How homeopathy, really, REALLY works

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I know we've said this before, placebo effect, Hawthorne effect, coincidence, lying yada, yada, yada...

But, I just had a thought which I find quite interesting. Forgive me if this has been bleedin' obvious for ages to everyone else.

Our criticisms of the practice of homeopathy include their unfalsifiable ability to justify any outcome of their treatments. There is also the problem that for some of their remedies hundreds and hundreds of symptoms can be described as associated with those remedies yielding a protean body of information that can mould to any particular circumstance. Their 'provings' are run in a manner that largely depends on the asking of leading questions so as to produce results in with those the Master Prover wanted to impose, consciously or unconsciously.

What I am going to suggest is that there is genuine truth in the rough clustering of their symptom-pictures. Each of the mechanisms listed above serves to tune their data into clusters that are a ragged approximation to real human disease states and psychology. What the homeopath does is learn this roughly sorted corpus of knowledge and apply it to the particular case. The neat bit is that because of the way the data were collected an approximately accurate description of their patients appears as an emergent phenomenon. This means that the homeopaths guesses as to the likely responses of these patients is rather more than a random guess, they probably do develop a genuine intuition as to how a case will turn out. What they then do is relate that back to the patient cast in their own jargon.

Thus;

Gloomy goth teenager walks into the office and slumps in a chair. Homeopath asks, "Do you feel unloved? Do you have a sense of alienation from the world?" Goth girl sits up a little and starts to pay attention...

What I like about this is the notion that their corporate wisdom is effectively a parallel description of the world, which is, as I have already said, a phenomenon emergent from the way they collect their data. The validity of this emergent picture is largely what is so persuasive to their uncritical minds.

(Edited four tipose)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
What I am going to suggest is that there is genuine truth in the rough clustering of their symptom-pictures. Each of the mechanisms listed above serves to tune their data into clusters that are a ragged approximation to real human disease states and psychology. What the homeopath does is learn this roughly sorted corpus of knowledge and apply it to the particular case. The neat bit is that because of the way the data were collected an approximately accurate description of their patients appears as an emergent phenomenon. This means that the homeopaths guesses as to the likely responses of these patients is rather more than a random guess, they probably do develop a genuine intuition as to how a case will turn out. What they then do is relate that back to the patient cast in their own jargon.
So you're saying that as a result of previous experience, they have some idea about how a particular patient is likely to progress, and tell the patient that this will be the effect of the remedy they prescribe? It still sounds a bit like a fraud to me (although some homeopaths may be fooling themselves, of course). Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Mojo
So you're saying that as a result of previous experience, they have some idea about how a particular patient is likely to progress, and tell the patient that this will be the effect of the remedy they prescribe? It still sounds a bit like a fraud to me (although some homeopaths may be fooling themselves, of course). Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

No you haven't. What I am explaining, indeed justifying, is that some of their sense of self-righteousness and vindication lies in the fact that the system they have embedded themselves in has created a model of human disease that, while having zero explanatory power, does make a rough correlation with reality. Given that rough correlation, it is a relatively short step for the uncritical to ignore any inconsistencies they trip over, which is easy because the system includes the excuses to explain away those inconsistencies.

This all gives weight to the 'unknowing' side of our previous debates and, I suspect, describes accurately many of the naive believers.

However, the recent contingent of homs that has appeared centred around MAS add weight to the 'knowing' and outright fraudulent side of the scales. The unknowingly naive would simply have attempted to answer the questions they have been asked as best they could then either accepted or been confused when we try to put them straight. Instead, their desperate evasions reveal a more conscious awareness that they have been caught out even if they stubbornly refuse to contemplate why they have been caught out..

[Donks]

I haven't dealt with homeopaths outside of the 'net, so I can't really tell how "successful" they are at predicting the progression of an illness. From what I have seen of them here and their own boards, the self-deluded ones don't really need any more incentive to believe. No matter the result, they twist it in support of homeopathy, and their diagnoses are vague enough that something will stick, a little bit like astrology.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Donks
I haven't dealt with homeopaths outside of the 'net, so I can't really tell how "successful" they are at predicting the progression of an illness. From what I have seen of them here and their own boards, the self-deluded ones don't really need any more incentive to believe. No matter the result, they twist it in support of homeopathy, and their diagnoses are vague enough that something will stick, a little bit like astrology.

