Homeopathy

[CoralieKoonce]

Here's more of the exchange between Darrel and Coralie:
Darrel: If you are
going to have a group of critical thinking leaders/teachers, [a projected tv program]
there is going to be a conflict with those who espouse
belief in pseudo-science which includes most of (but not all
of) alternative medicine.

Coralie: I agree with Lynda that not all conflict is bad, unless it becomes the focus of the discussion and takes up too much of the energy. We could just agree to disagree and go on to the next topic.
I don't like the phrase "espouse belief" re pseudo-science which for you includes most of alternative medicine. I would prefer the phrase "open to evidence." Even the NIH is engaged in testing some of these therapies.
I am quite skeptical of the New Agey sort shown in the Dawkins film.

Darrel: In fact my homeopathy presentation
was carefully tuned to be as polite as possible for you
since I know you have beliefs about this. But one can only
put so much sugar on the medicine. Homeopathy is pure pseudo
science by any normative meaning of the words

Coralie: I wonder how you know that I have beliefs about homeopathy. I'm not a strong defender and haven't really studied up on it. Certainly the historical genesis of homeopathic beliefs that you presented, and the more mystical-sounding reasons given by some practitioners about how it is supposed to work, all sound absurd today. But there is still a possibility that it could work, under some circumstances, even if those who 'believe' in it don't know what they're talking about. That is why the NIH is testing it, with mixed results so far.
Perhaps some formulations work and not others. Perhaps it works for some of the conditions it's intended for and not others. I found that one particular formulation worked for me to ease leg cramps and stiff legs. I refuse to believe that is just some placebo effect, because I try some things that help various problems and other that don't. The placebo effect should work for all or none, I should think. Or am I supposed to be gullible on alternate Tuesdays?
If homeopathic principles are utterly absurd, how do immunizations work? Isn't it a related principle to homeopathy? Also I understand that some substances such as dioxin are toxic at very low concentrations, parts per million.
Everybody misunderstood what I was trying to say about the dilution example you and/or film gave about the homeopathic remedy being so dilute that there wouldn't be a molecule in an ocean or even all the oceans. This seemed to me hyperbole and illogical. The homeopathic lab or factory could not possibly dilute anything with enough water to equal the mass of the ocean. OF COURSE I understood the argument that the remedy was so dilute that it might not contain even a molecule of the original substance. (Although presumably some of the batches might contain a molecule or two, because the original drop would not have disappeared entirely.)
The fact that nobody else there was recognizing this ocean thing as an absurd argument frankly drove me so crazy that I couldn't get to sleep that night.

Darrel: Ninety nine percent of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are
outlandish, laughably false and easily debunked.

Let's save this one for another day. I really need to get writing on my book today.

[Dardedar]

I don't like the phrase "espouse belief" re pseudo-science which for you includes most of alternative medicine. I would prefer the phrase "open to evidence."

DAR
I am open to the evidence for any claim. Any critical thinker should be. Why wouldn't they be? There is a difference between being open to the evidence for homeopathy (me) and espousing a belief that it works (you).

Even the NIH is engaged in testing some of these therapies.

DAR
Yes they are. And the evidence is just now pouring in. This is why I recommended this book:

Snake Oil Science : The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine
by R. Barker Bausell

You probably don't have time to read the whole thing (I didn't) but perhaps you could read thorough review of it here. It gives you a good overview of the latest science on this from one of the researchers.

I am quite skeptical of the New Agey sort shown in the Dawkins film.

DAR
Then you are probably quite skeptical of about 80% of alternative medicine. About that much of the alternative medicine is "of the new agey sort." If you doubt this, lets meet at the Ozark Co-op some time and take a little tour.

Darrel said:
In fact my homeopathy presentation
was carefully tuned to be as polite as possible for you
since I know you have beliefs about this. But one can only
put so much sugar on the medicine. Homeopathy is pure pseudo
science by any normative meaning of the words

Coralie: I wonder how you know that I have beliefs about homeopathy.

DAR
You told me, a couple of years ago. I made a note to at sometime in the future do a presentation on homeopathy. I purposely did not use a presentation already prepared by James Randi, because I know you don't like him.

I'm not a strong defender and haven't really studied up on it.

DAR
Well that is certainly a fair position to take. I am a strong skeptic of it's claims and I have studied up on it. I can help you on this. I was very pleased you came to my presentation since many people are afraid to have their beliefs challenged (and I understand your beliefs on this are weak and open to the evidence).

Certainly the historical genesis of homeopathic beliefs that you presented, and the more mystical-sounding reasons given by some practitioners about how it is supposed to work, all sound absurd today.

