Homeopath remedies toxic to the well?

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870494476#post1870494476

I remember reading somewhere around here that homeopaths claim that their remedies will produce symptoms in people that aren't sick?

Anybody have some good links to the claims that they think their stuff is toxic if you aren't sick?

[Kumar]

It may be possible that these may not be toxic directly but a possible adverse effects can be there indirectly.:)

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
It may be possible that these may not be toxic directly but a possible adverse effects can be there indirectly.:)
There's no active ingredient in the homoeopathic "remedy" so there isn't anything to cause an effect, primary or secondary.

By referring to possible indirect adverse effects, I take it that you mean like sugar isn't harmful in itself but in a diabetic it can trigger insulin related effects. To address this point I refer you back to the first point, there's no active ingredient, nothing to trigger such an event.

[Benguin]

It may be possible that these may not be toxic directly but a possible adverse effects can be there indirectly.

Careful ... that's bordering on a provable claim.

Can you give us an example we can try at home for ourselves?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870494476#post1870494476

I remember reading somewhere around here that homeopaths claim that their remedies will produce symptoms in people that aren't sick?

Anybody have some good links to the claims that they think their stuff is toxic if you aren't sick? Homeopathic medicine is thought to work by having the same effect as the disease they are to cure. I have written a small piece that explains it in some detail here (http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Skeptic), but the essense is that that a homeopathic medicine given to a healthy person produces a number of disease-like symptoms. This is called "proving". There is not full consensus among homeopaths as to whether such symptoms are potentially harmful or not.

Some claim that since there is no actual substance in the remedy, the symptoms it causes are just perceived symptoms and thus not harmful, but others acknowledge them as real effects and consider them potentially harmful. The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, did consider them potentially harmful.

Of course, skeptics will point out that there does not appear to be an effect at all from the remedies. When challenged to conduct tests that verify the existence of "proving" effects, most homeopaths back out, and those scientifically valid tests that have been conducted have not shown any effect.

Hans

[Kumar]

Originally posted by The Don

There's no active ingredient in the homoeopathic "remedy" so there isn't anything to cause an effect, primary or secondary.

By referring to possible indirect adverse effects, I take it that you mean like sugar isn't harmful in itself but in a diabetic it can trigger insulin related effects. To address this point I refer you back to the first point, there's no active ingredient, nothing to trigger such an event.

Don, I think you have not read my posting in $ 1 Million Claim.

a snip:-

"Lower Dilutions:- Substancial Active substances in bigger molecular forms + water/alcohal + contaminations**.

Lower potensies or Molecular potencies:- Some Active substances in smaller/est particles of molecules + carriers* i.e. water or alcohol + contamications**.

Higher potencies:- No/ultra molecules of active substances + carriers i.e. water or alcohol + contamications**.

* Carriers will allways be in differant sized molecular forms.

** Contaminations i.e. particles of tools equipments & bottles , working person's skin particles, atmospheric particles & polluents etc. mostly silica particles, all these particles will be in differant sized molecular forms.

I feel that: Lower dilutions & Lower potencies works differantly on active substance's considerations alongwith other constituents & differant potencies but Higher potencies works similarily on the considerations of other constituents than the active substances & on differant potencies but may not on active substance basis."

All the above can work on CPE basis as I indicated in other topics.

Benguin,

What do you want is not clear to me?

Mr. Hans,

It is not necessary that "proving" is only done by higher ultromolecular potencies. Few peculier Symptoms produced by raw substance or any lower potency are also noted. However it is for the prover to know previously the toxicological & adverse effects of any remedy, take care & use those potencies which are non toxic.

[The Don]

Kumar,

I have read your posts to that thread and I have also read the responses to your posts.

This thread is related to homoeopathic dilutions, ones in which there are (probably) no molecules of the active ingredient. Whether the body is reacting to the ingredient or is producing a subsidiary reaction, there needs to be at least one molecule present.

[Benguin]

Benguin,

What do you want is not clear to me?

I understand that "It may be possible that these may not be toxic directly but a possible adverse effects can be there indirectly." is saying that a side effect might occur that is not necessarily a harmful one.

