Problem with usual debunking of homeopathy

[saizai]

The usual criticism of homeopathy is quite simple (and rational): that the dosage of the original tincture in question is far less than one molecule per vial, and therefore there is no active ingredient at all most likely.

However, this is a bit tangential to the primary claim of homeopathy: that the water somehow 'remembers' the 'vibrations' of the material through succussion (succession?).

I'd like to see counterpoints include a response to this, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand, because after all homeopathy is not claiming that it works by having a high dose of original molecules but by increased potency / memory / whatever of the surrounding substrate.

Granted, it is not well proven that this 'vibration' or 'memory' exists, but a debunking (i.e. "it can't possibly work" rather than a mere weak-agnostic "it's not proven to work") has the burden of showing that it's impossible or at least showing what needs to be changed about known physical law to allow it to work.

[TobiasTheViking]

The usual criticism of homeopathy is quite simple (and rational): that the dosage of the original tincture in question is far less than one molecule per vial, and therefore there is no active ingredient at all most likely.

However, this is a bit tangential to the primary claim of homeopathy: that the water somehow 'remembers' the 'vibrations' of the material through succussion (succession?).

I'd like to see counterpoints include a response to this, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand, because after all homeopathy is not claiming that it works by having a high dose of original molecules but by increased potency / memory / whatever of the surrounding substrate.

Granted, it is not well proven that this 'vibration' or 'memory' exists, but a debunking (i.e. "it can't possibly work" rather than a mere weak-agnostic "it's not proven to work") has the burden of showing that it's impossible or at least showing what needs to be changed about known physical law to allow it to work.
It has already been proven for a long time that it can't possibly work. That didn't stop homeopaths.

First it couldn't possibly work because there wasn't even one molecule of the original substance left in the water.

Then homeopaths backpeddaled and said "ehm, vibrations in the water.. yes yes, it remembers". No evidence for that what so ever. They just claimed it.

That is not scientificially feasible, but it has still been tested under proper double blind experiments, and have been shown to be false. Which isn't surprising sinec it can't work.

So, it can't possibly work, and it hasn't been proven to work.

:)

[saizai]

First it couldn't possibly work because there wasn't even one molecule of the original substance left in the water.

They don't claim that there is.

Then homeopaths backpeddaled and said "ehm, vibrations in the water.. yes yes, it remembers". No evidence for that what so ever. They just claimed it.

That is not scientificially feasible, but it has still been tested under proper double blind experiments, and have been shown to be false. Which isn't surprising sinec it can't work.

What I'm suggesting is simply that a refutation BACK UP the assertion that it is not scientifically feasible... rather than leaving it as an empty assertion vs empty assertion.

[Darat]

I see another success for the modern homeopaths who like to assume white coats to kid people into thinking they are offering a scientific explanations! :)

Remember the fundamental principle of homeopathy is "like cures like" - it is a system of sympathetic magic.

The SkepticWiki article has a good section on the problems inhernet in the idea that somehow something "remembers" something.

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Homeopathy

Magical Beliefs

The basis of homeopathy is effectively sympathetic magic, the idea that like affects like. In this case the magicality is transmitted by an unerasable taint, whereby something, in this case a solvent, that has been 'touched' by something else bears the mark of that touch permanently. This has been called Contagious Magic.

...snip...

However, science is not the only enemy of homeopathy. Its own internal contradictions destroy it from within. If the 'touch' of an agent dissolved in a solution can never be removed then there is no way for the solution to 'know' which agent's action to potentise. No solvent is pure and even trivial contaminants in the solvent will rapidly outweigh the supposed influence of the remedy material.

Other homeopathic ideas make the inherently magical nature of homeopathy more explicit. One such idea is "grafting". This is the transfer of remedy power from one previously activated tablet to a set of blank tablets added to the same bottle. Homeopaths have no useful answer to the question of why any homeopathic pharmacy can legitimately stay in business if tablets can be created endlessly given a single one as an initial seed. Grafting is also supposed to be able to influence the contents of adjacent bottles. No explanation is available to explain why a box of homeopathic remedies does not end up as a hopeless jumble.


Internal Contradictions (or Reductio ad Absurdum)

...snip... The logical inconsistencies can have the force of a reductio ad absurdum disproof of homeopathy. The conflicts among practitioners cover a number of areas and for many of them the opinions form an incompatible dichotomy so that if one group is correct then the other group absolutely cannot be, though it is more likely given what else we know that neither group is correct.

An example of the "Two Schools of Thought" problem is the belief that airport X-ray scanners inactivate remedies. Yet some homeopaths believe this not to be the case. Both sides continue to claim successful treatment, while never wondering about the veracity of the other

[Darat]

They don't claim that there is.


Actually many do - you may be surprised but there appears to be little consistency in what homeopaths do believe. Do a search on the forum for a Member called Rolfe and "homeopath AND Avogadro" and you will see a wealth of conflicting claims made by different practising homeopaths.



What I'm suggesting is simply that a refutation BACK UP the assertion that it is not scientifically feasible... rather than leaving it as an empty assertion vs empty assertion.

You are asking people to prove a negative - logically this cannot be done, the best that can be done is to state that the empirical evidence we have does not support these types of hypothesis.

[saizai]

I think the "like cures like" bit is quite easily (and routinely) shown to be illogical.

It's the "potentiation" bit that IMO is wanting of refutation.