I doubt they are very successful at all, judging by what we see of them on the 'net and by my contacts in my own profession. But, I think my point about their system remains valid and explains why they might be right more often than they would be without it.

[Sarah-I]

A homeopath having a face to face consultation with a patient would never ever ask them "Do you feel unloved"? This is a direct and leading question and homeopaths do NOT ask direct and leading questions.

The whole point is that you do not put words into your patient's mouth and they tell you their story in their own words.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
A homeopath having a face to face consultation with a patient would never ever ask them "Do you feel unloved"? This is a direct and leading question and homeopaths do NOT ask direct and leading questions.

The whole point is that you do not put words into your patient's mouth and they tell you their story in their own words.

Thank you, NHCoraHSarah, it's good to have a homeopath's input on this

Can you see why your point has no real bearing on the argument?

While you are here, I'd be fascinated to read your views (in the relevant threads) on the recent antics of our little gang of supposed Pakistani homeopaths.

[Z]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
A homeopath having a face to face consultation with a patient would never ever ask them "Do you feel unloved"? This is a direct and leading question and homeopaths do NOT ask direct and leading questions.

The whole point is that you do not put words into your patient's mouth and they tell you their story in their own words.

Well, that's a flat-out lie.

Having now been to see seven different homeopaths, I always get questions like, "Is there any marital distress? Have you been in recent financial trouble? Do you find it difficult relating to parents, in-laws, and older figures of authority?"

Seem pretty direct and leading to me.

I've only had one doctor - not even a homeopath, but a doctor who employs homeopathic remedies as complimentary treatments - who sat back, without asking questions, and made an evaluation from what I told him. Of course, this, to me, seems ridiculous; I might have been lying, or forgetting things, but would he know? Nope.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
.... complimentary treatments .... You mean they're free? Or he made you better by saying nice things about you? :D

Rolfe.

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Rolfe
You mean they're free? Or he made you better by saying nice things about you? :D

Rolfe.
Italics Mine

Isn't this how ALL homeopaths work? They say some nice things about you, you go home, chug some REALLY expensive water, and you feel better about yourself?

So take your choice: Complimentary or Complementary. I think it works just about the same.;)

Then again, I'm willing to be shown different. If only they could...

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
...

This means that the homeopaths guesses as to the likely responses of these patients is rather more than a random guess, they probably do develop a genuine intuition as to how a case will turn out. What they then do is relate that back to the patient cast in their own jargon.

Thus;

Gloomy goth teenager walks into the office and slumps in a chair. Homeopath asks, "Do you feel unloved? Do you have a sense of alienation from the world?" Goth girl sits up a little and starts to pay attention...


...
In other words - cold reading!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by clarsct
.... you go home, chug some REALLY expensive water,....I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ever actually been prescribed "water" by a homoeopath. I know from reading their forums that sometimes a "liquid potency" is used, but every time I've ever encountered the stuff it was really, really expensive sugar pills.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
A homeopath having a face to face consultation with a patient would never ever ask them "Do you feel unloved"? This is a direct and leading question and homeopaths do NOT ask direct and leading questions.

The whole point is that you do not put words into your patient's mouth and they tell you their story in their own words. Oh, is that so? Then, pray tell me what you think about this:

First Name:
Age:
Height:
Weight:

CHIEF COMPLAINT:

1. What is your chief complaint (CC)? Tell as much about it as you can, including what is the worst part of it and why it's the worst: the sensations, the kind of pain, the location, how your energy has been affected (for example, has the complaint made you restless, weak, nervous, anxious, irritable, hypersensitive, effected your thirst and appetite, your body temperature, and so on).