That makes sense, it could, for instance, cause a slight change in heart rate or temporary mild hallucination or something.

What I want from you is an example of the application of a remedy to a healthy individual producing some observable symptom. I don't mean an anecdote, I mean an example we can all try.

I know that is slightly off-topic, so it may have been a confusing request.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar

Don, I think you have not read my posting in $ 1 Million Claim.

Or, perhaps he did not consider it useful?

a snip:-

"Lower Dilutions:- Substancial Active substances in bigger molecular forms + water/alcohal + contaminations**.

When "homeopathic remedies" are mentioned it must be generally taken to mean high potencies (>12c). Otherwise, the only correct definition of a homeopathic remedy is the correct similum for a particular condition of a particular patient.

Lower potensies or Molecular potencies:- Some Active substances in smaller/est particles of molecules + carriers* i.e. water or alcohol + contamications**.

This is exactly the same as the above, except for concentration.

Higher potencies:- No/ultra molecules of active substances + carriers i.e. water or alcohol + contamications**.

"ultra"? Contains carrier, period. There may be impurities, but hopefully homeopathic pharmacies are not so sloppy as to pollute their remedies to any degree that matters ;).

* Carriers will allways be in differant sized molecular forms.

Meaning what?

** Contaminations i.e. particles of tools equipments & bottles , working person's skin particles, atmospheric particles & polluents etc. mostly silica particles, all these particles will be in differant sized molecular forms.

Hopefully they exist in negligible amounts.

I feel that: Lower dilutions & Lower potencies works differantly on active substance's considerations alongwith other constituents & differant potencies but Higher potencies works similarily on the considerations of other constituents than the active substances & on differant potencies but may not on active substance basis."

Certainly different. Low dilutions that contain siginificant amounts of active ingredient might have pharmacological effetcs. High dilutions have no effects that can be measured.

All the above can work on CPE basis as I indicated in other topics.

You have indicated such a thesis, yes. It lacks supporting evidence, however.



Hans

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Bold Originally posted by MRC_Hans
When "homeopathic remedies" are mentioned it must be generally taken to mean high potencies (>12c). Otherwise, the only correct definition of a homeopathic remedy is the correct similum for a particular condition of a particular patient.

But it is not correct to think as lower potencies & dilutions also do exists in homeopathic pharmacies.

"ultra"? Contains carrier, period. There may be impurities, but hopefully homeopathic pharmacies are not so sloppy as to pollute their remedies to any degree that matters .

But these may be unavoidable & any minimal quantity of any substance is important in homeopathic sense.

* Carriers will allways be in differant sized molecular forms.

Meaning what?

Alcohol/lactose/contaminations are also a part of potentization & these are mixed everytime next potentization is done. So these will be in their differant sized molecules(or mixed in their differant potencies) .

Hopefully they[contaminations] exist in negligible amounts.

But it can amounts in homeopathic sense.

High dilutions have no effects that can be measured.

"Higher potencies:- No/ultra molecules of active substances + carriers i.e. water or alcohol + [lactose] + contamications**. "

Carriers i.e. water, alcohol or [lactose] + contamication's effects & of differant potency's effect can be there if not of active substance.

[Benguin]

But it is not correct to think as lower potencies & dilutions also do exists in homeopathic pharmacies

But surely they wouldn't themselves be homeopathic (or act in accordance with homeopathic theory) if even trace amounts of active ingredients exist in the solution?

[The Don]

Ah, I now understand, what you are suggesting is that either the medium (solvent in liquid form, substrate in solid) or contaminations may be responsible for the observed effects.

That's an interasting proposition and would at least account for the lack of difference between the performance of the momoeopathic "remedy" and a placebo.

