe Vera is a naturopathic treatment, not homeopathic. Naturopathy uses herbal and natural resources to help the body *fight* ailments. But I'm glad it helps!

Homeopathy takes herbal and natural resources, dilutes them in water until there isn't enough solute to be bioactive, then administers the solution to *cause* symptoms. For example, Arsen-Alba is made of arsenic diluted to negligible amounts. If given to a healthy person, arsenic actually causes sore throats (among other things). What Hahnemann found was that if arsenic is given to people with sore throats, it somehow motivates or triggers the body to cure itself. It works (in theory) by the principle of "Like cures like" (wherefore the name). By causing the same symptoms the body is already experiencing, the body swings itself back into homeostasis.

I use whatever works, sometimes naturopathic, sometimes homeopathic, and sometimes Benadryl. But for chronic "incurable" conditions, I use homeopathy.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CITIZEN

Monday, December 24, 2007 3:35 PM

Ok, but the homeopathic remidies I've taken weren't solvents, they were pills. You weren't even supposed to take them with water. Though I thought Arsenic had medicinal properties, it's just it's been mostly superceeded by less toxic substances?

Does this water memory thing show real divergence from the placebo effect?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, December 24, 2007 4:44 PM

CTS: The articles that you cite about "water memory" wobble back and forth between whether succussion or vigorous shaking are necessary or not. It seems that even the backers of this particular theory can't agree on what it is. And is there a proposed mechanism for "like cures like"? There seems to be precious little data OR theory behind homeopathy.

I know you choose to disregard lack of theoretical foundation in favor of your personal belief/ observation that it "works for you and your family". My own opinion is that 80% of everything goes away on its own, with or without homeopathy, and you're prolly seeing the placebo effect. I'm not sure that you will be able to tell when homeopathy is NOT working and take appropriate steps for your children. I think that's Rue's deepest concern, which I share.

But in any case I think Rue's posts are overboard.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, December 24, 2007 6:19 PM

Whoa. Rue's a boy? When did that happen? Does he intentionally try to pass as female here, because I was SO sure...

Anyhow, I just had a short visit to wikipedia. I didn't realize the homeopathy was all about the diluted stuff - I thought it included any kind of "non-medical" cure, like herbals and magnets and such. So there's something I learned!

CTS - again, I don't see any scientific results showing that it works, but I figure but every new discovery is doubted, and scientists don't know everything. As long as folks using homeopathy don't ignore other treatment options - like religious nuts who let their kids die rather than get an operation - I have no problem with it.

That's about as helpful as I can be. I don't have the mental powers to read through all this stuff with dilution and shaking, etc. I'm on vacation LOL!

Merry Christmas all... Even Mr. Rue!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 24, 2007 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: The articles that you cite about "water memory" wobble back and forth between whether succussion or vigorous shaking are necessary or not. It seems that even the backers of this particular theory can't agree on what it is.

Well, this one backer (Roy) can't decide what it is. Either that or we are misunderstanding his paper (which I must admit, is a bit over my head). I'm sending a copy of the paper to my husband so he can explain it to me, but he won't get a chance to read it til later.

Quote:
And is there a proposed mechanism for "like cures like"? There seems to be precious little data OR theory behind homeopathy.

There is plenty of empirical data. In fact, homeopathy is the most evidence-based medicine I've seen. All remedies are tested on human subjects (using both test remedies and placebos), who meticulously write down what symptoms the remedies cause. These tests are called provings. Then the remedies are tested in persons who have similar symptoms to see if they work. Then volumes upon volumes are written about patterns of symptoms based on these empirical observations. And volumes and volumes are written on the philosophical underpinnings (theory) of these patterns. I have just begun to study this and am overwhelmed with the amount of information.

Now very little of this empirical data meets the rigors of scientific research. For example, in provings, they usually have only one placebo subject for every 6 subjects receiving the real thing. But it still provides a lot of empirical data, upon which remedies are prescribed. It is adequate for its purposes, but I would very much like to see more systematic controls. I realize good science is hard to come by in human subjects, but if it can be done in any medical field, I believe it is homeopathy (extremely low risk of side effects).