DAR
It's not "some practitioners," it's all of them. The claims of homeopathy, are mystical and anti-scientific. They even were in the time that the inventor came up with them, see:

Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions
by Oliver Wendell Holmes (1842-1882)

It's free to read online here.

But there is still a possibility that it could work, under some circumstances, even if those who 'believe' in it don't know what they're talking about.

DAR
Anything is "a possibility" but some things are very very very unlikely. Homeopathy gets at least three "verys" and has almost nothing evidence based to support it.

More later, I am going to have some dinner.

D.

[Savonarola]

I refuse to believe that is just some placebo effect, because I try some things that help various problems and other that don't. The placebo effect should work for all or none, I should think.

The video showed the studies of placebo: larger placebo pills had greater effect. Colored placebo pills had greater effect. Your thought doesn't conform to the evidence.

If homeopathic principles are utterly absurd, how do immunizations work?

Based on basic components of the germ theory of disease and an understanding of our immune system. Immunizations are weakened forms of pathogens that are introduced to the body to stimulate the immune system to create antibodies. Most people get mild cold-like symptoms after a flu vaccination because the virus isn't at it's natural potency.

Isn't it a related principle to homeopathy?

No. Homeopathy is the administering of low (or nonexistent) doses of a toxin, or the bullshit claim that the form of the toxin is stored within the water.

OF COURSE I understood the argument that the remedy was so dilute that it might not contain even a molecule of the original substance. (Although presumably some of the batches might contain a molecule or two, because the original drop would not have disappeared entirely.)

Right, the molecules of toxin did not disappear. But if there are more samples than there are molecules, then not every sample can have even one molecule.
In this case, most (mathematically, all) of the toxin is left behind in the previous 1X, 2X, 3X, etc mixtures, so that the 30X mixture has a miniscule (i.e. mathematically, essentially zero) chance of having any of the toxin at all.

The fact that nobody else there was recognizing this ocean thing as an absurd argument frankly drove me so crazy that I couldn't get to sleep that night.

But it's not absurd; it's an exercise in ratios. After enough dilutions, the ratio reaches 1 molecule of toxin to [insert incomprehensibly enormous number here] molecules of water.

[Guest]

The fact that nobody else there was recognizing this ocean thing as an absurd argument frankly drove me so crazy that I couldn't get to sleep that night.

I too thought that the ocean comparison was absurd UNTIL I applied some abstract thinking to the problem. It is a difficult concept to understand if you are not a mathematical type of thinker. At first, I also thought, "How ridiculous! This has to be false. They obviously don't have the ability to use an ocean's worth of water!" But no one has to literally use all that water for the analogy to be accurate. That is where you are getting stuck. The argument is indeed factual and easy to demonstrate.

When preparing homeopathic remedies they are only using one drop of remedy to 100 drops of water and for each dilution only one drop is taken from the previous dilution and the rest is discarded. So to obtain say, a 30c remedy they would only need to use 3000 drops of water. So, now you are probably thinking that this proves your point because they aren't using an ocean of water, but they do not have to use that much water to achieve the equivalent dilution.

The first dilution means that one drop of remedy is spread into those hundred drops (let's assume evenly). So now each drop has 100 parts water and one part remedy. Now, when you add one of those drops to the next hundred drops to figure out the dilution you have to divide each of the next hundred drops by the previous dilution, which would now give you a drop with one part remedy and 10,000 parts water. The next dilution would start again with one drop and add it to another hundred drops which would require us to divide that number by a hundred yet again to find out the dilution until you have one part remedy to 1,000,000 parts water. So, after only 3 dilutions (3c) you end up with the EQUIVALENT of one drop in a million drops without ever having to use a million drops. You have to imagine that every time you increase the dilution the drop is getting divided into smaller and smaller pieces. You have only used 300 drops but you can't think in terms of the actual drops used anymore because in order to even find any of the remedy you have to divide those drops up into smaller and smaller pieces each and every time you add the next dilution in order to be able to converse about amount of remedy versus water.

Try this...take a calculator and enter the number 1 then times that by 100, then times the result by hundred and repeat as many times as you wish. Each time you do this you are demonstrating taking one drop of anything and diluting it by 100 drops of water. Each time you do this also represents a "c" in homeopathy. So, if you have a remedy that is 30c you would have to do this 30 times to find how many drops of water you would have to have to find one drop of remedy in a 30c solution. Your calculator would have run out of room many calculations ago though I am sure because the number soon becomes HUGE. Now notice again that you are still dealing with only a hundred drops of water with each calculation, which would only be 3000 drops used (for 30c), but because of how dilution works you end up with the EQUIVALENT a ridiculous amount of drops, hence the comparison to the ocean.