One thing that I find a bit odd about the logic is:
1. like cures like
2. if you give them X which causes Y in healthy people, when they already have Y, then Y will go away
3. potentiation makes X even better, so give highly potentiated stuff to remove Y

Except that it's relatively obvious that normal concentrations of X generally increase Y rather than decrease it, if already present. It's not a binary switch. *shrug*

I wonder what they'd respond if you asked how well that should work - i.e. if you gave a 1x potentiated amount. Would it work better, worse, or some totally different mechanism at different potentiations and therefore a different effect than a 100c version? (Mind you, I'm asking for a believer's POV.)

Anywho, the point stands.

[Mojo]

The usual criticism of homeopathy is quite simple (and rational): that the dosage of the original tincture in question is far less than one molecule per vial, and therefore there is no active ingredient at all most likely. This is only one criticism; there are others. The principle one is simply that it doesn't work. Meta analysis of controlled trials consistently shows this; even when an analysis appeared to show some positive evidence, the same data showed that the better the quality of the trial, the less apparent effect was observed. This fact is acknowleged by homoeopaths to the extent that they now claim that controlled trials are not appropriate for testing homoeopathy (see the quotation from a spokeswoman from the Society of Homoeopaths at the end of this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm), for example). They prefer to run uncontrolled customer satisfaction surveys like the Bristol one published last year, and pretend that they show that it works.

The fact the the mechanisms by which they claim it works have no basis in reality is just the icing on the cake.

[Darat]

I think the "like cures like" bit is quite easily (and routinely) shown to be illogical.

It's the "potentiation" bit that IMO is wanting of refutation.

...snip...

Anywho, the point stands.

But it doesn't as I said you can never entirely disprove potentiation - just as for instance you can't disprove that gravity isn't really invisible undetectable leprechauns holding everything together.

All we can say is that there is no evidence for these leprechauns and our current theories do not require an assumption of leprechauns to explain the phenomenon of gravity.

Likewise all that can be said about potentiation is that there is no evidence for it existing, our current theories do not predict such an effect and indeed if it did exist it would mean that many of our current theories are wrong (even though they work very well at describing and predicting chemical and biological reactions). At best you can point out to what appear to be some logical contradictions made by various homoeopaths - but that again does not disprove potentiation just that some "theories" that incorporate such a concept are contradictory.

[saizai]

The fact the the mechanisms by which they claim it works have no basis in reality is just the icing on the cake.

Sure, but to counter their claims in a way that has any hope of convincing someone who believes, you have to demonstrate this.

[Dora]

so, let me see if I get this right

some watermolecules have to be touched by the "main active ingredient" and then shaken so as the main ingredient touches everything - do this so many times till the "active ingredient" is watered down to where there's almost no chance of having the main active ingredient in the ehm potion :)

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the ocean one big FREE homeopatic cure then?

it does the shaking, it has the heaps of water and all molecules must have touched every possible active ingredient once in their lifespan

[saizai]

But it doesn't as I said you can never entirely disprove potentiation - just as for instance you can't disprove that gravity isn't really invisible undetectable leprechauns holding everything together.

What you can do, as I said, is point out what known physical theories / laws would have to be revised and how, if in fact potentiation is real. E.g. suppose a perpetual motion machine worked - you'd have to revise thermodynamics #2.

I.e. point out as much as possible the contradictions between claim X and specific known facts / well-supported theories. If the claim is true, then science of course would dictate that the theories be revised to suit it - but it helps to put the thing more into perspective than a vague handwaving about "it's not proven" or "it can't happen". Cite specific reasons why.

[Mojo]

What you can do, as I said, is point out what known physical theories / laws would have to be revised and how, if in fact potentiation is real. E.g. suppose a perpetual motion machine worked - you'd have to revise thermodynamics #2.

I.e. point out as much as possible the contradictions between claim X and specific known facts / well-supported theories. If the claim is true, then science of course would dictate that the theories be revised to suit it - but it helps to put the thing more into perspective than a vague handwaving about "it's not proven" or "it can't happen". Cite specific reasons why.We can say that the fact that matter is made of atoms means that it is not infinitely divisible (although there are still homoeopaths, such as the MAS collective, who dispute this). We can say that water clusters do not exist for long enough for the water to "remember" what has been dissolved in it. But they can still always come up with more claims: quantum entanglement between the homoeopath the remedy and the patient, or spallation (I've seen it claimed that nuclear reactions take place when the remedy is shaken and the resulting free neutrons "remember" the remedy!), for example. There is no way to cover all the crazy ideas they can come up with.

Best just to point out that the amazing effects they claim for homoeopathy disappear when examined carefully.

[saizai]

We can say that the fact that matter is made of atoms means that it is not infinitely divisible (although there are still homoeopaths, such as the MAS collective, who dispute this). We can say that water clusters do not exist for long enough for the water to "remember" what has been dissolved in it. But they can still always come up with more claims: quantum entanglement between the homoeopath the remedy and the patient, or spallation (I've seen it that nuclear reactions take place when the remedy is shaken and the resulting free neutrons "remember" the remedy!), for example. There is no way to cover all the crazy ideas they can come up with.

Best just to point out that the amazing effects they claim for homoeopathy disappear when examined carefully.

Sure, you can do both.

IMO though it's much more effective to both show the lack of support etc., AND have as complete a showing of any irrationality or contradictions in the claimed theory as possible.

Often claimed phenomena are relatively unassailable - e.g. one cannot disprove "chi", just point out possible contradictions in certain theories about it, or times when the theories lapse over into claiming more mundane-world things. But to the extent possible this should always be done.

Sure, it means that the claims will revise; you repeat until either they have an unassailable claim - in which case they're logically in the right even if the provenance of the idea isn't so good, though the claim is likely to be substantially weaker or different than the original - or they have no further back to go before having no claim at all (or agreeing with you).

