A killer blow?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Having spent some time observing the homeopaths attracted to the waterhole provide by their internet forums, one conclusion I have reached is that we really should take encouragement from their tiny number and their intellectual vacuity.

But that has not stopped the apparent increase in the popularity of crank medicine with the public. As a Brit, I still blame John Selwyn-Gummer for feeding his daughter that bloody hamburger for undermining public confidence in men in white coats, but it's too late to go crying over spilt mad cows, we have to start from where we are now.

Over time we have come up with many 'killer' arguments to show homeopaths to be misguided and in some cases actually fraudulent in their claims, but these arguments can be quite difficult to get across and both parties may need to know a lot about the basic assumptions of homeopathy even to begin to comprehend the problems. As an example of the problems we face getting past the superficial reasonableness of homeopathy remember that many lay people get homeopathy and herbalism confused because both like to dress up in scientificke cod-Latin.

So, enough preamble, here's a new challenge;

If an uninformed lay person expresses interest in homeopathy, what single concept can you simply and quickly present them with that brings out the true madness of it?

[athon]

Hmm good question, and one I feel that has no answer.

I have a rather elitist, and somewhat radical, opinion that while a few are incredibly vocal in their support of homeopathy, most of the population lacks the ability to be able to critically discern evidence for or against such a notion as homeopathy.

I visited Paris for the first time the other day, and was surprised by how many drug stores were homeopaths. I know London is bad (it was enough of a shock here) but it was overwhelming how common it was over there.

Unfortunately, the general population cannot think beyond the 'en masse' method of information transmission. If there is evidence of it everywhere, it cannot be wrong. Hence we are not battling the information itself, but the frequency of its appearance.

Most people I associate with accept my explanation of homeopathy (after admitting that they thought it was just 'herbs and stuff'), but resort to Otif's 'millions believe it to be true' system of belief in support. It is a social method that worked well when hunting and gathering food, but fails us now when it comes to understanding the universe.

The battlefront is not, unfortunately, amidst the nature of the information. It is to do with the number of people who are critical in the first place; a catch 22 situation if ever there was one.

Athon

[Rolfe]

You'd think that simply saying the remedies are diluted till there's nothing left would make an impression on most people, but that isn't necessarily so.

I have a cousin who swears by arnica for bruises. "I always use it, used it on the boys when they were growing up. It brings the bruising out, doesn't it?" Here follows rational explanation from me. A few weeks later my mother fell and bruised her back. Cousin: "I know Rolfe doesn't believe in it but you really ought to use arnica, it works really well." She simply thinks it works, based on her observations, which don't seem to include seeing if anything different happens when she doesn't use the arnica. Also, the "brings the bruising out" seems to be a class of explanation which covers all the normal things that happen after a bruise. Now she's such a believer she won't even listen to any contrary arguments. And yet she's not an altmed type in general. Relies on the doctor and normal medicine for anything really wrong.

Then when you get to the professional arena, it seems as if an exaggerated respect for the homoeopathic colleagues, and a desire not to offend, causes many normally sane minds to open so far that their brains fall out. Goodness, if the respected Mr. X, MRCVS, says that homoeopathic remedies work well, how can we possibly contradict him? (Which Mr. X plays up for all he's worth, by declaring that if we've never studied how to use the magic water, and used it, then we're not qualified to comment.)

All further suggestions welcomed with open arms.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

I think we are really hampered by our "skeptic training". We want to say something precise and well-documentable, and it inevitably becomes long and involved ;).

But most lay people are used to trust and accept authoritative statements. This is not because they are naive, quite the opposite; they are pragmatic and realize that they will not understand high-brow explanations, so they just want some affirmative information from a suitable authority.

Thus, I think the killer argument for most people would be along the lines of: "Homeopathy was invented around AD1800 when little true understanding existed about what caused diseases. In modern times it has been tested by science and found worthless. Harmless, but worthless."

Then perhaps a short elaboration on placebo effect and how remedies are nothing but water.