I hope this helps to clear up dilution a little

Tamara

[Coralie.Koonce]

Darrel's recommended book review said: "The entire body of evidence is compatible with the hypothesis that no CAM method works any better than placebo."
That is a very strong statement. I tend to mistrust "no" "all" "never" sorts of statements on principle.
Many pharmaceuticals were based on herbal remedies, chemically synthesized. You can take aspirin or you can take tea made from willow bark on which aspirin was originally based. So the first course of action puts you among the right thinkers, the second shows you are a gullible fool.

I still object to being categorized as a "believer" in alternative medicine as a whole, or the insinuation that I find some remedies more successful because the pills are bigger or brightly colored. I think that my approach is more pragmatic and empirical.
I have had personal successes with certain herbal remedies and most notably with a course of treatment from an Oriental Medical Doctor which included acupuncture.
It was for a serious condition and the allopathic physician I saw recommended surgery "just to be on the safe side" because of several ambiguous test results. Instead I went to the OMD for treatment and eventually to a second allopathic physician for further tests, which were now negative and have been for several years since. At no time did I have any particular symptoms--it was all based on those tests. I suppose the lab tests could change due to the placebo effect but if that is the case, then maybe the placebo effect is the best medicine there is!

[Coralie.Koonce]

Savonarola said:
"Immunizations are weakened forms of pathogens that are introduced to the body to stimulate the immune system to create antibodies. Most people get mild cold-like symptoms after a flu vaccination because the virus isn't at it's natural potency.
CoralieKoonce wrote:"
"Isn't it a related principle to homeopathy?"
Savonarola:
No. Homeopathy is the administering of low (or nonexistent) doses of a toxin, or the bullshit claim that the form of the toxin is stored within the water."

I'm talking about the PRICIPLE behind both that very small doses of a toxic substance may stimulate the body to combat the toxin or to restore a homeostatic balance. The mechanisms are quite different.

[Dardedar]

Darrel's recommended book review said: "The entire body of evidence is compatible with the hypothesis that no CAM method works any better than placebo."
That is a very strong statement. I tend to mistrust "no" "all" "never" sorts of statements on principle.

DAR
Well sometimes strong statements are right. This fellow is an expert in the study and design of testing protocol and on this topic certainly knows what he is talking about. As the book review notes (did you read it?):

"R. Barker Bausell is a research methodologist: he designs and analyzes research studies for a living. Not only that: he was intimately involved with acupuncture research for the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). So when he talks about what can go wrong in research and why much of the research on CAM is suspect, he is well worth listening to."

Many pharmaceuticals were based on herbal remedies, chemically synthesized. You can take aspirin or you can take tea made from willow bark on which aspirin was originally based. So the first course of action puts you among the right thinkers, the second shows you are a gullible fool.

DAR
You are mistaken. Aspirin, and thus willow bark, is not a CAM. It left that area when it because an evidenced based medicine. We know it works and we have a basis for understanding how it works. This is different from homeopathy, which has no basis for understanding how it might work, contradicts well understood scientific principles and when tested properly does not work better than placebo.
Again, any "alternative medicine" is welcome to join the science family at any time. When they do, they leave CAM. There is evidenced based medicine and then there is everything else. Everything else largely consists of anecdotes, ancient wisdom, intuition and warm feelings. The term "alternative medicine" is a bit of a bogus category. A medicinal limbo. I say test it. If it can be shown to work, it joins the evidence based family. If it can't be shown to work, toss it out. Why would anyone interested in "critical thinking" promote otherwise?

I still object to being categorized as a "believer" in alternative medicine as a whole, or the insinuation that I find some remedies more successful because the pills are bigger or brightly colored.

DAR
Categorize yourself however you wish. You are the only one using the terms "gullible fool" etc. Sav's comment about larger or brightly colored placebo's working better better than plain white ones was not directed at you so you can stop being defensive. He was simply referring to a well known, extensively studied, established fact: placebo's work better when you use fancier props. And they work better when you believe in them. Size and color helps. This is not controversial.

This extremely well established characteristic of humans need not be called gullibility which carries negative connotations like foolish or stupid. Better to call it the power of suggestion. Humans are very suggestible. This is why to find the truth you need to carefully test to make sure you aren't tricking yourself, or just getting better on your own.

I think that my approach is more pragmatic and empirical. I have had personal successes with certain herbal remedies....

DAR
If we have learned anything about medicine in the last 150 or so years, it is that "personal success" anecdotes mean practically nothing. Personal success stories gave us blood letting and every single quack remedy that does not work when tested. Perhaps this is similar to personal religious experiences. Very convincing to the one having the experience, not so to others. With medicine we can test. Pass the tests, join the evidence based family of medicine. Don't pass, stay in CAM and pass around anecdotes.

I suppose the lab tests could change due to the placebo effect but if that is the case, then maybe the placebo effect is the best medicine there is!