[Mashuna]

Isn't it a problem that the claimed theory of 'molecular memory' also doesn't tend to make claims about how it works?

I mean sure, you could spend time showing that molecular memory is nonsensical, and doesn't comply with known physical laws. But then, as Mojo points out, the claim shifts to 'it's part of quantum entanglement' or 'we know it works, we're just waiting for science to catch up and discover the mechanism'.

Basically, I don't see that it's possible to disprove specific claims of homeopathy that are so ill-defined, and I don't see the need to try as homeopathy keeps failing the basic test, in that it doesn't have an effect greater than placebo.

[Big Les]

But it doesn't as I said you can never entirely disprove potentiation - just as for instance you can't disprove that gravity isn't really invisible undetectable leprechauns holding everything together.

All we can say is that there is no evidence for these leprechauns and our current theories do not require an assumption of leprechauns to explain the phenomenon of gravity.


All hail the mighty yet capricious Leprechauns! Let us construct a Lucky Charms (tm) factory that they might bless us with continued global integrity!

[saizai]

Isn't it a problem that the claimed theory of 'molecular memory' also doesn't tend to make claims about how it works?

I mean sure, you could spend time showing that molecular memory is nonsensical, and doesn't comply with known physical laws. But then, as Mojo points out, the claim shifts to 'it's part of quantum entanglement' or 'we know it works, we're just waiting for science to catch up and discover the mechanism'.

That's OK. Refute the parts that are refutable.

Basically, I don't see that it's possible to disprove specific claims of homeopathy that are so ill-defined, and I don't see the need to try as homeopathy keeps failing the basic test, in that it doesn't have an effect greater than placebo.

Remember, I'm not talking about convincing you. I'm talking about convincing someone who may need a bit more doing; to do so you have to use all available means, not just one.

[Darat]

What you can do, as I said, is point out what known physical theories / laws would have to be revised and how, if in fact potentiation is real. E.g. suppose a perpetual motion machine worked - you'd have to revise thermodynamics #2.

...snip...



You can't with a concept like "potentiation" since it is not defined as a scientific theory/hypothesis - it is a "theory" like my LTG (Leprechaun theory of gravity) is a theory i.e. not a scientific theory one.

[Darat]

That's OK. Refute the parts that are refutable.


That's easy - homeopathy doesn't work.




Remember, I'm not talking about convincing you. I'm talking about convincing someone who may need a bit more doing; to do so you have to use all available means, not just one.

It may be worth your time to research a bit on some of the very long threads that there have been in this and the "Science...." section - many, many homoeopaths and non-homoeopaths have been through pretty much every combination or explanation conceivable - we have had threads starting from the very first page of the Organon, we have had threads about quantum effect in homoeopathy.

Part of the problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of even what homoeopathy *is* for instance it came up not too many months ago that a lot of Pakistani homoeopaths consider concentrations of remedies which will almost certainly have active ingredients in them are being homoeopathic, some homoeopaths believe just placing one potentialised dose into a bottle of blanks is enough to potentialise the blanks, some disagree, very few now think you have to use a bible to make the magic work and so on.

[Big Al]

If you could ever have absolutely, perfectly pure water, just hydrogen hydroxde and nothing else, wouldn't it be deadly poison?

I remember reacting hydrogen and oxygen at school (the bang must have succussed it nicely), and tasting then resultant water.

Why aren't I dead?

Another thing: OK, so let's suppose water has a memory. But many homoeopathic remedies are tinctures in alcohol, which are then dripped onto a pill and evaporated. Does ethanol have the same magic structure as water? It's a very different molecule. And what about what the pill's made of? Does that have the exact same property? Water spontaneously dissociates into H+ and OH- and back again - which of the two ions is the one with the memory?

[geni]

However, this is a bit tangential to the primary claim of homeopathy: that the water somehow 'remembers' the 'vibrations' of the material through succussion (succession?).


Vibrations? Water molecules will change how they vibrate every time they are hit but IR radiation so any vibration pattern would be destroyed in rather less than a second.

[Mojo]

Another thing: OK, so let's suppose water has a memory. But many homoeopathic remedies are tinctures in alcohol, which are then dripped onto a pill and evaporated. Does ethanol have the same magic structure as water? It's a very different molecule. I think it's more usual for the dilutions to be carried out using a mixture of alcohol and water. And what about what the pill's made of? Does that have the exact same property? The pill is usually made of lactose, which will, I suppose, contain water of crystallisation. But I don't think this is likely to be any help to the "memory of water" explanation as the configuration of the molecules in the crystal is going to be down to the shape of the lactose molecule.

[Zamzara]

I'd like to see counterpoints include a response to this, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand, because after all homeopathy is not claiming that it works by having a high dose of original molecules but by increased potency / memory / whatever of the surrounding substrate.


The problem is the 'memory' effect is like Sagan's dragon: it is deliberately constructed so as to be undetectable by science. Therefore it is outside science and can be dismissed by science without proof because it never existed as part of science in the first place.

Anyway, when I was first introduced to homeopathy, it WAS claimed that it works by using small amounts of the substance. I suspect this is the usual way of explaining it to people, and that the homeopaths are happy to keep it that way as long as people don't enquire any further. The dosage labelling system (6C etc) certainly helps to propogate this myth by hiding the infinitesimal dilutions behind everyday numbers. I still have to conciously remind myself every time that 6C is 100^6 rather than the more intuitive 600.

The whole memory effect thing is more of an ad hoc rationalisation than a fundamental principle. They are happy to let people believe there is substance present whenever it is more convenient.

[exarch]

I think the "like cures like" bit is quite easily (and routinely) shown to be illogical.

It's the "potentiation" bit that IMO is wanting of refutation.