Quote:
you're prolly seeing the placebo effect.

And as I keep saying, if this system allows me to summon the placebo effect at will, what's wrong with it? My kid is eating most foods and growing without hardly any symptoms. I haven't had a gallbladder attack in over 15 months. My friend's urinary tract infection disappeared after 2 doses and hasn't come back. Who cares if it is placebo or not, right? (I think doctors pooh-pooh placebo, an all natural cure with no side effects, because they can't make any money off of it.)

My daughter and son both had pleurisy 2 weeks ago. My son didn't get any homeopathic treatment (we were out of town), and my daughter did. My son's lasted about 24 hours, my daughter 12 hours. My son's attacks lasted 30-40 minutes. My daughter's lasted about 1 minute--cut abruptly short whenever I gave her a dose of remedy. True, they both recovered on their own after a day, but she was in a lot less pain than he was.

Quote:
I'm not sure that you will be able to tell when homeopathy is NOT working and take appropriate steps for your children.

Well, I use the same standards as everyone else. If I take the remedy, and nothing happens, it isn't working. That's happened plenty of times. Sometimes I needed to make the remedy stronger. Sometimes I needed to change remedies. And sometimes, I needed to switch to Tylenol.

C'mon Sig. Give me some credit.

Happy holidays. And thanks for never bashing me on the head, even if you felt like it.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 24, 2007 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Does this water memory thing show real divergence from the placebo effect?

By most standards, no. There is very, very little good science showing a consistent effect. Most of the research find no effects above placebo. However, there is a severe funding and publication bias against homeopathy, so some of the lack of evidence isn't from lack of effect.

However anecdotally, we have a lot of documentation of cures when the right remedy is used. It is just hard to find the right one. The remedies that are close can provide improvement, even significant improvement, but won't cure.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

RUE

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:11 AM

Link to original paper here
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
What I find weakens the argument is the disregard for the effect on so-called structured water due to the biological system it encounters. If ppm solutions can display structures, how much more of an effect on water will the biological system have ? Sorry, but without that explanation, it comes down to voodoo. Supposedly the homeopathic voodoo of a small sample is far stronger than the much larger and far more concentrated biological voodoo it encounters.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Fingers crossed for your son - me too. (Weird, that's another old ritual ...)

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

You're right about succussion - my mistake. But since it is serial dilution that's been shown to produce small amounts of water structure - not succussion - perhaps serial dilution is the more relevant process.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:uX8YRxJeQ8gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Homeopathy+ Succussion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo." I realize GIGO but I've come to appreciate the power of meta-analysis in finding trends.

Another thing that was pointed out here is that homeopathy has been tried on animals (with poor results). Duh to me. If you're going to try to rule out the placebo effect double-blind studies on animals is the way to go.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

CTS: "It would be VERY easy to make a placebo." Since homeopathy works by creating very dilute solutions, it would be hard to get an 'uncontaminated' one. That's what I was referring to. So maybe the process would be to control the contamination. (B/c my work involves measuring and creating ppb and pptrillion solutions, I have concrete experience in how tough it is to make a 'blank'.)

***************************************************************
In any case, at this point it still comes down to voodoo. Without those extensive double blind animal studies, and looking at existing meta-analysis, the trend is showing a placebo effect. The proposed mode of action (dilution according to Rustum Roy) doesn't match up with the practice, and it's also self-contradicted by internal biology. This god appears to me to be a minor one and not worthy of much tribute.

Nah.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

CTS: "For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo."

This is like saying just b/c we don't know how nuclear materials 'decide' to decay we can't understand how an IC engine works.

In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Just looking for logic in the argument and finding it .... gone.

But to get to your example, it still doesn't hold up, even as amended. B/c while there is no evidence to date for 'how' life happened, there's all sorts of evidence for 'how' evolution did.

In the specific instance of homeopathy, there is very little evidence 'that' it works at all, from independent double-blind controlled studies. I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a lot more

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The articles that you cite about "water memory" wobble back and forth between whether succussion or vigorous shaking are necessary or not.