DAR
There may be an argument for using placebo for some conditions (pain, stiffness, headaches, mood problems, persistent psychological sorts of things) with especially suggestible people (like my mother). But it's hardly a medicine.

I am off to work again.

D.

[Dardedar]

"
Savonarola:
No. Homeopathy is the administering of low (or nonexistent) doses of a toxin, or the bullshit claim that the form of the toxin is stored within the water."

I'm talking about the PRICIPLE behind both that very small doses of a toxic substance may stimulate the body to combat the toxin or to restore a homeostatic balance. The mechanisms are quite different.

DAR
This misunderstands the claim of homeopathy. The toxin (before being diluted to non-existence) is chosen because of the symptoms it would produce in a normal amount. This is no comparison to vaccines. This is an extremely common misunderstanding (as are the dilution misunderstandings). The Dawkins video dealt with it but it was in one short little 20 second part so it was easily missed. I'll get to it later.

D.
--------------------------------------
"Homeopathy is unsupported by modern scientific research. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations usually leave none of the active ingredient (atoms, ions or molecules) in the final product.[115][116] The idea that any biological effects could be produced by these preparations is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs.[117] The proposed rationale for these extreme dilutions – that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient – is also counter to the laws of chemistry and physics.[115]"
Link

[Doug]

Coralie wrote:
"I refuse to believe that is just some placebo effect, because I try some things that help various problems and other that don't. The placebo effect should work for all or none, I should think."

Coralie also wrote:
"I tend to mistrust 'no' 'all' 'never' sorts of statements on principle."

DOUG
As Darrel has pointed out, personal anecdotes are of no scientific value in assessing whether a remedy works. Placebos don't always work, so it can be difficult to determine the cause of someone getting better if no double-blind tests are done. When they are done on homeopathy, it fails. This is a very telling point against homeopathy remedies.

And: James Randi has offered a million dollars to any homeopathy person who can just distinguish his or her homeopathy remedy from plain water. He's not even insisting that it be shown that the remedy works, only that it can be shown to be different from ordinary water. And yet homeopathy "experts" stay far away from such tests. If their remedies do have curative properties that are different from a placebo (ordinary water), what is the explanation for this?

[Coralie.Koonce]

You know, I'm beginning to resent all the time I'm spending on this away from my writing and in order to serve as somebody to be pushed into a more fundamentalist position so that you guys can do your thing. I don't have time for this and will stop soon.
I don't CARE whether or not my personal anecdotes are evidence for science, I am not putting them forward for that purpose: my own experiences are what I build on, and without doing that I would be a completely inauthentic person. I'm basically a divergent thinker and a maverick, without a need to fit anybody's orthodoxy. Luckily brought up by parents who were agnostics and socialists.
If something works for me it works for me. It may not work for you. Another similar remedy may not work for me either, even if it's a purple horsepill with pink polka-dots.
Some of the things said here remind me of my experiences with allopathic doctors in my younger days, in the 50s and 60s when women were often discounted as "psycho-somatic." My mother's chest symptoms were thus dismissed by her doctor because nothing showed up on his tests, despite her history of tb, pleurisy, and pneumonia. By the time they figured out it was lung cancer it was inoperable. Of course they then had to subject her to the useless chemotherapy before she died--she said the treatment made her worse than the cancer did. But my folks didn't know what else to do.

Perhaps I am more receptive to the possibility of effects from highly dilute substances because I have many allergies/sensitivies/intolerances. At about age 18 I started drinking coffee but there was no denying it made my heart race, kept me up at night, and made me feel like throwing bricks through windows. So I stopped although all the good orthodox people of the 1950s couldn't understand this and a couple friends (?) even called me "neurotic." Later I discovered that tea had something of the same effect on me, even if all I did was swish the tea-bag around the water once or twice so that it was barely colored water (how many molecules, I wonder?) A couple years ago an article appeared in the paper explaining that a minority of people are "slow metabolizers" of caffeine. That's me--but it took 50 years to find out.
Last year I had an adverse drug reaction to a quinone drug that involved sleeplessness, heart-racing, and compulsive, repetitive thoughts that made me feel like I was losing my mind. In researching I found out that it had some chemical links with caffeine. The medical people assured me this wasn't supposed to happen. But it did. At a certain point you have to trust yourself and your own experience against the orhodox believers.

Tamara, Thank you for the clarifying explanation of how the homeopathic substance is diluted, and that it does not require vast quantities of water to dilute. What I need to know now is the verbatim quote(s) from the film/presentation about the ocean. What exactly was the claim? That was the crux of my problem. Unfortunately with broadcast media and to some extent with films and videos you can't go back and check your sources.