Easy:

Every time I empty a bottle of milk, wine, whatever, I fill it with water, put my thumb on the opening, shake it about 10 times, and poor it out in the sink, then I repeat that a couple of times (say, 3 or 4).
By their reasoning, I've just poored, in this order, a 1X, 2X, 3X and 4X homeopathic remedy down the drain, which enters the sewers and becomes even more diluted there.

Does anyone one know the effect of a "4X cabernet sauvignon" remedy on the environment? Diluted even further to, say, a 5M or some such once it reaches the sewage treatment plant, where, by then, it's been mixed up with many other "5M milk" remedies, and "5M dishwasher detergent" remedies, and of course lots of "5M urine and fecal" remedies, to name some. And all of that is then mixed and shaken thouroughly to create one big cocktail of all these remedies and pumped back into our kitchens as "drinkable water" :eek:

We must be f:Dckin' insane to even touch that stuff ...

[Mojo]

Every time I empty a bottle of milk, wine, whatever, I fill it with water, put my thumb on the opening, shake it about 10 times, and poor it out in the sink, then I repeat that a couple of times (say, 3 or 4).
By their reasoning, I've just poored, in this order, a 1X, 2X, 3X and 4X homeopathic remedy down the drain, which enters the sewers and becomes even more diluted there.

Does anyone one know the effect of a "4X cabernet sauvignon" remedy on the environment? Diluted even further to, say, a 5M or some such once it reaches the sewage treatment plant, where, by then, it's been mixed up with many other "5M milk" remedies, and "5M dishwasher detergent" remedies, and of course lots of "5M urine and fecal" remedies, to name some. And all of that is then mixed and shaken thouroughly to create one big cocktail of all these remedies and pumped back into our kitchens as "drinkable water" :eek:

We must be f:Dckin' insane to even touch that stuff ...I believe W.C. Fields had something similar to say about it, although for other reasons... ;)

[fuelair]

They don't claim that there is.



What I'm suggesting is simply that a refutation BACK UP the assertion that it is not scientifically feasible... rather than leaving it as an empty assertion vs empty assertion.

And , at the same time, let's spend a tidy sum investigating if water flowing at the bottom of the Pacific remembers Cooks' passage through same. This is patently absurd. There has never been evidence of any kind that water (or any other substance) has a memory, vibrational or otherwise. If the homeos want to prove it does then they need to finance an independant investigation of it. I won't hold my breath. Your problem, like those of many others on these sites and in these threads is you do not understand how research works and is financed AND you want other people to find out stuff for you. Fastest way to check out the efficacy of homeopathy (and anyone can do this) is make up a homeopathic solution of the antidote for a poison, get a volunteer to take the poison in a dose (not homeopathic) sufficient to cause severe reactions including possible death followed by a dose of the homeopathic version of the antidote. Repeat with a large enough sample of volunteers to be considered statistically valid. Record results, publish findings. Do not bother asking me to be one of the volunteers as my mind is closed and I bet I know what the results will be.

[exarch]

Basically, I don't see that it's possible to disprove specific claims of homeopathy that are so ill-defined, and I don't see the need to try as homeopathy keeps failing the basic test, in that it doesn't have an effect greater than placebo.

This is a problem we kept running into at the h'pathy forums:
When we said we were skeptical of homeopathy and wanted to see evidence or "proof" it worked (be careful with that one, as they'll trot out "provings", which are something else entirely), they didn't understand what we wanted. It took a while for them to understand that any answer they gave us wasn't satisfactory because it all assumed that homeopathy works, and built on that. They just didn't understand that we were taking our skepticism one step further down, and doubting the basis, the very existence of the curative effect they claim, which all of them have observed through wishfull thinking, placebo effect, confirmation bias, selective memory, etc...

And none of them seemed to !understand why they should doubt their own experiences. If science and testing said otherwise, why, then the tests and the science must be wrong, because they know "it works". No amount of explanation ever got them to see why they might be wrong, and most of them even admitted that nothing could convince them that homeopathy didn't work. This line of questioning in response to accusations of not being open minded enough to entertain the idea of homeopathy, and to "try it for ourselves". "You'll see!!".

So anyway, to stay on topic, I wonder if simply pointing out that the concept is bunk, that the proposed mechanisms are bunk, that the touted results are bunk, is going to have any more effect other than to make them annoyed and tune you out ...
As usual, it will work on the fence-sitters, and on those who've not acquired a vested interest in it being for real. And on those people, you don't need to discredit everything to get them to change their mind. For the others, it doesn't really matter what you can come up with. They'll stick with it unconditionally.

[exarch]

Anyway, when I was first introduced to homeopathy, it WAS claimed that it works by using small amounts of the substance. I suspect this is the usual way of explaining it to people, and that the homeopaths are happy to keep it that way as long as people don't enquire any further. The dosage labelling system (6C etc) certainly helps to propogate this myth by hiding the infinitesimal dilutions behind everyday numbers. I still have to conciously remind myself every time that 6C is 100^6 rather than the more intuitive 600.

Good point.
When I first came to these boards, I too thought that, "maybe there's something to that homeopathy business". I'd always heard it explained as "since the original substance is too dangerous, it's diluted until only very little is left". Combined with the idea of vaccines, "like cures like" didn't seem all that implausible. And the curative effect? Well, there's active ingredient left, right? Well, wrong. It wasn't until someone explained that little detail that I knew right away it was a load of bollocks.

And homeopaths aren't too eager to share that bit of wisdom with their patients, because then those patients are too likely to have common sense kick in and dump their sorry ass. Only when one gets a bit too inquisitive and asks the pertinent question: "if it's just water, then how does it work?", do they trot out the "water memory" concept, or quantum physics, since that is used to explain everything imaginable that doesn't act the way conventional wisdom would dictate.