2. When did this problem begin? What happened in
your life around that time? What do you think
caused it?
3. What aggravates the CC and what brings it on? (for example, certain types of food or weather, movement, light, noise, company, talking,
heat/cold, or anything else that you can think
of; please be specific) and what makes the CC better (for example hot or cold, massage, eating, lying still, music, company...)? What does it make you do to try to feel better?
4. At what time of the day or night is the CC the
worst? Specify an hour if you can.
5. What symptoms can you identify that accompany
the CC (whether directly related or not; for example, headache with nausea; or menstrual cramps with diarrhea; a cold with irritability and anger)?

GENERAL QUESTIONS
6. Environment: With regard to the seasons, weather, outdoor temperature, indoor temperature, drafts, air quality, airconditioning, ocean air, mountain air, humidity, the sun/rain/thunderstorms/clouds/fog, etc.: what environmental factors give you comfort and relief, and which ones cause discomfort and distress? Try to give examples.

7. What position is most uncomfortable for you?

8. a)Do you tend to be chilly or warm? Are there parts of your body that are colder or warmer than the rest of you? Is there a special time of day or night when they are colder or warmer? b) Do you perspire a great deal? If so, when? And where on the body? (feet, head, hair, chest, armpits, etc) Does it leave a stain of a particular color? Is there a particular odor?
9. Describe what your tongue looks like.

MENTAL/EMOTIONAL
10. What do you worry about? How do you deal with
worries?
11. How do you keep your house/your desk/your room/your study/your bathroom?
12. How easily do you cry? In what situations?
13. When you are upset, what do you do to help yourself feel better?
14. What makes you angry? What do you do when you're angry?
15. Do you have an emotion that predominates; such as anger, depression, irritability, anxiety, jealousy, joy...or possibly two emotions that tend to alternate predictably?
16. What fears do you have?
17. What have been the most difficult circumstances in your life? How did you cope?
18. What are the greatest joys you have had in
your life?
19. What was your childhood like?
20. What bothers you most in other people? How,
if at all, do you express it?
21. What causes the most problems in your relationships?
22. Do you have any recurring dreams? What are they about?
23. What would you need to feel happy?
24. What do you do for work? Ideally, what would
you like to do?
25. If you were made President for a day, what would you change?
26. When people have criticized you, what were they complaining about? Similarly, when people have praised you, what did you receive praise for?
27. What would you like to change most about
yourself?

FOOD
28. How do you feel before, during and after
meals? How do you feel if you go without a
meal?
29. What would you most like to eat (if you did
not have to consider calories, fat, anything
you've read about the right way to eat)?
30. What foods do you dislike and refuse to eat?
What foods do you react badly to, and in what
way?
31. How much do you drink in a day? Include
sodas, juice, coffee, tea, milk, and
alcoholic beverages as well as water. How
thirsty do you tend to get? What temperature would you like your drinks to be?

SLEEP
32. How is your sleep?
33. Do you do anything during sleep? (peak,
laugh, shriek, toss about, grind your teeth, drool, snore, walk, talk, etc.)
34. Do you have trouble falling asleep? What keeps you awake? Do you wake always at a certain time? What causes you to wake up? What position do you sleep in?

WOMEN
35. Number of pregnancies, number of children,
number of miscarriages, number of abortions
36. At what age did your menses begin? If you
have gone through menopause, at what age?
37. How frequently do they (or did they) come?
38. What about their duration, abundance, colour,
time of day when flow is greatest; any odour
or clots?
39. How do you (did you) feel before, during and
after menses?

HEALTH HISTORY
40. What medications are you taking at present?
41. How frequently do you get colds and flus?
42. Have you had any childhood illnesses twice,
or in a very severe form, or after puberty?
43. Have you had any vaccinations since the
standard childhood ones? Have you ever had an
adverse or unusual reaction to a vaccination?
44. Have you had any surgery? What and when?
45. Have you had at any time (mention year):
warts, cysts, Polyps, or tumors? Where were they located? How were they treated?