By the way, Darrel, the Wiipedia article you sent me to was one of those with its neutrality disputed. I didn't read through the discussion, but picked up this fbit or watever it's worth:
"As an engineer and former nonbeliever, I really don't think we shall ever get agreement on the introduction. Homeopathy seems completely impossible and seems to violate the current laws. However, let me remind you that Albert Einstein's work completely obliterated the law of conservation of mass for certain cases. I believe that homeopathy is probably another one of these special cases. I think the best way to fix this page is to present the facts of what homeopathy is. Remove any reference to it working/nonworking and have links to a seperate page(s) to discuss this. I know it works because I have seen it many times, however, I truly understand the skeptic who has never tried it. I suggest that all nonbelivers try it out on themselves but purchasing some Arnica cream and put it on a bruise. In addition, if you want to see some awesome photos of impossible cures go to http://www.dupagehomeopathic.com/ and look at the photos. It really does seem impossible and I will tell you that it is really, really hard to practice. It is harder than any of the toughest engineering problems I faced. However, the results are amazing enough that I quit my Director of Engineering job to practice this very difficult medicine. Dr. Josephine Polich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.135.121 (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)"
There may be other better comments, as I said I don't have time to go through the discussion now.

[Dardedar]

I don't CARE whether or not my personal anecdotes are evidence for science, I am not putting them forward for that purpose:...

DAR
Well I'm interested in the science. That is, knowing whether these things are true or not. My assumption was that you were too.

Tamara, Thank you for the clarifying explanation of how the homeopathic substance is diluted, and that it does not require vast quantities of water to dilute. What I need to know now is the verbatim quote(s) from the film/presentation about the ocean. What exactly was the claim?

DAR
It was the same claim everyone else makes when trying to talk about extreme dilutions. Oceans are large and easy to understand or you can also speak of sand in the desert or atoms in the universe. The comments I made, and the BBC clip had, and the Dawkins clip had were the same. Even the founder of Homeopathy has made the same comparison. With three little vials of water you can quickly make a dilution that is one million to one. With six vials you can make one trillion to one. With 12 vials you get 12C which is one with 24 zeros. Not sure we have a name for that number. With thirteen little vials we have 13C, which gives a dilution equivalent of:

"One third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth..."

The dilution goes up exponentially by 100x each step.

By the way, Darrel, the Wiipedia article you sent me to was one of those with its neutrality disputed.

DAR
The part I quoted wasn't disputed, and it was well referenced.

I didn't read through the discussion, but picked up this fbit or watever it's worth:
"As an engineer and former nonbeliever, I really don't think we shall ever get agreement on the introduction. Homeopathy seems completely impossible and seems to violate the current laws. However, let me remind you that Albert Einstein's work...

DAR
Coralie, if you are in anyway impressed with the comments in that blurb (and apparently you are or you wouldn't have posted it), then I don't think there is anything I can do to help you on this.

D.

[Savonarola]

I'm talking about the PRICIPLE behind both that very small doses of a toxic substance may stimulate the body to combat the toxin or to restore a homeostatic balance. The mechanisms are quite different.

It's not just the mechanisms. A vaccine is not just a very dilute injection of a pathogen. (Such an injection would probably result in the condition you intended to avoid.) Instead, a slightly altered pathogen -- one that is weaker and provokes less of an allergic response, but is similar enough to the full-power strain that the recognition parts of our immune system can't tell the difference -- is provided as fodder to show the immune system what to destroy.

Homeopathic "vaccination" would try to introduce either no pathogen, which would have no effect, or very, very little pathogen (the real pathogen, not a weakened form), which would make most people sick.

Homeopathy: introduce very little or none of the standard form of toxin.
Vaccination: introduce plenty of a weakened form of a pathogen.

Furthermore, Darrel's points are applicable. Nobody thinks that a flu vaccine will help prevent or combat the fever and achiness; we know that it helps the body combat influenza, which causes fever and achiness. We know that the flu vaccine won't combat malaria or its symptoms, even though malaria causes fever.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I had an idea for a simple little test of homeopathy. I thought Coralie might be interested in trying it but it is not clear she is interested in the science of this matter and she appears frustrated and about ready to make a run for it. It would be nice to conduct this test with a believer. Here is the carrot. The $1,000 reward applies and the proceeds could go to OMNI, any charity, or the person who decides to participate.

We'll start with two concoctions of homeopathic remedies purchased from the same major company. One will be their most powerful sleepy agent. The other will be their most active/awake, give you some zip energy potion. The person interested in trying this can have 20 attempts to identify which pill they received. They will receive ten of each, one per day, randomly. We will do this double blind. Chance alone would expect them to get ten right. If they could get 16 out of 20 right it would be very impressive (1000 to 1 odds). If they can get 18 out of 20 right, they get the prize.