I think that we can exclude water (if it's the solvent) from the equation on the grounds that *everybody* consumes water. That leaves:

- Alcohol
- Lactose
- Contaminants

The effects of the first two have been investigated in some depth and I'd be surprsed if there was anything new there. The contaminants are more interesting but:

- Homoeopaths claim consistency of result even though the contaminants are changing all the time
- We are all consuming trace amounts of all kinds of contaminants all the time

Now your thesis may be that all illnesses are caused and cured by the balance of different contaminants. This would however be at odds with experience which shows that:

- Some people retain conditions even though contaminants change over time
- There is a demonstrable effect due to conventional treatments even though they don't address the contaminants issue

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Benguin


But surely they wouldn't themselves be homeopathic (or act in accordance with homeopathic theory) if even trace amounts of active ingredients exist in the solution?

Why these will not be homeopathic? Moreover, In homeopathy anything can be justified "rationally" if effects of that thing are technically known to the healer because "it is the first duty of a physician is to heal/treat person irrespective of any theory'.

Don, but the potentization & smaller/differant sized molecular & their CPE considerations are to be considered for all carriers & contaminations eventhough these may not be effective in their raw form. These may present a specialized/enhanced taste/sense due to potentization.:)

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Don, but the potentization & smaller/differant sized molecular & their CPE considerations are to be considered for all carriers & contaminations eventhough these may not be effective in their raw form. These may present a specialized/enhanced taste/sense due to potentization.:)
I'm really sorry but I quite literally cannot understand what this means

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
But it is not correct to think as lower potencies & dilutions also do exists in homeopathic pharmacies.

I don't think they are used much.

(on impurities)
But these may be unavoidable & any minimal quantity of any substance is important in homeopathic sense.

Well, but we don't accept the homeopathic sense, remember?

Alcohol/lactose/contaminations are also a part of potentization & these are mixed everytime next potentization is done. So these will be in their differant sized molecules(or mixed in their differant potencies) .

Why should they be in different sizes? A water molecule is a water molecule, period. There are some substances where molecules can have different sizes, but it has nothing todo with potency.

(On contaminants, again)
But it can amounts in homeopathic sense.

Well, that is one of the things homeopaths cannot explain. But that is their problem.

Carriers i.e. water, alcohol or [lactose] + contamication's effects & of differant potency's effect can be there if not of active substance.

Only if you believe that shaking the bottle changes the chemical properties of the content.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar

Why these will not be homeopathic? Moreover, In homeopathy anything can be justified "rationally"

I beg to differ. I have yet to see ANYTHING justified rationally in homeopathy.

if effects of that thing are technically known to the healer because "it is the first duty of a physician is to heal/treat person irrespective of any theory'.

I beg to differ here too, but I'm not going into a discussion about what is kosher homeopathy. You can take that with the homeopaths (and good luck to you ;)).

Don, but the potentization & smaller/differant sized molecular & their CPE considerations are to be considered for all carriers & contaminations eventhough these may not be effective in their raw form. These may present a specialized/enhanced taste/sense due to potentization.:)

What makes you think molecule size has anything to do with potency??

Are you claiming that different potencies taste differently :eek:?

Hans

[bignickel]

I'm at a bit of a loss here: I thought Eos' question was self-evident, but it's not being answered. Instead, it's gone off to the usual 'molecules of substance left' direction.

Her question (and mine too) is this:

Is it possible to overdose on homeopathic (diluted) remedies? (besides drowning, of course)

[Rolfe]

I think she was really asking, could the "proving" effects be dangerous if a well person took a remedy for some reason. (Now that I realise "well" doesn't mean a hole with water in it....)

According to the homoeopaths, yes. BSM has some quotes from the provings guru Scherr where he says that adverse effects on provers are usually short-lived but he has known people suffer for years after a proving. Of course, if you press them on it, they will wriggle and squirm.

There was a thread at H'pathy where BSM tried to get them to agree that if a pregnant woman miscarried while proving a remedy, then according to their theories, the remedy caused the miscarriage. Either that or it was coincidence, which is contrary to homoeopathic theory which says that when a remedy is taken, anything that happens after that is caused by the remedy.

They said that pregnant women aren't involved in provings. BSM said, what if the pregnancy was only discovered during the proving. They shuffled. Then they said pregnancy was an unstable state, so not good for proving as effects couldn't be distinguished from coincidence (NOT homoeopathic!). Then when BSM said, in that case it would be better for a pregnant woman to avoid homoeopathy as the remedies weren't tested for safety during pregnancy.