[MortFurd]

I believe W.C. Fields had something similar to say about it, although for other reasons... ;)

Never drink water. Fish f*ck in it.

:D (Added 'cause the software wants more than a couple of quotes.)

[.13.]

Fastest way to check out the efficacy of homeopathy (and anyone can do this) is make up a homeopathic solution of the antidote for a poison, get a volunteer to take the poison in a dose (not homeopathic) sufficient to cause severe reactions including possible death followed by a dose of the homeopathic version of the antidote. Repeat with a large enough sample of volunteers to be considered statistically valid. Record results, publish findings. Do not bother asking me to be one of the volunteers as my mind is closed and I bet I know what the results will be.

You are being somewhat facetious I assume.

But seriously, there is a (easy?) way for saizai to test homeopathy if he wants to. Giving highly diluted homeopathic potions to healthy people would produce the symptoms of the disease they were supposed to cure. That's proving, right? Naturally a proper testing protocol should be used.

[MortFurd]

You are being somewhat facetious I assume.

But seriously, there is a (easy?) way for saizai to test homeopathy if he wants to. Giving highly diluted homeopathic potions to healthy people would produce the symptoms of the disease they were supposed to cure. That's proving, right? Naturally a proper testing protocol should be used.
Won't work.

The dilution reverses the effect. A poison then becomes the cure for the poison and for other diseases or poisons with similar effects. You have to use the original strength tincture to get the true (poisonous) effect. Once you "prove" the original tincture by showing that it causes the particular symptoms you want to cure, then you can do the dilution thing and use the diluted form to cure the ailment.

At least, that's the concept as I've read about from various sources (including the books owned by a practicing MD and homeopath here in Germany.)

According to that "theory," a homeopathic dose of LSD should cure all kinds of psychotic behaviour.


The way to test homeopathy is to use a well documented and properly carried out double blind experiment. To date, all of those have shown no effect attributable to homeopathic remedies.


Note:
Always be sure of your definitions when arguing homeopathy. I know some people who use the term when clearly (from context and from waving the bottle under my nose) they mean a herbal extract. Some of those may have a real effect, but if so then someone needs to find the active compound and use it rather than some solution of dubious strength and quality (think of the discovery of aspirin in willow bark.)

[scotth]

The REAL problem with the usual debunking is that when it is clearly shown that homeopathy has no demonstratable effect for which to propose a mechanism, it just goes right past to proponent. And we go on and on discussing all manner of things that are meaningless in light of the fact that there is no effect.

[Beady]

And we go on and on discussing all manner of things that are meaningless in light of the fact that there is no effect.

Scott, go back up and read #26, by exarch:

They just didn't understand that we were taking our skepticism one step further down, and doubting the basis, the very existence of the curative effect they claim, which all of them have observed through wishfull thinking, placebo effect, confirmation bias, selective memory, etc... And none of them seemed to !understand why they should doubt their own experiences. If science and testing said otherwise, why, then the tests and the science must be wrong, because they know "it works". No amount of explanation ever got them to see why they might be wrong, and most of them even admitted that nothing could convince them that homeopathy didn't work.

If you're going to rely solely on a results-based argument, you're going to lose.

[Mojo]

Won't work.

The dilution reverses the effect. A poison then becomes the cure for the poison and for other diseases or poisons with similar effects. You have to use the original strength tincture to get the true (poisonous) effect. Once you "prove" the original tincture by showing that it causes the particular symptoms you want to cure, then you can do the dilution thing and use the diluted form to cure the ailment. Not necessarily. It seems quite common for provings to be carried out at 30c, for example. See the provings site linked to from here (http://www.homeopathyschool.com/provings.html) (but don't do it while drinking anything unless you have a waterproof keyboard and monitor). I think the "like cures like" thing is claimed to still hold even for the higher potencies. Homoeopathy is claimed to work by helping the body to express symptoms, which are claimed to be part of the healing process, hence "aggravations" (i.e. the patient gets worse) are held to be a sign that the remedy is working. The dilutions were originally used by Hahnemann to avoid the toxicity of the raw substances used. The dilution gets rid of unwanted effects while making the desired effect more powerful. Clever, huh? :rolleyes:

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=997597#post997597), for example, you will find Homeopath Syed describing the proving symptoms allegedly caused by a 200 potency. He doesn't specify whether c or x, (although for any practical purposes it doesn't matter at that kind of dilution) but he does say "afterall 200 potency is far leaner than any poison to be effective".

At least, that's the concept as I've read about from various sources (including the books owned by a practicing MD and homeopath here in Germany.)

According to that "theory," a homeopathic dose of LSD should cure all kinds of psychotic behaviour. But only by helping to express the symptoms.


The way to test homeopathy is to use a well documented and properly carried out double blind experiment. To date, all of those have shown no effect attributable to homeopathic remedies. Certainly, this is the case, and this is the only way to establish whether it actually works.

Note:
Always be sure of your definitions when arguing homeopathy. I know some people who use the term when clearly (from context and from waving the bottle under my nose) they mean a herbal extract. Some of those may have a real effect, but if so then someone needs to find the active compound and use it rather than some solution of dubious strength and quality (think of the discovery of aspirin in willow bark.)It is also worth figuring out how homoeopaths themselves define their terms. Not all of them use the same terms in the same way.

[scotth]

Scott, go back up and read #26, by exarch:



If you're going to rely solely on a results-based argument, you're going to lose.


Lose what? I read 26... and I agree with that.