It was just one article, the one by Rustum Roy--the topic of this post. My husband finally reviewed it, and he said, yes, it does wobble back and forth. (This would explain why Rue is so insistent that water structure changes result from serial dilutions only and do not require succussions, even though I repeated told him that they do.) This is what my husband (the physical chemist) said.

He said it sounds like the incoherent ramblings of an extremely senile scientist--probably with some level of Alzheimer's would be his guess. There are parts of the paper that demonstrate expert knowledge in glass and ceramics, but it is all strung together incoherently with the structure of water. (What has glass got to do with water structure? By Roy's account in some parts of the paper, water structure changes simply from touching glass!) Roy uses a lot of technical terms incorrectly, such as talking about an instrument to analyze water, when it only analyzes solids. Sometimes Roy just speaks complete nonsense, such as making a distinction between H2O and OH2 (huh?). My husband said Star Trek technobabble has more scientific integrity than this paper. He said he doesn't say that to make fun of Roy, because the man is obviously seriously ill. Roy's former competence as a scientist can be seen in the parts that do make sense, but the man must be 90 years old (60 teaching at Penn State) and has just lost it.

Then he said, "Make sure you don't use this paper to support homeopathy, cause it will only hurt homeopathy's credibility."

Oops. Too late.

I only posted the Guardian article cause I found it interesting. Moral of the story, always read the original paper.

Anyway, uh... disregard everything Roy said. My apologies to the board.

For the record: according to both homeopathic theory and practice, succussions are what distinguish an ultradiluted homeopathic solution from contaminated water. Succussions are required to make a homeopathic remedy. All other ultradilutions, without succussions, are not considered by homeopaths to be remedies or capable of bioactivity.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:03 AM

Peeps! Play nice!

Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Peeps! Play nice!

I promise I will never fight with Rue ever again.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:18 PM

I just posted my husband's review of Roy's paper on my homeopathy discussion list. The response was to the effect that he/we must be ignorant of homeopathy principles, he/we must be pro-establishment and closed minded, and this poor review is reflective of our poor view of homeopathy.

This is interesting to me, because I find the same reaction when I criticize bad science used to "prove" vaccine injuries in the anti-vaccination community. I must do so because I am steeped in the establishment and ignorant of vaccine dangers.

I just had to share that here because you guys know how steeped in the establishment I am. Hee hee.

Nobody wants me at his/her lunch table, it seems. Is this because of my positions, or is it because I'm an ass? (Some people need not answer this question.)

--------------------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
-- Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:14 PM

It's because you're driven by something other than repeatable impersonal observation, which is a self-reinforcing belief in a particular mode of treatment.

Did you every hear about the superstitious pigeons? They were trained into it through a system of random rewards. Let's say hungry pigeon "A" was circling counterclockwise when several tasty food pellets drop out of a chute. So pigeon A goes on to circle counterclocwise more often, and more pellets drop out. Now pigeon A now spends nearly all the time circling counterclockwise, and in the midst of this circling stops to peck at the cage and... Viola! More food! So now pigeon A spends an inordinate amount of time circling and pecking while food randomly drops out of the chute. After a particularly long interval w/o food pigeon A forgets its little ritual momentarily and flaps its wings and... HEY! MORE FOOD! So now it goes back to cirlcing, pecking, and flapping its wings...

Here's the point.

Animals... and that includes people... learn best through somehwat inconsistent reward. Dopamine is that little "rush" that you get when you discover something.... A way to get food, or the solution to a tough math equation. Once it becomes routine then dopamine stops being released. (Recall that dopamine is the "addiction" neurotransmitter.) So dopamine is important to the learning process. The problem is, it can be triggered by phantom patterns.... random acts that don't mean anything. That's why people get hooked on gambling. And if you've come to associate a particular belief with dopamine, which is very rewarding, then you'll want to protect that belief. So the next reward is to develop ways to defend that belief, and as you discover ways to defend that belief you're rewarded again.

That's how people... even whole societies... can develop ultimately painful and self-destructive delusions, such as sacrificing children to the rain gods.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:29 PM

Nobody likes to have their core beliefs questioned.

Believe me, I feel ya - since I get flamed by leftwingnuts just as often as rightwingnuts, mostly for poking holes in their bubbles.