Divina jumped in and said how homoeopathy could STOP a miscarriage, or premature delivery, or morning sickness and all sorts of things, and why deprive yourself of these benefits? "There are women who have carried a baby to term thanks the homoeopathic remedies!"

As far as I can see, they locked the thread before anyone could ask the obvious question, if remedies are never "proved" on pregnant women, how can you know something will stop miscarriage? If that is an indication, it's because the remedy must have caused miscarriage in a proving, or it was shown as an accidental proving effect when the remedy was given for another reason. If the former, how come, if you never do provings on pregnant women, and it could just be a coincidence if it happened? If the latter, again how do you know it wasn't coincidence, if pregnancy is such an unstable state that you can actually get coincidences happening, and anyway, doesn't that prove the remedy is unsafe during a normal pregnancy?

The fact is, if a remedy is said to do something good (like stop a miscarriage), it must have done the opposite to a healthy person at some time. (Like caused a miscarriage.) Otherwise they are shooting blind. But the general chit-chat didn't identify anyone who had been caused to miscarry by a remedy, but didn't question Divina's assertion that homoeopathy would stop miscarriage either.

Who said any of this made sense?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Here's the thread in H'pathy. Provings on expectant mothers and infants (http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1494&PN=1).

It's a real corker, four pages of it, and I expect they'll delete it soon because it really does show them at their evasive and pompous worst (OK, nearly). Go read it while you can. The Real Monkey is Badly Shaved Monkey (someone else registered there as BadShavedMonkey, that's why)
Naturalhealth is Homeoskeptic
bwv11 is bvw12 (Bach)
Divina is a bitch
and JanZy isn't much better.
I have my private suspicions about "Jennifer".Rolfe.

[bignickel]

What exactly is a 'proving'?

Is it when a homeopath gives a substance to a healthy person, and writes down the symptoms?

Or is when he gives the diluted substance to a sick person, and notes if it 'worked' or not?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bignickel
What exactly is a 'proving'?

Is it when a homeopath gives a substance to a healthy person, and writes down the symptoms?

Or is when he gives the diluted substance to a sick person, and notes if it 'worked' or not? The former.

This is the basis of the "like cures like" thing. If a remedy produced these symptoms in a well person, it will cure them in a sick person. The goal is to get as close a symptom match as possible, and then you have the perfect remedy which will definitely work. They even have computer programmes to do it now.

The provings are truly surreal events. To quote BSM, "if these people were any more interested in themselves they wouldn't get out the door in the morning". It's all self-obsessed cod-psychological drivel, picked over by the "Master Prover" to pull out symptoms which seem to resonate with the thing being proved. Like soaring and circling for falcon blood.

Go here (http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm) to read all about it, and see the amazing things they are turning into remedies. Note that they never draw a blank! No matter what the magic water was shook up with, something always seems to happen, and so it can be assumed to be curative for something.

And do look at that H'pathy thread - it's a true classic.

Rolfe.

[Bowser]

big nickel, a proving is your first example. What do you mean by "overdosing". As in dying? I'm not aware of anything like that.

Benguin, there are indeed potencies (e.g., 6C) which would be expected, statistically, to still have trace amounts present. That isn't relevant to whether the remedy was prepared homeopathically.

Since different remedies have different effects, then I guess it isn't just a matter of the diabetic person having a problem with the sugary base.

[Rolfe]

Oh, I just remembered something. There was one report quoted in the thread about a woman becoming pregnant during a proving. However, one of the really old remedy provings people like to laugh at has as one of its symptoms "excessive ability to become pregnant"! Unfortunately I don't know what remedy that was. But it does suggest it has happened more than once.

So, falling pregnant during a proving is a definite risk. Then you are a pregnant woman doing a proving. If you then miscarry, did the remedy cause it?

The bottom line is, the remedy will cure anything it causes in a healthy person. So, anything claimed to have been cured, must in principle have at some time been observed to be caused by that remedy in a healthy person.

Doesn't sound very safe to me.

Unless it's all delusion and coincidence of course.