46. Do you tend to have any discharges (nasal,
vaginal, etc.)? What is the color, consistency?

SENSITIVITY
47. a) Do you tend to need a smaller dose of
medications than most other people?
b) Do you need less anaesthesia than others,
or have a hard time coming out of it?
c) Do you tend to react to vitamins and herbs
and/or need hypoallergenic vitamins?
d) Are you sensitive to paint fumes, exhuast,
dry cleaning fluid, fragrances etc.?

48. Family history: Mention diseases, causes
and ages of deaths of father, mother,
sisters, brothers and grandparents on both
sides.

49. Construct a time line: Mention from birth
on to the present day, all IMPORTANT events
(emotional and physical traumas,
heartbreaks, divorces, work-related events,
diseases or traumas your mother had while
being pregnant with you, family stress,
death in the family or of friends,
disappointment, etc.) Mention the symptoms
experienced at those moments or which you
can date to those traumas.
50. When you stand in line at the bank or supermarket, how do you feel?
51. When your family member was last sick, what did you do?
52. How is your sexual energy?
53. How do you react to consolation
54. What part of your life do you have the most difficulty coping with.
55. What are your hobbies?


Do youhave any problems with the many leading questions in the above?

Hans

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ever actually been prescribed "water" by a homoeopath. I know from reading their forums that sometimes a "liquid potency" is used, but every time I've ever encountered the stuff it was really, really expensive sugar pills.

Rolfe.
I am more than willing to take your word for this, dear lady.

I have never seen any form of a 'holistic healer'. When speaking of dilutions, I think of liquid dilutions.

But I think the basic concept is the same.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Do youhave any problems with the many leading questions in the above?

Hans

One can see, how much hard work & sacrifices, a homeopath does. Thereaftere of digging & noting suitable replies, he/she has to select a prescription based of too much theories & remedies. He may also have to relate some modern & homeopathic aspects. All these with lesser fees/earnings & pressure of this system being considered as " non-conventional". We should therefore respect/encourage them, not just contradict/discourage. Anyway patients USUALY got satisfied (if not bored/frustrated in awnsering & waiting) for that; he has been proplely checked/attended.

Is this much shouldn't be there in all system's prescribings--may be much more, when a patient is intended to be treated with concentated chemicals with much side/adverse/toxic effects(adversities)?
:eek:

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by clarsct
When speaking of dilutions, I think of liquid dilutions.

But I think the basic concept is the same. Well, it's just kind of amusing, when considering all that nonsense about the "memory of water", that they then just spray or drop the water on a sugar pill, let it evaporate, and declare that the sugar pill has the same effect.

Also, it further highlights the absolutely tiny doses that are being taken, even of the relatively concentrated preparations.

Rolfe.

[Sarah-I]

Hans,

Yes I do have a problem with the questions that you posted. I do not conduct my consultations like that.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Hans,

Yes I do have a problem with the questions that you posted. I do not conduct my consultations like that. That's OK. Never saw you debating them with Snoopey, though.

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
One can see, how much hard work & sacrifices, a homeopath does. Thereaftere of digging & noting suitable replies, he/she has to select a prescription based of too much theories & remedies. He may also have to relate some modern & homeopathic aspects. All these with lesser fees/earnings & pressure of this system being considered as " non-conventional". We should therefore respect/encourage them, not just contradict/discourage. Anyway patients USUALY got satisfied (if not bored/frustrated in awnsering & waiting) for that; he has been proplely checked/attended.

Is this much shouldn't be there in all system's prescribings--may be much more, when a patient is intended to be treated with concentated chemicals with much side/adverse/toxic effects(adversities)?
:eek:

Originally posted by Kumar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870919707#post1870919707)
I am not an advocater of homeopathy or a enemy of modern syste

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Dragon
In other words - cold reading!

Pretty much! Though I suspect their system allows them to do it subconsciously rather than deliberately setting out as a cold reader aware of the tricks to play.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Hans,

Yes I do have a problem with the questions that you posted. I do not conduct my consultations like that.

What? Do you ask no questions?