If homeopathy has a noticeable effect, a person should be able notice the difference between two pills so drastically different. Or we can pick a different combination of pills.

Suggestions anyone?

D.
--------------------
Regarding the vaccination bit:

"Advocates of homeopathy often assert that using dilute remedies is similar to vaccinations. After all, vaccinations also use very dilute substances. Once again, homeopathy is trying to obtain respectability by showing that conventional medicine uses similar procedures. This is misleading for several reasons. First, vaccinations are used to prevent disease. Once one is sick and has symptoms, a vaccination will not help. The homeopathic remedy is given only after one is already sick. Vaccinations use similar or identical weakened microorganisms, but homeopathy is concerned with similar symptoms of illness. And last, many homeopathic remedies use D24 or C12 dilutions where none of the substance remains. Vaccinations on the other hand must contain a measurable amount of the microorganism or its protein."

Is Homeopathy "New Science" or "New Age"?

[Doug]

DOUG
There is also this to consider: since a glass of tapwater contains at least one molecule of probably tens of thousands of different substances, if these really had the effects homeopathy claimed, our bodies should go haywire everytime we take a drink. Add to that the fact that homeopathy "experts" claim that water has a "memory" of substances it's come into contact with even if the substance is no longer in it, and every drink of tap water should cure every ailment known to man.

And if you dilute a substance until the active ingredient is no longer in it (as in homeopathy, where they rely on water "memory"), isn't that the definition of a placebo? Is there only one molecule difference between a homeopathy remedy and a placebo, and can't I get that one molecule from ordinary tap water?

Maybe that's why homeopathy practitioners have neither the theory to explain how their remedies allegedly work, nor do they dare take up the offer of actually distinguishing their remedies from placebos in real scientific tests.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Coralie has some other comments regarding her book and evidence based medicine I wanted to get to.

***

COR
I don't know why you would want to make medical orthodoxy the field of battle. First of all, medicine is only partly a science and partly a skill or art.

DAR
Curious how everyone wants to label things and put them in boxes. Maybe it's the tendency to think that if we give it the right name or put it in a box we understand it better. Often people tell me "I think piano tuning is an art." I just scratch my head. Science, skill, art? What's the point? Evidence based medicine is firstly, science, the rest is window dressing.

In the U.S. the medical system is such a mess, costing more than in other industrial nations, not covering a large fraction of the population, and with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than many other countries.

DAR
Yes, I have made this point on this forum many times. Note that the problems you refer to are political and actually say nothing about evidence based medicine versus alternatives. Evidence based medicine is better than any known alternative, that is, medical claims NOT based on evidence. Do you disagree?

The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable in the nation,...

DAR
Do you know of a pharma company that has made more than Exxon?

...while the FDA doesn't do a very good job of regulating, esp. under Bush, and many drugs are recalled as ineffective or downright dangerous.

DAR
These are common complaints but they are again political problems. How is any proposed alternative to evidence based medicine superior? Not even close. Alternative medicine proponents like to bash the FDA and pass around stories but most of it is unfounded and exaggerated. The number of drugs recalled is actually quite small.
Also, see my new post here for a present day example of how over the counter supplements, even when they are tested and found to hold promise, are often inconsistent and contaminated because they are not regulated/tested. Evidence based, tested medicine, wins every time. Is there a better way?

As Dawkins noted in the film, one reason people go to alternative practitioners is for the "bedside manner" that is often missing in allopathic practitioners who are pressed for time...

DAR
Absolutely right. This is a training and time issue which again we find, does not address in anyway the superiority of evidence based medicine or propose a superior alternative.
And if I was a "doctor" with nothing but placebo's to peddle, it would make sense to focus being top notch in all of the other areas of customer service. Real doctors get lazy in this area because their medicine actually has been tested and shown to work. Imagine that!

It is an important part of the treatment, not just some "placebo effect" to be scorned because you can't measure it in the test tube.

DAR
I would say it is both. Good bedside manner is an important part of the treatment and it's especially important for the placebo doctor. That's all he's got so he better get that part right.

The Dawkins film dwelt on the more far-out, New Age therapies.

DAR
You need to go to an alternative health fair some time. He didn't cherry pick. It's standard stuff. Angel's and pixie dust, pyramid's and crystals.

This is a selective bias that one frequently encounters in debunkers. For instance, those who defend the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 (that 19 Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked the 4 planes, etc.) against alternative explanations that THEY call conspiracy theories, commonly pick out the most outlandish theories to rebut (dummy planes, etc.).

DAR
You misunderstood that part of my presentation then. I was talking about human delusion at that point, NOT 9/11 conspiracy theories. So of course, since I was picking the most stunning examples of human delusion, I would pick a very deluded example. One of them was a 9/11 conspiracy claim. This is not to suggest that most 9/11 conspiracy material is not deluded, it is. If you know of one you think may have merit, pass it along.