Say not so!

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Bold Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I beg to differ. I have yet to see ANYTHING justified rationally in homeopathy.

"Our Master states clearly in the preface of second edition of " Organon", second paragraph that Homeopathy is based on past and present experience of experiments of naked eyes. So every time one should not insist on the cardinal principles only. After all " The high and the only mission of a physician is to cure disease, rationally as it is termed. So understand the meaning of the world "rationally".It does not advocate the application of cardinal prenciples every time. Hence mother tinctures are used on it's physiological and toxicological knowledge of the treating Homeopathic physician."

A quote from here:-

http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1240&KW=val%5Fdrjkr

What makes you think molecule size has anything to do with potency??

Are you claiming that different potencies taste differently

Potentization can atleast convert bigger sized molecule/particle in smaller sized molecule/particle. Differant potencies should sense differantly.

[Rolfe]

Kumar, you are derailing this thread again, after Bignickel brought it back on track. This thread is about whether (or not) homoeopathic remedies can make a healthy person sick.

That is the subject under discussion here. Not about potentisation or sizes of molecules or anything like that. If you want to discuss whether potentisation can change the size of molecules, start a new thread.

Now, do you think homoeopathic remedies can make a healthy person ill?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Since the subject of provings has come up again, It might be timely for those new to this to see what Sherr says about provings in his crapulous little book.

In case anyone is worried, I got it via library loan and did not pay money to this fraud in order to read it. (Do authors get money for library loans?)

Juts read this rubbish, but don't dare tell a homeopath that they need to throw out their renedies because all the provings are ill-founded.

"These are some gems from Jeremy Sherr's book "The Dynamics and Methodology of Homoeopathic Provings"


Homeopathy is not really safe if it does what it is supposed to do

"However it is true that a small number of provers do not emerge unscathed. Usually these sufferings do not last long, but on rare occasions I have known problems to last for months or even years"

Logical fallacy 1

"In any proving there is a statistical possibility that some provers will get their simillimum just by chance. If a patient with the hydrogen disease proves hydrogen she will be cured. it is amazing to see how many people do get better from a proving. During each of my provings there have always been a number of lucky provers who have experienced a substantial benefit to their health"

Given the thousands of remedies that already exist and the near-infiinite number that could exist, what are the odds that several provers from a group of 15-20 would get a positive effect?

Logical fallacy 2

"Many well known remedy keynotes and "pictures" arise from only one or two idiosyncratic or sensitive provers"

So, never mind all the other methodological problems with provings and after all the supposed effort put into analysing the process for genuine effects, sometimes things that happen to literally one or two provers are allowed to dominate the claimed results solely because the organiser of the proving has decided for himself somehow that they have access a unique expression of the remedy's effects. Does anyone see the scope for bias and invention here?

Logical fallacy 3

Only if one person mastered the entire process [of collating results] would the proving have the necessary cohesion.

More scope for bias and invention? For all that this is supposed to be the definitive guide to how to do this is not made clear at what level in the hierarchy and stage in the process the blinding of the operators ceases, but from other remarks about the lack of need to conform to 'scientific protocols and also the complete absence of objective criteria for analysis set a priori, I think it would be impossible for the collator to work in a blinded manner. The whole process depends on the exercise of judgement by that collator "choosing symptoms", "identifying similar symptoms in different provers" and "sensing [sic] the general theme of the proving which will help in the process of validating or rejecting symptoms".

Logical fallacy 4

"The double-blind test is supposed to compensate for bias in the observer and faith in the patient, but has never been empirically tested or proved for either of these factors"

The fact that it is logically obvious and inevitable seems not to matter.

Logical fallacy 5

"Homoeopathic provings are often run on a double-blind basis now, but previous to this [20th] century most proving substances were known to the provers"

In other words, if you think that proper blinding is important the archival provings should be abandoned wholesale, but we shall see that this is not to be the case because,

Logical fallacy 6: it's a big one

"...of course a homoeopathic proving does not need testing for efficacy - our long tradition of proving has served us well, mostly without the use of placebo"

No need for comment!