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Pretty much! Though I suspect their system allows them to do it subconsciously rather than deliberately setting out as a cold reader aware of the tricks to play.
Actually,
My opinion is that most people who claim sucess with homeopathic "cures" tend to have imaginary diseases. Imaginary cures work well for these problems.

[MRC_Hans]

And, for the original topic ;):

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I know we've said this before, placebo effect, Hawthorne effect, coincidence, lying yada, yada, yada...

But, I just had a thought which I find quite interesting. Forgive me if this has been bleedin' obvious for ages to everyone else.

*snip*

What I like about this is the notion that their corporate wisdom is effectively a parallel description of the world, which is, as I have already said, a phenomenon emergent from the way they collect their data. The validity of this emergent picture is largely what is so persuasive to their uncritical minds.

(Edited four tipose) You have apoint, but I think it is much simpler than that. There was a link somewhere to "Dr." MAS' homeopathic college's homepage, and there you can see the curriculi for the four years of homepathic education. There is a lot of anatomy and pathology in those, so if they are taught half well, and the students pay some attention, they are likely to emergy with a theoretical ballast close ot nurse level. Probably western homeopathic edication is similar, and even self-taught homeopaths are going to pick up a certain base of knowledge of at least simple diseases.

SO, given that, it is a fairly simple matter for a homeopath, when a patient comes into his/her office, to make a rough diagnosis, and act accordingly, like:

1) Patient presents with runny nose, cough, slightly sore throat, and general misery. Homeopath takes case and says "take this, and you'll be better in a few days."

2) Patient presents with high feever, severe touch-sensitive and press-and release sensitive pain in lower left abdomen. Homeopath says "Uhh, I could cure this, but homeopathic cure may take too long, so we'd better get you to a hospital :eek:!"

On a side note, the tendency for some homeopaths, and certainly the Pakistani contingent, to refer difficult (read serious) cases to conventional treatment is certainly a good thing, in terms of patient safety, but it is also going to reinforce their impression of being able to cure, since they mainly work on diseases that will resolve anyway.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
While you are here, I'd be fascinated to read your views (in the relevant threads) on the recent antics of our little gang of supposed Pakistani homeopaths. Sarah, I would also be interested to hear your opinion of the performence put up by the MAS collective in their threads (mostly in the General Scepticism forum area). Are you proud of the way they put their case? Do you think this was a good example of homoeopathic intellectual integrity? Do you have the foggiest idea where they were going with any of their arguments, such as they were? Do you agree with them that the activity of homoeopathic remedies is dependent on their containing substance of the mother tincture, and even potencies of 30C and above do in fact contain such substance?

Rolfe.

[Sarah-I]

Rolfe,

I did read a couple of posts on that forum, but quickly lost interest. They seem to have a style all of their own, that I would not necessarily agree with.

If they are talking about MT's, then they must be talking about molecules of substance. A 30c potency is ultramolecular. Up until 12c the remedies contain molecules, but not above this.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Rolfe,

I did read a couple of posts on that forum, but quickly lost interest. They seem to have a style all of their own, that I would not necessarily agree with.

If they are talking about MT's, then they must be talking about molecules of substance. A 30c potency is ultramolecular. Up until 12c the remedies contain molecules, but not above this. Try telling them that! They'll offer you a million Pakistani rupees if you can prove it to them!

Actually, you're only half right. Over 12C we can be confident that there is only a very small chance of any particular bottle we pick up having even a single molecule (or whatever the smallest aggregate of the remedy in quesiton is) in it. However, this actually assumes a pretty concentrated mother tincture. The concentration of the mother tinctures is something we have not been able to discover with any certainty, but it seems likely that it is quite a lot less than that assumed for the calculation in question. Therefore, I wouldn't want to state too categorically that there will definitely be molecules in the dilutions just below 12C (or 24X if you're doing it that way).

In addition, some calculations we have recently been doing on there threads you lost interest in have shown quite conclusively that with only the possible exception of extremely potent toxins such as botulinum toxin, even a 6X preparation, the most concentrated allowed to be sold as homoeopathic in this country, will be entirely physiologically inert as it does not have a high enough concentration of anything in it for the body to notice the sort of dose usually taken as homoeopathic (that is a drop or two).