Hans

[Rolfe]

I didn't even go that far with the cousin. Simply said that the arnica remedy was so dilute that there was no arnica in it, and that trials where half the patients had been given arnica and half hadn't had shown no difference between the groups. She bridled a bit at the time, and that was when she said, "I'd always been told it helped to bring the bruising out." Later, when she tried to persuade my Mum to use it, it was obvious that she was simply a believer (in the arnica - she didn't even know it was homoeopathy) and wasn't going to listen to anything against it.

Rolfe.

[Bowser]

The thing is...it works.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Bowser
The thing is...it works. Prove it. (And be $1,000,000 richer, if you can do it under sufficienmtly well controlled conditions.)

Rolfe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What the heck does "It brings the bruising out" mean?

Given a choice between believing an anecdote and pondering the science in something, what will people choose? If the former, then saying something to them about science doesn't matter.

~~ Paul

[The Don]

Originally posted by Bowser
The thing is...it works.
Oh no it doesn't (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,887632,00.html)

and this is the abstract of the study which indocates that it doesn't (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12562974&itool=iconabstr)

[Bowser]

Having seen that it works, and works very well in situations where western medicine has utterly failed, I'm not going to ignore its potential just because I may not know exactly how it works. But it does work.

And I'm sure that $1M is about as valid as Kent Hovind's (sp?) creation challenge.

[MRC_Hans]

It works

All kinds of treatment work. Shamanism, voodoo, crystal therapy, snake oil, prayer, touch healing, etc etc. ALL have adherents that can tell you it worked for them.

You see, diseases sometimes go away, even "incurable" diseases. Whatever you happened to be trying just before it went away "cured" you.

The 1M$ challenge works, too ;). Show that you can discern a homeopathic remedy from placebo in controlled conditions and win.

Hans

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Bowser
The thing is...it works.

No it doesn't.

See? I win, because I said it second.

But, you do not have the excuse of complete ignorance of the basis of homeopathy so are required to answer the big questions;

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40064

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
If an uninformed lay person expresses interest in homeopathy, what single concept can you simply and quickly present them with that brings out the true madness of it? "Okay, mom," (my mother kinda buys into the nonsense) "you know how chicken soup is supposed to be good for whatever ails you? Well, the main principle of homeopathy is that you'll get much more benefit if you swirl a chicken leg in an Olympic-sized swimming pool and drink a cup of the pool water. Or break off a tiny piece of a chicken bullion cube and dissolve it in the pool and..."

[Vitnir]

If an uninformed lay person expresses interest in homeopathy, what single concept can you simply and quickly present them with that brings out the true madness of it?

A good argument should also in a graphic way describe how ridiculous the idea is. The protest where people tried to commit suicide using homeopathic poisons were in my mind a good example.

[geni]

Originally posted by Bowser
Having seen that it works, and works very well in situations where western medicine has utterly failed, I'm not going to ignore its potential just because I may not know exactly how it works. But it does work.

Now I know this might be slighly confusing but Germany is in the west. It's to the right of France.

And I'm sure that $1M is about as valid as Kent Hovind's (sp?) creation challenge.

Don't care how sure you are you are wrong. The million exists and the tests are fair. The fair test bit is of course the problem

[athon]

The use of arnica with bruises is an old remedy that was used pre-homeopathy. I came into contact with it years ago when I did medieval reenactment combat, and somebody suggested a cream that used it to 'bring out the bruising and make it heal faster'. I argued that while interesting, it makes no sense. I described what a bruise was, and that the best way to deal with a bruise was to reduce swelling with an immediate application of ice (although one martial arts teacher I had used a small amount of heat first and then ice, which did seem to reduce healing time...although I can't refer to any study for that. Might have something to do with vascular dilation, though).

Anyway, I decided to test this on a few occasions by borrowing some of this arnicum cream and applying it to a few bruises, whilst leaving others untouched (yeah, they were some pretty intense training sessions. hehe).

Guess what? I could see no correlation between the use of arnicum cream and bruise healing time. It made no difference to the believers when I told them, but ever since I've argued against it being anything useful. If anybody has a more comprehensive study, I'd love to read it.

But I think my anecdote beats most people's anecdotes on the topic. :)

Athon

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think we are really hampered by our "skeptic training".

