Homeopathy on 20/20

[xouper]

See other thread in the Community forum:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34682

[Rouser2]

Interesting, how Stossels compared homeopathic theory of dilution to Modern Medicine's vaccine theory. On the other hand, it would seem that so-called "high potency" homeopathic medicines should be re-named.


-- Rouser

[Rolfe]

Oh wow, if homoeopathy is like vaccines, maybe Rouser's going to denounce it! :D

Teensy little difference. Vaccines have some content. "High"-potency homoeopathic preparations do not.

Seems we already had this conversation, Rouser. You couldn't really get your brain round the fact that it was possible to dilute a preparation so much that there were no molecules left. "But molecules are awfully small! I still think there might be a few of them left!" or something like that. If you followed that programme, I gather it explained that process quite clearly.

Rouser, do you now understand that there are no molecules of anything apart from the stock solvent in the "high-potency" remedies which make up the bulk of all homoeopathic prescribing?

Rolfe.

[Drooper]

This is definitely my favourite quote.

Note that this was statement was made in defense of homeopathy.

Did you ask "how is homeopathy natural"? There's nothing in it! Not a damn thing! What could be more non-toxic than nothing!?

Snoopy (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=962#10290&PagePosition=0&ThreadPage=1&ThreadPos=2)

[Rolfe]

But have you seen this one - stupid question (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000393)?

It's actually very witty.

Edited to add: I just read it again and maybe I was over-generous. It's moderately amusing though.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Interesting, how Stossels compared homeopathic theory of dilution to Modern Medicine's vaccine theory. On the other hand, it would seem that so-called "high potency" homeopathic medicines should be re-named.


-- Rouser

No, you misunderstood yet again. Stossel said homeopathy's like-cures-like principle is similar to vaccination. However, one of the absurdities of the like-cures-like idea is that homeopathy uses ingredients that supposedly cause similar symptoms as the ailment, not the actual causative agent. As such, it is in reality nothing like vaccination.

[VicDaring]

***sophmoric humor alert***

Check out this thread title:

heh, heh, heh (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000396)

[BTox]

:D Sure would like to know the treatment administered!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>However, one of the absurdities of the like-cures-like idea is that homeopathy uses ingredients that supposedly cause similar symptoms as the ailment, not the actual causative agent. As such, it is in reality nothing like vaccination.


Oh, exactly like a whole lot of vaccines.


-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by VicDaring
***sophmoric humor alert***

Check out this thread title:

heh, heh, heh (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000396)

the current winning on that forum for the ironic statement award goes to this:

You can write to FAIR about the incident, and see what they say about it...what they plan to publish about it and where they plan to publish it. Lots and lots and lots of university students and many people whose opinions about politics differ from the radical right wing garbage we're told is the "middle of the road" in the US right now read about and listen to and work around the same issues as FAIR; you might want to take heart that that's quite a few people who KNOW how unbelievable that 20/20 show happens to be.

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000394

This is on the board that is currently blocking a uni Ip adress from posting or registering.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh wow, if homoeopathy is like vaccines, maybe Rouser's going to denounce it! :D

Teensy little difference. Vaccines have some content. "High"-potency homoeopathic preparations do not.

Seems we already had this conversation, Rouser. You couldn't really get your brain round the fact that it was possible to dilute a preparation so much that there were no molecules left. "But molecules are awfully small! I still think there might be a few of them left!" or something like that. If you followed that programme, I gather it explained that process quite clearly.

Rouser, do you now understand that there are no molecules of anything apart from the stock solvent in the "high-potency" remedies which make up the bulk of all homoeopathic prescribing?

Rolfe. Sorry to repeat myself, but I don't think Rouser was listening the first time.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>However, one of the absurdities of the like-cures-like idea is that homeopathy uses ingredients that supposedly cause similar symptoms as the ailment, not the actual causative agent. As such, it is in reality nothing like vaccination.


Oh, exactly like a whole lot of vaccines.