Why do you think these supposedly highly educated Pakistani homoeopaths, the peak of their profession in that country (according to them), believe that they can demonstrate that there is molecular presence of the mother tincture in a 31C potency?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rolfe
...even a 6X preparation, the most concentrated allowed to be sold as homoeopathic in this country, will be entirely physiologically inert as it does not have a high enough concentration of anything in it for the body to notice the sort of dose usually taken as homoeopathic (that is a drop or two).In fact it is actually a requirement for registration under the loophole that allows homeopathic remedies to be sold that the remedies must "be sufficiently dilute to guarantee their safety" (from the MHRA website (http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/licensingmeds/types/homoeopathic.htm )).

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Mojo
In fact it is actually a requirement for registration under the loophole that allows homeopathic remedies to be sold that the remedies must "be sufficiently dilute to guarantee their safety" (from the MHRA website (http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/licensingmeds/types/homoeopathic.htm )). Yeah, don't you just love the double-think? We'll list the things and give them the kudos of official recognition, as if in some way we accepted the validity of all those claims of profound physiological effects. But then we'll agree that if they're essentially content-free, they're harmless, and don't have any physiological effects - quietly ignoring the logic that says, if you give any credence to the claims of efficacy, you have to give credence to the reports of adverse sequelae as well.

Rolfe.

[Sarah-I]

Rolfe,

I really have no idea at all how the Pakistani homeopaths think. That is something you would have to ask them directly. I am not into speculation.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Rolfe,

I really have no idea at all how the Pakistani homeopaths think. That is something you would have to ask them directly. I am not into speculation. Fair enough. Unfortunately, we tried that. The replies were not encouraging. Right now, the issue seems to be whether they think at all (I am here referring to the "Dr." MAS contingent, not to Pakistani homeopaths as a whole).

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Rolfe,

I really have no idea at all how the Pakistani homeopaths think. That is something you would have to ask them directly. I am not into speculation. Well, they are your colleagues, not mine. I think it's a legitimate question whether you think they are really part of homoeopathy as you understand it, or whether you would in fact disown their arguments and attitudes.

For example, if a Pakistani veterinary surgeon was putting forward controversial arguments, I would consider it legitimate to let people know where I stood with regard to this "colleague" of mine - did I support his point of view, or disown it?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Rolfe,

I really have no idea at all how the Pakistani homeopaths think. That is something you would have to ask them directly. I am not into speculation.

Are you not? But it's not a matter of speculation that the standard questionnaire that Hans quoted here and that your colleagues at Hpathy encourage people to fill out is full of leading questions. Yet you said the following;


Originally posted by Sarah-I
A homeopath having a face to face consultation with a patient would never ever ask them "Do you feel unloved"? This is a direct and leading question and homeopaths do NOT ask direct and leading questions.

The whole point is that you do not put words into your patient's mouth and they tell you their story in their own words.

What are you doing about the non-speculative fact that they are flying in the face of good homeopathic practice?

It seems we've just come across another one of those fatal contradictions that riddle homeopathy. Why is it fatal? Quite simply, we have, once again, an example of bad practice that should invalidate the results claimed for homeopathy yet no one seems to notice that they are doing it wrongly. Might that be because you are all giving sugar pills and all having precisely the same placebo effect whether or not you ask leading questions or whether or not you are a Pakistani homeopath who can't count properly?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, they are your colleagues, not mine. I think it's a legitimate question whether you think they are really part of homoeopathy as you understand it, or whether you would in fact disown their arguments and attitudes.

For example, if a Pakistani veterinary surgeon was putting forward controversial arguments, I would consider it legitimate to let people know where I stood with regard to this "colleague" of mine - did I support his point of view, or disown it?

Rolfe.

Here, let me help with my trusty online dictionary.

Hang on a sec'. Here we go.

Homeopath (n.) (http://dict.die.net/incurious/)

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, it's just kind of amusing, when considering all that nonsense about the "memory of water", that they then just spray or drop the water on a sugar pill, let it evaporate, and declare that the sugar pill has the same effect.