...But most lay people are used to trust and accept authoritative statements.

I think this opens a most interesting can of worms. The alt med believers like to think they are independent thinkers, going against the flow of the common herd. This narcissistic attitude is particularly vigorously put by Divina on the homeopathy boards: anyone who doesn't believe doesn't have the intellect to do understand the world of woo.

What the believers are really doing is simply buying into a different set of authoritative doctrines. One of the striking features of these doctrines is how much more dogmatic they are than any modern scientific view. The dogmatism of science is mainly a straw man raised by the woo-believer as a rearguard action against the threatening complexities of science as it is.

The problem, if such it be, of modern science is that it is difficult to understand and superficially contradictory so there is an understandable desire in certain people to flea from it into the arms of something that comforts them with easy answers and an apparent ability to control the uncontrollable.

Real scepticism requres discipline and most people either can't or can't be bothered to do it.

I do go with the herd on some things, but if I do so I at least try to be aware that I am doing so. For instance I have decided to accept that global warming is real and defer to the authority of the expert panels that have decided that human activities are an important factor. I have chosen to trust that authority and not attempt to educate myself from the ground up in climatology. But the sceptic means that if the orthodoxy was to change I could accept it and move on. For the homeopaths, the orthodoxy has changed, but they cannot move on.

I should add that my examples are not exactly parallel. There is room to debate climate change. We know how that debate is framed, but we think one side has more of the right answers. With homeopathy it is not a mere tilt of balance, they are just wrong and 200 years of progress should have told them why they are wrong.

[athon]

Good point on the 'deferring to authority', rather than 'appealling'. If we keep in mind that we possess a certain ignorance on the topic, then additional information is easier to incorporate, and past views are easier to alter. I feel that this is the crux of most people's problems -- it's not a part of human nature to reevaluate beliefs in light of new information. Humility, as I tell my students, is the single greatest virtue a scientist can have.

Athon

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Real scepticism requres discipline and most people either can't or can't be bothered to do it.Good point. As Kurt Vonnegut once observed, "She was of average intelligence, meaning she couldn't think at all, except in short bursts." Real skepticism requires one to be able to admit that he may be wrong, or to have believed things that are wrong. Most people have a lot of trouble with that. And as such, it sometimes makes me wonder whether skepticism isn't a hopeless cause.
I should add that my examples are not exactly parallel. There is room to debate climate change. We know how that debate is framed, but we think one side has more of the right answers. With homeopathy it is not a mere tilt of balance, they are just wrong and 200 years of progress should have told them why they are wrong. Good analogy. I'm not convinced that global warming is going on, or at least I'm not convinced that it's something we can do much about. But I could be convinced of it, say, for example, if the next ten years are all five degrees warmer than usual worldwide. I might need more evidence than someone else, or maybe less, but I could be persuaded. But it appears there is no such thing as evidence that would convince your typical homeopathy enthusiast that it doesn't work. It's akin to a religious belief in that sense.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by Bowser
Having seen that it works, and works very well in situations where western medicine has utterly failed, I'm not going to ignore its potential just because I may not know exactly how it works. But it does work.

And I'm sure that $1M is about as valid as Kent Hovind's (sp?) creation challenge.

So (again I ask) what exactly is the homeopathic CURE for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
So (again I ask) what exactly is the homeopathic CURE for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? You cannot deal with homoeopathy within an alopathic paradigm. Every patient is an individual and the correct remedy can only be identified by a full case-taking.

This is their answer to any question like that. They don't recognise "hypertrophic cardiomyopathy" as a diagnosis, only the individual symptoms exhibited by the individual patient can demonstrate the exact nature of the disturbance in the vital force. If you can identify the exact simillimun, then you will certainly cure the patient.

What you do if the right simillimum hasn't been proved yet, I don't know.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Bowser
Having seen that it works, and works very well in situations where western medicine has utterly failed, I'm not going to ignore its potential just because I may not know exactly how it works. But it does work.I don't think there is any reasonable rebuttal to this constant unfounded assertion that "it works". As Bach is busy demonstrating, if any trial shows that it doesn't work, then obviously the trial itself must be at fault. End of argument.