I am saying that the problem of debunking homeo is, in other words, that its proponents have some kind of mental problem that prevents them from being able to recognize the fact that nothing is going on.

I am not trying to convince the proponents with my arguement, how do you argue with someone that tells you that a red car is parked at the curb in front of your house, when you can look out the window and clearly see that so such car is sitting there.

It is time to recognize that the real problem is with the messenger (homeo proponent) and move on.

[Zep]

There's another, MUCH more obvious, imperative here: MONEY. Homeopaths claim they are "cheaper" than doctors, but the fact is, they still sting gullible patients real hard-earned moolah for little brown bottles filled with water or a few dozen uncoloured hundreds-and-thousands.

But it's worse than the little homeopath practioner in a dumpy corner store in a Pakistani village trying to make ends meet. It's actually a global multi-billion dollar pharmacy business (http://www.boiron.com/), ripping them off too.

As I said, money.

[Beady]

...hence "aggravations" (i.e. the patient gets worse) are held to be a sign that the remedy is working.

Doesn't that mean that a completely successful treatment results in the patient's death?

[chillzero]

You are being somewhat facetious I assume.

But seriously, there is a (easy?) way for saizai to test homeopathy if he wants to. Giving highly diluted homeopathic potions to healthy people would produce the symptoms of the disease they were supposed to cure. That's proving, right? Naturally a proper testing protocol should be used.

Well, along the same kind of lines - what about using homeopathic solutions of wheat products to cure those people allergic to wheat and gluten?

I am willing to test this, if anyone can get me a homeo solution for it (is there one for gluten allergies?). I am not allergic and therefore am not going to die or required hospitalisation, but I am intolerant to foods containing wheat, gluten, msg, and various other additives. I miss bread. Lots.

So - surely homeopaths would argue that using wheat based solutions would cure my intestines of reacting so badly to it, and I should then be able to resume eating bread to my eternal blissness.

If homeopaths are right - I will be cured, and will promote homeopathy as a cure for gluten intolerance to anyone I know. If they are wrong, I will experience pain, and perhaps be ill, for a week or so. But I will also have had a treat I rarely get to taste, which might make it worth it, as well as the pleasure of adding to scientific evidence.

[Beady]

I am saying that the problem of debunking homeo is, in other words, that its proponents have some kind of mental problem that prevents them from being able to recognize the fact that nothing is going on.

I think I see where you're coming from, but be careful with the term "mental problem."

I'm fascinated with numbers, but I'm not very good at math because I can have extreme problems understanding how to manipulate formulae. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

[Darat]

Chillzero - http://www.abchomeopathy.com/c.php/113

[scotth]

I think I see where you're coming from, but be careful with the term "mental problem."

I'm fascinated with numbers, but I'm not very good at math because I can have extreme problems understanding how to manipulate formulae. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

Well, I guess that (formula problems) could be considered a mental problem, but I would not personally categorize that as such.

I would point out that what we are seeing with the homeopathic promoters is refusal to reconsider their position (that it works) in the face of mountains of uncontested (and nobody try to hold up the few weak/flawed/unrepeatable studies as reasonably contesting evidence) evidence to the contrary.

Strongly believing something to be true without evidence or especially in the face of contradictory evidence is the definition of 'delusion' in almost any dictionary.

Most people would call that a 'mental problem', and I do so without reservation.

[MortFurd]

Well, along the same kind of lines - what about using homeopathic solutions of wheat products to cure those people allergic to wheat and gluten?

I am willing to test this, if anyone can get me a homeo solution for it (is there one for gluten allergies?). I am not allergic and therefore am not going to die or required hospitalisation, but I am intolerant to foods containing wheat, gluten, msg, and various other additives. I miss bread. Lots.

So - surely homeopaths would argue that using wheat based solutions would cure my intestines of reacting so badly to it, and I should then be able to resume eating bread to my eternal blissness.

If homeopaths are right - I will be cured, and will promote homeopathy as a cure for gluten intolerance to anyone I know. If they are wrong, I will experience pain, and perhaps be ill, for a week or so. But I will also have had a treat I rarely get to taste, which might make it worth it, as well as the pleasure of adding to scientific evidence.
Two problems that I can see:
1. If it doesn't cure you, then it could be claimed that your (better or worse) reaction to wheat was a result of the treatment. If better, then you are responding to the therapy and need to take the sugar pills longer.:rolleyes: If worse, then it shows you are responding (see "aggravations" above) and need more treatment before the real improvement sets in. :rolleyes:
2. Should it actually cure you, we are left with a several questions: Is Chillzero inhumanly good at covering the effects of his sickness after eating wheat? Did Chillzero perhaps have a pyschosomatic illness that was "cured" by the application of the appropriate voodoo? Was Chillzero simply lying when he said he had that allergy? (I am not accusing you of lying, just stating that the possibility exists.)

In any case, we have an experiment that isn't even single blind with only one subject. The results of this are no better than the testimonials presented by homeopaths.

The only valid way to test is the way that any medicine is tested: Double blind with a statistically significant number of subjects.

Of those tests done under proper conditions, not a one has shown an effect for homeopathic remedies.

[exarch]

Won't work.

The dilution reverses the effect. A poison then becomes the cure for the poison and for other diseases or poisons with similar effects. You have to use the original strength tincture to get the true (poisonous) effect. Once you "prove" the original tincture by showing that it causes the particular symptoms you want to cure, then you can do the dilution thing and use the diluted form to cure the ailment.

Actually, they stopped testing the real, undiluted stuff almost right away. Even Hahneman himself already switched to dilutions. This is the reason they assumed that the higher dilutions had a stronger effect.