In other words, debunking is fun but often contents itself with "easy pickings."

DAR
Anything to do with homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories is easy pickings. But debunking these two absurd topics is certainly necessary since they have widespread belief.

I have used homeopathic remedies a few times (on my own) and my question is not whether the theory of why it works according to its believers fits any currently known scientic theories--but does it work for me? In at least one case, it did--a preparation for leg cramps and stiffness which I showed you, Darrel.

DAR
I am glad you had a good experience. If you are interested in whether it was something in the product that did it (that's what I am interested in) then you would have to test it. Your anecdote does not constitute a test. Leg cramps and stiffness usually go away on their own.

This formulation was based on a lesser dilution than mentioned in the presentation, 4 or 5 substances each at "4X" or "30x" or whatever.

DAR
Even at those lower dilutions it is unlikely that you would have gotten even a molecule of "remedy." When you drink a glass of water you are getting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of molecules of all sorts of materials. And that water of course has been in contact with trillions upon trillions of substances. Homeopathy makes no sense.

I find the argument insulting and unscientific that "if you think it works, it's really only the placebo effect."

DAR
Science really doesn't care if our pet theories are insulted. If I have pet theory that is false I want it insulted, roasted, debunked. I am not saying "if you think it works, it's really only the placebo effect." I am saying, homeopathy is completely unscientific, has no basis for why it should work and when you test it, it performs nothing above the level of placebo. That's placebo medicine.

I understand that homeopathic remedies are also used in veterinary medicine.

DAR
Right, animals have immune systems too and are really good at getting better on their own. After all, everyone of their ancestors did (long enough to breed). Suggestion works on the owners too. When they think their animal has been given a medication (but has not), they think their animal has improves. Curious how that works eh?

I admit a bias against allopathic medicine because I went to doctors...

DAR
Right. That's obvious. But your bias against evidence based medicine based upon bad experiences with a doctor or two is not rational and does not comport with critical thinking.

D.

[tmiller51]

I wonder if there is a homeopathic method of birth control? Could you start by diluting Tequila? I've always heard that too much alcohol can make a girl pregnant.

[Savonarola]

I wonder if there is a homeopathic method of birth control? Could you start by diluting Tequila? I've always heard that too much alcohol can make a girl pregnant.

This has triggered a thought process that led me to a case where homeopathy works:
Suppose Tim drinks a whole bunch of (full-strength) tequila. The next morning, he has a hangover. What caused the condition? Tequila. Hence, homeopathy says to dilute tequila to, say, 30C, with water. I can say with sufficient confidence that drinking the concoction will help relieve the symptoms of the hangover.

... Of course, so would drinking the same amount of non-homeopathic water...

... Then again, drinking a lot of straight tequila would probably remove the symptoms, too.

[Dardedar]

DAR
This reminds me of something else I have been meaning to post on this topic. First a quote:

***
"...homeopathy has come to mean pretty much anything in the way of alternative therapy, from aromatherapy and herbal remedies to pressure points and chiropractic techniques. But homeopathy itself is actually something very different. It doesn’t mean that homeopathy doesn’t often coincide with herbal remedies or aromatherapy, many homeopathic remedies are herbal in origin. But what I will be covering today is homeopathy in the very strictest sense.

So, for the record. Homeopathy [does not equal] herbal remedies. A lot of people say stuff like “you scientists hate homeopathy, but herbs can have many medical properties”. Yes, herbs can have many medical properties, and many researchers are still looking at plants to isolate possible active ingredients for new drugs. We wouldn’t even have aspirin if the Bayer company hadn’t started questioning why people took Willow infusions for headaches (willow bark contains salisylic acid, which is a relative of acetylsalisylic acid, or asprin). But herbal remedies like those are NOT homeopathy. The difference lies in how homeopathic remedies are made and the theory behind how they work."

LINK
***

DAR
Now to my point. Anyone can call something homeopathy. I can have a homeopathy piano tuning service (funny story about that actually, later perhaps). If a herbal remedy maker thinks their product will sell a little better if they put:

"Now with Homeopathic ingredients too!"