Thing is, evidence or no, past a certain point, that's peoples Faith you are messing with, and if you've even gone toe to toe with a pack of radical fundamentalist christians in the deep south, you know just how dangerous a thing that can be.
(I was on-site for the second exchange of gunfire at LL coven in Florida down in 1990, just so you know.)

So yes, you're gonna get flamed by folks unable to challenge their own preconceptions, ain't no avoiding that, and when it comes to the issue of alternative medicine versus big pharma, operating on common sense and logic isn't gonna get you far, cause on the one end you got folk who somehow still trust "evidence" from the folks who gave us Excitotoxins, Thaliomide, Gardasil, Thimerosal and numerous other poisons packaged and advertised as miracle cures.. how anyone would trust em at this point is beyond me.

And yet on the other end you have tons of obfuscation, no proper studies cause the first group blocks it at every chance to protect their profits, lack of investment because of absurd risks caused by overlegislation, an abundance of snake oil salesmen shovelling faery tales, and little empirical evidence that doesn't come from risking your own health to get it.

And most especially, neither side ever wants to admit a screwup, or having placed their Faith in those unworthy of it, and so the closer you get to that maybe becoming an issue, the more rabid they get about it.

That goes for other issues too, mind, not just this one, and is why, past a certain point, I just don't bother discussin it cause it'll just piss em off and won't accomplish nothin.

When you start pokin holes in the Faith of a "True Believer" on EITHER side of this, CTS, the flamethrowers are gonna come out, cause at the very root of it, this has jack shit to do with evidence, and everything to do with Faith.

It's like showing a husband video of his wife cheatin on him.. he's not gonna thank you for it, he's gonna HATE you for it, if not actually blame you and call the tape a fake.

It's the same principle all around, you see ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:52 PM

Frem, you're a wise wise man. At least what you are describing makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

I was thinking something very similar. It feels like I am talking to fundies, on both sides. (I was excommunicated by Xtian evangelicals in the deep south, so I got a feel for it too.)

(And I know, this doesn't mean I'm *not* an ass. )

--------------------------
"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except when they're writing on a subject I know something about."
-- Keith F. Lynch

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's because you're driven by something other than repeatable impersonal observation, which is a self-reinforcing belief in a particular mode of treatment.

People don't want to eat lunch with me because *I* am driven to confirm my own biases? I can understand that this is why *you* don't want me at your lunch table. However, if this is true, those with the same biases as mine would want me at *their* lunch table, right? But they don't.

I am the first to admit that I have confirmation bias (the tendency to look for evidence that supports my biases). Hell, this thread is proof of it. But if I remember my psychology correctly, everyone has confirmation bias. How come, then, I am the only one without lunch table buddies?

BTW, the pigeon superstition thing happened with the Vietnamese and cargo planes. They built shrines to cargo planes and engaged in rituals that they happened to be doing before the first food got dropped from the sky. It is kind of funny.

--------------------------
"So tell me, just how long have you had this feeling that no one is watching you?"
-- Christopher Locke, Entropy Gradient Reversals

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 6:15 PM

Kinda like the "cargo cults" of the Pacific Islands.

But hey, I don't mind being your lunch buddy if you don't mind me! Just tell me when my claws are too far out. Sometimes I just need a swat on the nose.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:27 PM

Yeah, cargo cults. That is what I meant.

And thanks for being willing to eat lunch with me.

--------------------------
"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service, which failed to start because of the following error: The operation completed successfully."
-- Windows NT Server v3.51

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:43 PM

Well, yer always welcome at the OKASA* table with me, Jack, and whomever else is currently sitting with us for the moment, I'm sure you'll fit riiiight in.

-Frem

*"Obnoxious Kool-Aid Spitting Assholes"

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*"Obnoxious Kool-Aid Spitting Assholes"

OOoooohh, yeah. That's me!

--------------------------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:13 PM

Hey Sig, I think you'd like this article on Cargo Cult Science, a talk given by Richard Feynman to Cal Tech graduates. I love it.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

It is about superstition, confirmation bias, and scientific integrity.

--------------------------
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
-- Source unknown