Rolfe.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by Rolfe
You cannot deal with homoeopathy within an alopathic paradigm. Every patient is an individual and the correct remedy can only be identified by a full case-taking.

This is their answer to any question like that. ... slight snip.

Hmmm... you are right. It seems to me to a bit of waffling.

Though I really really wonder what a homeopath would do in the case of a co-worker of my hubby.

Let me just state the symptoms for any homeopaths who might have a cure: sudden fainting spells, followed shortly by coming around.

The last fainting spell was so sudden (I think on some steps) that he broke a bone.

What is the homeopathic cure for fainting spells?

(editted to add case study)

[AK-Dave]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Let me just state the symptoms for any homeopaths who might have a cure: sudden fainting spells, followed shortly by coming around.

The last fainting spell was so sudden (I think on some steps) that he broke a bone.

What is the homeopathic cure for fainting spells?

(editted to add case study)

I’m no homeopath, but, since like cures like, I would recommend a 30C dilution of chloroform applied to a rag and held over the mouth and nose.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Let me just state the symptoms for any homeopaths who might have a cure: sudden fainting spells, followed shortly by coming around.

The last fainting spell was so sudden (I think on some steps) that he broke a bone.

What is the homeopathic cure for fainting spells?It's still not like that. You have to take "the whole case", which involves an hour-long self-obsessed chat about all sorts of aspects of life and personality. If you look at the actual provings of homoeopathic remedies, about 80% of it is psychological (and the rest psychosomatic). You might find that the right remedy turns on whether he habitually sleeps on his right or left side, or fantasises about flying. Hans had a case he linked to once where the remedy turned on the fact that the afflicted child liked sausages. The fainting spells may be the least significant part of the repertorisation!

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

To get the thread back on track...

I would initially have offered the 'diluted 'til there's nothing there' line, but the problem with that is taht most people cannot hold the concept of molecules being a bit like billiard balls so that you can run out of them if you keep splitting them into new containers. I think many people hang onto a vague concept that there is some form of infinitely divisible continuum underlying the lumpiness of molecules that means when you dilute a substance surely 'something' must hang over into the later dilutions. The Ancient Greeks may have come up with the idea of atoms, but it does not accord with everyday experience, which says that you can divide things up as much as you want to. If someone is capable of the abstraction necessary to understand what atomisation of the world really means then they are halfway to being a scientist.


I think that simply saying that it's so diluted there's nothing in it and telling them about the would-be Belgian suicides is a good double hit.

Before I knew anything about homeopathy I supposed 'succussion' to be some mystical and complex mechanical process that could indeed impart some amazing properties onto solutions. Now I know it was some German bloke hitting a Bible with a bottle of water or a latterday woo shaking a bootle of water to 'plus' it before taking the next dose, the image that conjures is so fatuous that it's a pretty killer blow for me.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Oh rats! I thought I had something there.

Though while the man was in the emergency department getting his broken bone looked at he a couple more "fainting spells". This worried the staff, so they hooked him up to some monitoring equipment and found out that his heart was having periods of no beating... then start up again.

The "allopathic" treatment was to immediately schedule him for a pace-maker.

I guess my point is that the "whole body" homoepathic bit is just a bunch baloney. I am thoroughly mystified why anyone takes it seriously... and why they claim to be better than real medicine --- but cannot seem to accept the existance of real medical conditions.

I keep wondering if people have been seriously harmed by going to a homeopath instead of a real doctor. Like someone who had "fainting spells" that turned out to be some kind of heart arrhythmia or neurological seizure... and was taking some homeopathic dilution insteard of real medication.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Now I know it was some German bloke hitting a Bible with a bottle of water or a latterday woo shaking a bootle of water to 'plus' it before taking the next dose, the image that conjures is so fatuous that it's a pretty killer blow for me. If I give you my cousin's phone number, will you talk to her? :D

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
I keep wondering if people have been seriously harmed by going to a homeopath instead of a real doctor. Like someone who had "fainting spells" that turned out to be some kind of heart arrhythmia or neurological seizure... and was taking some homeopathic dilution insteard of real medication. That's been tried on their own forum. They were pressed quite hard on the dangers of someone with a vague but life-threatening condition being fobbed off with magic water by one of the "allopathy is evil" breed of homoeopath. The only posters who replied were people who claimed to work within regular medicine, with people who were already properly sorted out with their insulin, or heart drugs or whatever. They then claimed some sort of add-on effect, and that people so treated could reduce their allopathic medication - another testable claim there seems to be no objective evidence for.