Then they may put that on the box. It doesn't make it so. The word is being abused sometimes. High dilution is a founding tenet of homeopathy. The founder recommended 30C, way past the maximum mathematical dilution limit (about 13C). Remember, according to homeopathy, the more diluted the more powerful the dose you are taking. That is just a little too ridiculous for some people so some sects of homeopathy are taking some of the remedy compounds and diluting them at MUCH lower amounts. The "C" stands for dilution of 1:100 while "X" stands for dilution of 1:10. There is a big difference! If you take a "homeopathic" product that is diluted to 1X, you are actually taking a potentially strong dose of whatever herb, compound, active ingredient in question. Ten percent of the product is active ingredient. That's a lot! And it can be really powerful when we are talking about the toxic remedies homeopathy comes up with. By no stretch can this be considered homeopathic. People are just abusing the word. Taking a product like this can be dangerous. At least with a homeopathic product you are getting pure water, or pure sugar, or are at worst just a couple of molecules away from that. So when these modern day witch doctors take the ridiculous and usually toxic "remedies" put forward by homeopathy based on completely unscientific and imaginary "Law of Similars", and then fail to dilute them into non-existence like a good homeopath would, they are really peddling a strong herbal remedy. But these toxic substances weren't supposed to be taken at measurable doses!

Here's what happened to one company:

Is Shelf Life Of Zicam Nasal Spray In Jeopardy?

Zicam

On January 20, 2006, Matrixx Initiatives, Inc, the maker of Zicam cold remedy products, agreed to settle a class action lawsuit by paying out $12 million to 340 plaintiffs, who claim Zicam nasal spray permanently damaged their sense of smell, a condition known as anosmia. In the summer or 2005, Matrixx also settled the only lawsuit that has gone to trial, with a 42-year-old computer consultant, for an undisclosed amount."
...
"Since this one and only use of Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Spray, plaintiff Dennis Christensen has totally lost his sense of smell," the lawsuit said.

In its answer to the complaint, in regard to Zicam spray, Matrixx said it had met all of the FDA "requirements to lawfully market an over the counter homeopathic drug in interstate commerce in the U.S."

But here lies the problem. Because Zicam contains the naturally occurring mineral zinc, long recognized as being safe, it is considered a "homeopathic" remedy, and is exempt from the regulations that govern the testing and manufacturing of regular drugs. As such, Zicam was not required to obtain FDA approval before entering the market."

However, $12 million here or there is mere chickenfeed to Matrixx when considering the fact that the company markets 22 products in the booming $3-billion-plus over-the-counter cough and cold industry. Its zinc nasal spray gel is the only one of its kind on the market and has reportedly sold more than 10 million bottles since it was introduced to consumers in 1999.
...
Because these products are not required to prove efficacy, not surprisingly, studies have shown that zinc nasal sprays are pretty much ineffective. While two placebo-controlled trials showed that intranasal zinc gluconate modestly shortened the duration of cold symptoms, 2 other studies found the product provided no benefits."
LINK

DAR
One site puts it this way:

“Zincum gluconicum” is homeopathic nomenclature for a dilution of zinc gluconate. The dilution listed on Zicam is listed either as 1X or 2X, which are the two lowest dilutions, and they mean either 1:10 or 1:100 of distilled water to a zinc gluconate solution.

Whether you believe it works or not, there is deception here. Based on everything I can see, Zicam is not homeopathic. Its makers have appended that word to the packaging either as a way to capitalize on it as a buzzword or so they can evade proper FDA regulations." LINK

DAR
So a person has to be especially careful when a product claims to be homeopathic but actually isn't diluted enough. Some manufacturers are using that label to get around having to be tested in any way. Homeopathy has it's own special law going back to the thirties.

I wanted to mention this because the "homeopathic" products Coralie brought to the meeting had dilutions of 3x and 4x. Those products would actually have quite a bit of the active/herbal/toxic/whatever ingredient.

Everybody gets to be their own guinea pig. Free country and all. Be careful out there.

D.

[Tony]

I cannot believe we spend this much time on this stuff.
Froofy Lefties have made alternative medicine a gold mine for hucksters. It is all a product of a post-modern insistence on epistemological relativism. It is anti-Enlightenment, thus inherently conservative, and has to stopped.
Your friendly, proud, child of the Enlightenment and Old fashioned Lefty,
Tony

[Dardedar]

I cannot believe we spend this much time on this stuff.

DAR
I know, it really is amazing that anyone would try to defend this stuff! But as I mentioned in my presentation on this. Do a search on Amazon and you will find dozens of homeopathic books (and something like hundreds of hits for products). In this pile of shameless junk I found nothing skeptical except an online reference to a version of a skeptical essay written about 1850. That's it. The book that I used as the foundation for my presentation I ordered from Britain about eight years ago. Why are people so attached to their pet beliefs that they can't stop for a moment and think a little objectively about this?

As I was at the lake today zipping around on my jet ski, I marveled at all the water and how it must be contaminated with so many different types of molecules. Then I thought about how the oil/exhaust coming out of my little boat was making a very powerful homeopathic remedy for all the world as the lake water would be dispersed all around the world over time.

For someone to come up with anything more palpably absurd than the patently idiotic claims of homeopathy, they would really have to work at it. And it's a billion dollar industry!

D.