Logical fallacy 7

"Careful controls and limited use of placebo can eliminate false data and should be incorporated"

So do we placebo controls or not?

One for Catriona

Thus every prover must invariably experience some effect from the remedy

or not as in her case.

Lies, damned lies and statistics 1

"Experience show as that 5 people will suffice for a small project, and that 15-20 will produce a very full remedy."

Even only those most marginally conversant with data analysis will appreciate how inadequate these numbers are given the complexity of the data that are produced.

Lies, damned lies and statistics 2

"I have often heard the opinion that a good proving needs a hundred or more provers. In my experience this number is far too large and will lead to an over-proved remedy. The danger here is overcrowding, with many common symptoms which will overload the repertory and inflate the remedy out of proportion to other remedies"

This is very close to being a definition of a data dredge. Since the collator has no proper criteria for including or excluding symptoms, more provers just yields more symptoms and no basis for judging their relative merits. If there were an enormous number (1,000 or 1,000,000) of provers the remedy being proved would yield an astronomical number of symptoms, with the result that all the remedies would appear the same. The quote is thus tantamount to an unacknowledged admission that the only difference between remedies is the bias brought to bear on the analysis by the collator, who happens to know what the remedy is and is in a position to bias the results provided he is given a tractably small set of symptoms to fit to his pre-conceived ideas.

Logical fallacy 8

"In my opinion such methods [equal numbers receiving placebo, crossover trials] are cumbersome and time consuming, with little real benefit in the end.

They may be time consuming, but this is how reliable data are obtained.

Logical fallacy 9

How are we to use the placebo generated symptoms, if any?

Well, what do you think? How about using them for telling whether the remedy really does anything or nothing by comparing them? Instead the author answers his rhetorical question immediately and with;

Logical fallacy 10

Good provers are not always easy to come by - why should we waste them on placebo?

I think everyone can answer this one for themselves.

Logical fallacy 11: another big one

"Furthermore it is interesting to note that placebo provings occasionally seem to produce similar symptoms to the proving symptoms, thus casting further doubt on the use of this medium in provings"

which implies that the placebo should not be used rather than that the symptoms should be excluded for precisely the reason that they appeared in placebo and verum provers. nothing more needs to be added to emphasise that any commitment to objectivity is just paying it lip-service.


Logical fallacy 12

"Instead I have relied on a smaller percentage of placebo and extra careful scrutiny in verifying symptoms."

This can only be true if the collator is unblinded and makes my earlier point for me concerning the collator's ability to introduce bias and mould the results into any form he chooses.

Logical fallacy 13

"Meticulousness and clinical experience are the best protection and verification"

No they are not. "Meticulousness" is an interesting word to use, bearing in mind its original pejorative meaning of an obsessive attention to detail that detracts from the meticulous person's ability to gain a correct perspective on the subject at-issue.

Logical fallacy 14

"Provings do not conform to Cartesian thinking, as the experimenter is part of the experiment"

Damn right he is, moulding the data to his preconceptions!

Logical fallacy 15

"...most homoeopaths are very conscientious about not fabricating symptoms. Those who still doubt the validity of reports could ask provers to swear on the Bible, as Hahnemann did."

Well that would solve the problem of bias. Wouldn't it?

Lies, damned lies and statistics 3

Hahnemann's materia medica contains no less than 11447 symptoms from a particular prover named Cajetan Nenning"

Data dredging and small-number bias in one step. A neat trick.

Logical fallacy 16

"2) if the prover is under the influence of the remedy (as can be seen by a general appearance of symptoms), then all [author's emphasis] other new symptoms belong to the proving"

Just this bald assertion is made, supported by a quote from the Organon (para 138).

Logical fallacy 17

"11) The inner knowledge and conviction of a prover that these symptoms do not belong to her are a definite and reliable consideration"

So, no need for the Bible then.

Logical fallacy 18

"All the above factors [referring to a list of 11, of which 2 and 11 are quoted and in which placebo control is not mentioned] may still never give us 100% certainty, until the final proof - clinical experience and verification"

Well, if you think that provides 100% certainty then I have some stock certificates for a large item of civil engineering in Brooklyn that you may wish to purchase.