Also, it further highlights the absolutely tiny doses that are being taken, even of the relatively concentrated preparations.

Rolfe.

That water has a memory is fact based on all the resoundingly positive studies with basophils/histamine.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57736

A sugar pill (a polar molecule) submerged in this "altered" water may indeed take on its properties.

Why is this so impossible to believe?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
A sugar pill (a polar molecule) submerged in this "altered" water may indeed take on its properties."May". I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot better than that, Xanta.

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
That water has a memory is fact based on all the resoundingly positive studies with basophils/histamine.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57736

A sugar pill (a polar molecule) submerged in this "altered" water may indeed take on its properties.

Why is this so impossible to believe?

Because it is untrue?

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by rwguinn
Because it is untrue?

yeah, and everyone thought this was untrue until now.



Abstract --- 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15105967


Inflamm Res. 2004 Apr;53(5):181-8. Epub 2004 Apr 21. Related Articles, Links


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10350142&dopt=Abstract

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4152521,00.html

from the 1999 study
The newer research includes a series of studies conducted in four highly respected laboratories in Europe (Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland). A total of 3,764 measurements were taken, and significant biological effects were found from highly diluted doses of histamine. Specifically, doses of histamine that were diluted 1:100 15 to 19 times were found to have substantially significant effects on inhibiting degranulation of basophils (p<0.0001).

[Mojo]

Why all the pussyfooting around?

Never mind the "substantially significant effects on inhibiting degranulation of basophils" of "diluted doses of histamine."

If homeopathy works, you should be able to provide decent evidence (i.e. from DBPC tests) demonstrating that it works.

[analogy alert!] At the moment, your position is a bit like someone claiming to have a car that runs on water. The conversation goes a bit like this:A: "I can run a car using water as fuel."

B: "OK, show me it working."

A: "Well, water is a liquid composed of molecules containing hydrogen, and so is petrol."[/analogy alert!]

Do you see why this imagined conversation does not demonstrate that a car can be run with water as the fuel?

If homeopathy works, it should be possible to demonstrate its efficacy without all these attempts at providing a theoretical basis for it.

Incidentally, did the diluted histamines have the opposite effect to that expected? Otherwise, "like cures like" is looking a little dodgy...

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Mojo
Incidentally, did the diluted histamines have the opposite effect to that expected? Otherwise, "like cures like" is looking a little dodgy... Nicely spotted, Mojo. [Deleted until I've had a chance to check my facts. I might have made a mistake.]

I wonder why these covert trials aimed at showing some effect related to homoeopathy never actually use the same solvent as is actually used by your real actual homoeopaths? You know, that "water/alcohol mixture", with the proportions and even the identity of the alcohol unspecified?

Rolfe.

[Olaf/QII]

.

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by Mojo
Why all the pussyfooting around?

Never mind the "substantially significant effects on inhibiting degranulation of basophils" of "diluted doses of histamine."

If homeopathy works, you should be able to provide decent evidence (i.e. from DBPC tests) demonstrating that it works.

[analogy alert!] At the moment, your position is a bit like someone claiming to have a car that runs on water. The conversation goes a bit like this:[/analogy alert!]

Do you see why this imagined conversation does not demonstrate that a car can be run with water as the fuel?

If homeopathy works, it should be possible to demonstrate its efficacy without all these attempts at providing a theoretical basis for it.

Incidentally, did the diluted histamines have the opposite effect to that expected? Otherwise, "like cures like" is looking a little dodgy...


That just might be the worst analogy I have ever seen.


If homeopathy works, it should be possible to demonstrate its efficacy without all these attempts at providing a theoretical basis for it.

I really would not think that these experiments could be considered as theoretical.

In vitro experiments such as these are really nothing more than a way to show that ultra-diluted solutions have the ability to do something above and beyond what the control (the water) can do.

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by Mojo
Incidentally, did the diluted histamines have the opposite effect to that expected? Otherwise, "like cures like" is looking a little dodgy...