-- Rouser

Still don't understand homeopathy, or vaccines? Too bad...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser, do you now understand that there are no molecules of anything apart from the stock solvent in the "high-potency" remedies


Not necessarily. But nine Atlantic and Pacific oceans seems like a lot of dilution. I've never endorsed "high potency" homeopathy, except to the extent that it may keep people away from some of the far more dangerous nostrums offered up by Modern Medicine. And don't underestimate the healing power of the placebo effect.



-- Rouser

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I've never endorsed "high potency" homeopathy, except to the extent that it may keep people away from some of the far more dangerous nostrums offered up by Modern Medicine.Oh dear, the homoeopathic community will be devastated. Though if you still don't understand the "no molecules" part, then you haven't got very far.Originally posted by Rouser2
And don't underestimate the healing power of the placebo effect. Not in my patients it doesn't.

"Modern medicine" is dangerous. Dangerous like a scalpel. Depends entirely on what you do with it. You need the right blade for the job, you need to know what you're doing, you need to take a great deal of care, sometimes things are just too bad to be fixed, and very occasionally a nasty accident happens.

It takes both skill and some nerve to do good with the powerful tools medicine has put in our hands. In spite of the difficulties, and the fact that you can make a lot more money on Wall Street, fortunately a lot of people are prepared to give it a shot. And on the other hand there are inadequates like Rouser who can only stand on the sidelines and badmouth what they could never understand and never do.

Rouser, one day, probably, you will become sick or injured, and need Modern Medicine and its dangerous nostrums. Fortunately it will be there for you, in spite of your wicked ingratitude.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I've never endorsed "high potency" homeopathy, except to the extent that it may keep people away from some of the far more dangerous nostrums offered up by Modern Medicine.

Of course real medicine is more dangerous than homeopathic "remedies", because it, unlike homeopathy, has physiological activity.

Originally posted by Rouser2

And don't underestimate the healing power of the placebo effect.

-- Rouser

Far more dangerous to overestimate the placebo effect. People infected with inhalational anthrax can take all the placebos in the world, but if they don't take real antibiotics, they will die.

[CurtC]

About the placebo effect - do you really think it's responsible for anything objective? My impression is that for things that must be evaluated subjectively, a placebo is used as the control.

So the "placebo effect" is not saying that the sugar pill actually caused any healing, even indirectly, but only that people's interpretation of effects in a subjective manner is complex, and can only be controlled with something that we know does nothing.

If a drug has an objectively measurable effect, there's no need to test it against a placebo control. Right?

[BTox]

Originally posted by CurtC


If a drug has an objectively measurable effect, there's no need to test it against a placebo control. Right?

No, that is the scientific method of determining a clinically measurable and significant effect - to test vs placebo control in a blinded and controlled study. This ensures the effects observed are not due to chance and/or self-resolution. Also quantifies side effects and adverse reactions due to the drug.

[Rolfe]

I think it's quite a complex subject, but there are perhaps two main aspects - first the tendency of the patient to imagine an improvement just because treatment is being given, and second, where anxiety-related symptoms may be a genuine part of the clinical presentation, the possibility that the feeing that the situation is now "under control" may remove enough anxiety to get a real reduction in symptoms.

In veterinary work, the main effect is the former - the owner interprets the animal's behaviour differently and judges that improvement has occurred, because of the expectation of a response to treatment. However, I have heard it suggested that the calming down of an extremely over-wrought owner can also in itself be beneficial to the well-being of the animal who may be adversely affected by the owner's anxiety.

In any case, the whole purpose of the placebo control is to keep everything about the trial as constant as possible, including the ritual of "medicine-taking", so that any differences can be reasonably attributed to the medicine.

Where the problem under consideration is very physical, with no or minimal controbution from anxiety, it has been shown that there is pretty much no placebo effect. This led to some interesting intellectual gymnastics a year or so ago. When the study was published that showed that, some journalists came out with the statement that it had now been shown that the "placebo effect" was a myth. Therefore alternative medicines (especially homoeopathy) must be genuinely effective, because they could no longer be explained away as "placebo effect". :confused:

Rolfe.