And, in a healthy person, the diluted stuff IS supposed to exhibit all the symptoms it can cure. They call this a "proving". And the big problem with homeopathic proving protocols is that everyone knows what they're getting, and some hypochondriacs are really good at exhibiting the right symptoms.

I actually remember some homeopaths claiming to be "really sensitive" to homeopathic remedies, and showing symptoms during a proving "really quickly", while others hardly showed anything.

Of course, any cough, rash, abdominal discomfort, etc... experienced in the weeks following the proving is immediately noted as a symptom. And symptoms apparently even include such things as having a craving for sausages (you'd think I was making it up :rolleyes:)

[exarch]

Strongly believing something to be true without evidence or especially in the face of contradictory evidence is the definition of 'delusion' in almost any dictionary.

Most people would call that a 'mental problem', and I do so without reservation.

The reason we don't though is because it sort of shuts down all communication you have going :p

And communication is in the end the only thing that can help you spark a thought in the homeopaths brain. and once they have a thought, they may start questioning as well. And when they do, we'll be there to give them answers, or tell them where to find answers. With the right answers, they can only come to the same conclusion we did. If they aren't interested in getting answers, then they're stuck peddling quackery and ripping people off, even if they do so with the best intentions.

[Beady]

Strongly believing something to be true without evidence or especially in the face of contradictory evidence is the definition of 'delusion' in almost any dictionary.

But they do have evidence, the evidence of their perceptions. They have seen and experienced it working for themselves.

As for contradictory evidence, every jury in the world has to make decisions in the face of contradictory evidence, consigning some of it to some dustbin or other, for reasons that seem sufficient to them.

Thing is, some people just have lower standards of evidence; some of them have abysmally lower standards. Others have different definitions of evidence. "Lower" and "different" do not inherently imply "deluded."

BTW, your claim about the dictionary needs some work. Here's "delusion" from dicionary.com:

1.an act or instance of deluding.
2.the state of being deluded.
3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

In context, #4 is the only one that fits, here, and whether something is, indeed, a fact, is the point of contention. It is a fact, for example, that the proponents have experienced benefits that they attribute to homeopathy; they find deficient our claims that the attribution is wrong.

[chillzero]

Two problems that I can see:
1. If it doesn't cure you, then it could be claimed that your (better or worse) reaction to wheat was a result of the treatment. If better, then you are responding to the therapy and need to take the sugar pills longer.:rolleyes: If worse, then it shows you are responding (see "aggravations" above) and need more treatment before the real improvement sets in. :rolleyes:
2. Should it actually cure you, we are left with a several questions: Is Chillzero inhumanly good at covering the effects of his sickness after eating wheat? Did Chillzero perhaps have a pyschosomatic illness that was "cured" by the application of the appropriate voodoo? Was Chillzero simply lying when he said he had that allergy? (I am not accusing you of lying, just stating that the possibility exists.)

In any case, we have an experiment that isn't even single blind with only one subject. The results of this are no better than the testimonials presented by homeopaths.

The only valid way to test is the way that any medicine is tested: Double blind with a statistically significant number of subjects.

Of those tests done under proper conditions, not a one has shown an effect for homeopathic remedies.

Well, according to the link provided (thanks Darat) something called causticum is the way to go here.

I accept everything you say here - and I would expect any testing to use multiple subjects - and blinded. (I'm trying to type up quickly while at work :boxedin: ). It just seems to me that there is a lot of waffle coming from homeopaths and not a lot of proper testing, and the post I was responding to triggered this as an idea.

Your second point gave me cause for more thought though - I am not lying, but I have been tested for allergies. My tests all came back clear, so my doctor could not verify that I have this problem. My family and friends saw the pain and trouble I went through trying to cut out and include various selections of foods and food types until we came to the final conclusions as to the causes. Now I can eat confidentally and not be in pain, or be sick. But I recognise that you would have to beleive me when I say I feel no pain.

Well - should anyone set up this kind of experiment (with control group, etc), I would still volunteer. Will I rush out now and buy causticum and the biggest pizza and garlic bread I can find? No.
:D

[scotth]

The reason we don't though is because it sort of shuts down all communication you have going :p
Exactly.

And communication is in the end the only thing that can help you spark a thought in the homeopaths brain.
That, or a blunt instrument.
and once they have a thought, they may start questioning as well. And when they do, we'll be there to give them answers, or tell them where to find answers. With the right answers, they can only come to the same conclusion we did.
Has been done and done and done and done and done (I could go on for a while) and they just never seem to come to the same conclusion.
If they aren't interested in getting answers, then they're stuck peddling quackery and ripping people off, even if they do so with the best intentions.

Can't argue with that.

[scotth]

But they do have evidence, the evidence of their perceptions. They have seen and experienced it working for themselves.

As for contradictory evidence, every jury in the world has to make decisions in the face of contradictory evidence, consigning some of it to some dustbin or other, for reasons that seem sufficient to them.

Thing is, some people just have lower standards of evidence; some of them have abysmally lower standards. Others have different definitions of evidence. "Lower" and "different" do not inherently imply "deluded."

BTW, your claim about the dictionary needs some work. Here's "delusion" from dicionary.com:



In context, #4 is the only one that fits, here, and whether something is, indeed, a fact, is the point of contention. It is a fact, for example, that the proponents have experienced benefits that they attribute to homeopathy; they find deficient our claims that the attribution is wrong.

But they ignore the mountain of contradictory evidence.

As to your delusion defintions: It is obvious that only the 4th one actually defines delusion.

How about this definition, "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder"? This seems to be a decent definition and agrees with the way I understand the word.