The fact is that they have had an unmistakeable effect on the basophils and that is what is important. Not what you think should be happening.





P < .0001

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
*snip*
In vitro experiments such as these are really nothing more than a way to show that ultra-diluted solutions have the ability to do something above and beyond what the control (the water) can do. YES. You are quite right. How does it feel? So the best this study does (pending verification, of course) is show a difference between ultradilute solutions and plain water.

Interesting, to be sure, but for homeopathy, there are still a few mountains to climb.

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
That just might be the worst analogy I have ever seen.Not really: it's pretty precise to the sort of argument you are deploying to try to support homeopathy.

If you claim that you have a car that runs with water as its fuel, the best way to demonstrate this is to show that the car runs with water as its fuel.

If you claim that homeopathic remedies work, the best way to demonstrate this is to show that homeopathic remedies can cure specific conditions.

Showing that ultra-dilute solutions can perhaps have some sort of effect won't cut it.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
The fact is that they have had an unmistakeable effect on the basophils and that is what is important.It's really very simple. The medical profession is nothing if not pragmatic.

If you want to prove that homeopathic remedies work, you have to prove that homeopathic remedies work. Not that diluted histamines have an effect on basophils. As far as the efficacy of homeopathic remedies goes, that's not important at all.

[John Jackson]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
yeah, and everyone thought this was untrue until now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4152521,00.html

The positive results that Professor Ennis got were what the BBC's Horizon team (with James Randi) attepmpted to replicate.

The results were negative: BBC's Horizon transcript (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml)

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Mojo
It's really very simple. The medical profession is nothing if not pragmatic.

If you want to prove that homeopathic remedies work, you have to prove that homeopathic remedies work. Not that diluted histamines have an effect on basophils. As far as the efficacy of homeopathic remedies goes, that's not important at all.

GOOD!! It means, you will not insist on presence of molecular/active substances in remedies in future, but will only insist on their 'practical effects'? Just re-confirm it. :)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
GOOD!! It means, you will not insist on presence of molecular/active substances in remedies in future, but will only insist on their 'practical effects'? Just re-confirm it. :) Certainly, IF there actually are any "practical effects." That's what you need to demonstrate.

[Z]

Ya know, the more I think about 'ultra-dilute' solutions, the more I worry about the specific methods employed.

In standard chemistry, sterility of containers is useful to a point, but not to an extreme degree. A polystyrene graduated cylinder, for example, need be cleaned before each use, but no major consideration is given to the possibility of molecules of prior reagents adhering or bonding to the styrenes. And only minor consideration is given to the inevitable degradation of the polystyrene into the media within it... since it is only trace amounts.

But as we move into research regarding ultra-dilutions, shouldn't every possible precaution be taken to eliminate the possibility, however slight, of reagents bonding into the container and/or releasing at inappropriate stages?

Another thought that occured to me - and keep in mind, it's been a decade since I've done any chemistry work myself - is the idea of 'vortexing' a solution. Now, doesn't this basically mean spinning it, or stirring it like a beater? And is it uni-directional, or are there two counter-directionals, like a blender?

The reason I ask, is if you're just spinning the solution around, isn't there a possibility that heavier molecules would migrate in one direction, and lighter molecules in another - leading to a possibility of a 'solution' that is not truly homogeneous in nature?

I'm not sure what implications that might have. But one thing I'm sure of, is that the usual procedures for normal chemistry might well be insufficient when dealing with ultra-dilutions - where a tiny group of molecules could skew the results significantly.

I know this would possibly be expensive and definitely would be time-consuming, but has anyone given thought to carefully analysing the final solution to determine its actual concentration of histamines? I'm not sure if you can just peek at it under a microscope, or if it would take more complex measures, but I think what these studies indicates is that something is happening. The sensible thing is to start by eliminating obvious factors - and improper dilution process seems, to me, to be one of the first places to start.

...

But, like I said, I haven't touched a beaker in over 10 years. So my thoughts might be sorely out-of-date. Thanks for listening.