When they were pressed back to the quesiton of the hard-core homoeopaths, all they said was that the people who consult them have all already exhausted everything allopathy can offer them. (These posts have all been deleted now, Stalin's airbrush again.)

These guys are past masters at begging the question, and they always have an answer that seems to satisfy them but never the person asking the question.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Trying getting people to make up a remedy. Use the K method (just refill and empty the same container 30 times very dull). If that does strike tham as abserd then you may have a problem.

[Loon]

One issue with homeopathy is that many people don't know what it is. I thought it was herbalism or somesuch. Then I asked a friend about a rash. His father is a homeopath (and general woo) and so explained about "like cures like." I don't think he talked about dillution or succussion. Even then, it set off my BS-ometer.

So one thing you can do when talking to someone is find out what they think homeopathy is. No sense discussing dillution if they're thinking about herbs.

For someone who already knows what homeopathy is, offer to drink a quart of any 30C they care to prepare (and don't let them weasel out by giving you something like .1 M sulphuric acid, as someone resported on these boards tried to do.)

[anor277]

On topic, I think the best killer blow against homeopathy was proposed by Paracelsus back in the 16th century, "the dose determines the poison". For most homeopathic dilutions there is no conceivable dose and hence no effect for good or ill.

[Vitnir]

Even the abstract concept of dilution can be difficult to grasp for some I think. If you know the person enjoy a whiskey/vodka or whatever now and then you could try with; If you empty that bottle in (insert local lake) and then took a drink of the water, would you still get drunk?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Vitnir
Even the abstract concept of dilution can be difficult to grasp for some I think. If you know the person enjoy a whiskey/vodka or whatever now and then you could try with; If you empty that bottle in (insert local lake) and then took a drink of the water, would you still get drunk?
Well firstly it would have to be succussed correctly to have any effect at all and secondly the whisk(e)y wouldn't get you drunk, it'd be a headache/upset stomach/desire to eat kebab cure

[Zombified]

I want to know how much you should dilute hot pepper juice to make a homeopathic self-defense spray...

[patnray]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey


I should add that my examples are not exactly parallel. There is room to debate climate change. We know how that debate is framed, but we think one side has more of the right answers. With homeopathy it is not a mere tilt of balance, they are just wrong and 200 years of progress should have told them why they are wrong.

I think the following, seen on a homeopath forum, sums it up: "I know homepathy works and no amount of evidence could ever change my mind."

Talk about closed minded...

Rolfe: Make up a totally bogus remedy for bruising (say, goat's milk stored under a pyramid), along with a fake testimonial or web page that claims it works better than arnica. Give it to your mom. Later you can tell her you made it up to demonstrate the difference between believing something works and actually proving it...

[Rolfe]

Oh, my Mum's not the problem. It's the nutty advice she's getting from the cousin. Mum just laughs and tells me about it. She wouldn't go near a tube of arnica if you paid her. The cousin is a great example of the lay believer class though.

Now, while I'm here. Athon, can you clarify? I thought arnica was a purely homoeopathic obsession, but you're saying that it was in use as a herbal remedy independently from that? Can you give me any reference for that?

Suezoled was going to find out whether the arnica ointment she saw people using at her stables was homoeopathic or not - I suspected there might be somehting like "6X" or "30C" somewhere on the label. But I think she forgot. Can somebody else find that out for me? Is if possible that the "arnica" my cousin is using does actualy have some mashed-up mountain daisy in it after all?

Now, I know that belladonna really does have pharmaceutical actions (atropine) quite apart from the homoeopaths' use of the magic belladonna water. Is their anything similar about mountain daisy? If it's a herbal remedy in its own right, is there any basis for a mode of action?

Rolfe.