Logical fallacy 19

"It is my opinion that a proving should be a pure document, devoid of interpretation and therefore prejudice"

Devoid of interpretation? I beg to differ. What happened to "choosing symptoms", "identifying similar symptoms in different provers" and "sensing [sic] the general theme of the proving which will help in the process of validating or rejecting symptoms"?

Well, there we have it. There's plenty more to disagree with, but these are the most straightforward and concisely explained problems. The book is out of print but is readily available via libraries if anyone wants to pursue these issues.

Another major issue is the implicit overwhelming emphasis on psychological symptoms, which feeds my view that never, never mind all the claims to cure physical diseases like cancer etc, most of what really happens in homeopathic practice is the creation of effects on psychological symptoms, which are precisely those that are most open to influence by placebo effect.


This book claims to be a definitive guide to modern provings. If this is the best then I think we can infer the shakiness of other proving protocols and the philosophies behind them."

[Benguin]

Why am I always left with the impression they have no understanding of the placebo?

They seem to see it as some magic 'disproving' tool rather than a base case as used in medicine.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Benguin
Why am I always left with the impression they have no understanding of the placebo?

They seem to see it as some magic 'disproving' tool rather than a base case as used in medicine.

Yep, see my Sig Line.

1. Their problem is that they have half latched on to the notion of the placebo effect as being a explanation for the mechanism of action of their remedies.

2. They fail to understand its use as the basal comparator against which a test substance is used so that real effect is precisely and only that effect which appears in addition to what occurs in the placebo arm.

3. They actually prescribe placebo (or 'Blanks') from time to time in order to engender a placebo response deliberately.

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2782&page=1&pp=10

e.g. "Placebo is non medicinal follow up of medication which is recommended to complete the effect of one already given remedy
it is very much recommended in classical homeopathy but I feel quite contraversial of its use
Its entirely a matter of your acting on your concience as Homeopath or performing ditto to ditto as read in the old homeopathys books
yes I dont use placebo in my paratice as patient might not be knowing it but as a healer I know what I am giving and morality ,to me , dont permit
SORRY TO ALL THOSE CLASSICAL HOMEOPATH WHO FIND IT EASY TO GIVE PLACEBOTO THEIR PATIENTS IN THE PRETEXT OF MEDICATION"

[Rolfe]

That thread BSM linked to above has an absolute corker of a comment from our friend Kumar.To the topic subject. "Placebo effect"

I wish & like- to be only treated myself by this great effect only. Can you suggest some ways by which we can enhance this effect? :D I am absolutely serious.:hb:

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

Isn't it already true? Anyone got the staying power to explain that one to him?

[Rolfe]

However, back on topic, I think it's quite telling the way the homoeopaths twist and turn when BSM tries to pin them down.

The logic is quite clear. The principle of "like cures like" dictates that whatever can be cured by homoeopathy will be caused by homoeopathy if the remedy is taken by a healthy person. This is clearly extremely hazardous. Some homoeopaths acknowledge this, and I know one veterinary homoeopath who maintains that 30C remedies should be classified as prescription-only drugs.

However, there is a lot of double-think going on. While they are only too willing to assert that homoepathic remedies are capable of having very powerful physiological effects which are beneficial, when pressed on the obvious fact that anything which is capable of having a powerful effect has at least the potential for having an adverse effect (and that according to homoeopathic theory this is a lot more than just potential), they switch right round and say, but there's nothing in the remedies, they're only water, how can you possibly imagine they could be harmful?

I'm not making this up, you know!

BSM has taken the most vile abuse from homoeopaths who simply can't see the logical corner he has driven them into. By their own logic, these remedies are dangerous. They can't just come back and say, "Oh but by your logic they are perfectly safe so you've no right to make such an accusation."

Either they are just water and do nothing, good or bad, or they are powerful drugs and should be regulated as such. But this logic is too complicated for the homoeopaths, who prefer a more selective interpretation that allows them to have it both ways.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Benguin
Isn't it already true? Anyone got the staying power to explain that one to him? You're welcome to try!

Rolfe.