Homeopaths certainly posess a character that is consistent with the above definition. That equates to a mental problem.

But I don't want to discourage ya'll from arguing with them, just don't expect to get very far.

I'll save my effort educating those who are still ignorant of the various aspects of homeopathy rather than trying to deconvert those who are familiar with the evidence, such that it is, and still persist in their 'delusion'.

[saizai]

Easy:

Every time I empty a bottle of milk, wine, whatever, I fill it with water, put my thumb on the opening, shake it about 10 times, and poor it out in the sink, then I repeat that a couple of times (say, 3 or 4).
By their reasoning, I've just poored, in this order, a 1X, 2X, 3X and 4X homeopathic remedy down the drain, which enters the sewers and becomes even more diluted there.

Does anyone one know the effect of a "4X cabernet sauvignon" remedy on the environment? Diluted even further to, say, a 5M or some such once it reaches the sewage treatment plant, where, by then, it's been mixed up with many other "5M milk" remedies, and "5M dishwasher detergent" remedies, and of course lots of "5M urine and fecal" remedies, to name some. And all of that is then mixed and shaken thouroughly to create one big cocktail of all these remedies and pumped back into our kitchens as "drinkable water" :eek:

We must be f:Dckin' insane to even touch that stuff ...


You forgot the "succussion every step" bit. ;) It's supposedly not just the dilution that makes it better.

BTW people: I'm not looking to be convinced that it's bunk; I already am. I'm pointing out, as I stated in the OP, that you need to address this point when you refute homeopathy or your argument is unnecessarily weaker than it could be.

[saizai]

I am saying that the problem of debunking homeo is, in other words, that its proponents have some kind of mental problem that prevents them from being able to recognize the fact that nothing is going on.

Nah, it's not a mental problem.

You simply need to think of them as relatively smart people who have experienced something firsthand and are therefore making conclusions about it. You can't just dismiss their experience when you try to show that they are wrong about their conclusions.

[scotth]

Nah, it's not a mental problem.

You simply need to think of them as relatively smart people who have experienced something firsthand and are therefore making conclusions about it. You can't just dismiss their experience when you try to show that they are wrong about their conclusions.

I have enough first hand experience talking with these people to know better than that.

[fuelair]

[QUOTE=Big Al;1955239]If you could ever have absolutely, perfectly pure water, just hydrogen hydroxde and nothing else, wouldn't it be deadly poison?

?[/QUOTE

No, it would be pure water. Just like if you mixed carefully measured same quantities Sulfuric acid (say 3M - which will eat your skin + with no problem) and Sodium Hydroxide (also 3M - which will, by wild coincidence, do even worse damage) together they forget all about that "eat you alive" stuff and give you a nice batch of strong salt water. Used to mess with students by doing that in class (high blood pressure precludes it now)

[fuelair]

You are being somewhat facetious I assume.

But seriously, there is a (easy?) way for saizai to test homeopathy if he wants to. Giving highly diluted homeopathic potions to healthy people would produce the symptoms of the disease they were supposed to cure. That's proving, right? Naturally a proper testing protocol should be used.

I am rarely facetious on bad (really bad) science topics - and it should be a quite infallible proof (I fear I cannot call it an experiment - Science Fair Rules - as I know the results beforehand).

[Zombified]

Homeopaths only came up with the water memory nonsense because science pointed out the limits of dilution beyond Avogadro's number.

From a theoretical standpoint, there's no justification for believing in water memory, signals and correlations don't persist in a noisy environment for very long, there's no (plausible) mechanism suggested for imprinting a pattern, and no mechanism for such a pattern having a therapeutic effect. A couple of years ago on this forum I went through some of their papers on this subject, and its all hogwash. From a non-theoretical standpoint, there's no evidence of any water memory, and plenty of evidence that neither it nor homeopathy works.

When you get to the point where homeopaths have to come up with these sorts of excuses to explain homeopathy, however, it becomes patently clear that they're simply not going to listen to any evidence no matter how strong, their need to believe in homeopathy is too great.

[Big Al]

Have n volunteers with multiple non-life-threatening ailments (e.g. psoriasis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, SAD, whatever) and a numer of homeopathic pills supposedly able to combat these, and some placebos. Then, using double-blind protocol, give them a month's supply of one of the types of pill. At the end of the month, ask them which of their ailments has got better.

Alternatively, just don't waste any more time or money on this 18th-century quackism.

[MortFurd]

Have n volunteers with multiple non-life-threatening ailments (e.g. psoriasis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, SAD, whatever) and a numer of homeopathic pills supposedly able to combat these, and some placebos. Then, using double-blind protocol, give them a month's supply of one of the types of pill. At the end of the month, ask them which of their ailments has got better.

Alternatively, just don't waste any more time or money on this 18th-century quackism.
Has been done. Any study conducted under proper double blind conditions shows no effect above placebo for homeopathy. Then the homeopaths whine that double blind studies aren't an appropriate tool for testing homeopathy because the treatment must be determined for each participant individually - never mind the generic homeopathic remedies that they push for common ailments, you weren't supposed to see them palm that card.

Homeopaths are much like psychics: If you prevent them from cheating, their "powers" stop working.

[Mojo]

Have n volunteers with multiple non-life-threatening ailments (e.g. psoriasis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, SAD, whatever) and a numer of homeopathic pills supposedly able to combat these, and some placebos. Then, using double-blind protocol, give them a month's supply of one of the types of pill. At the end of the month, ask them which of their ailments has got better. The problem is that homoeopaths would say that this isn't a test of homoeopathy. They claim that remedies will only work if they are "individualised" to a patient. For a single condition there will be many different "individualised" remedies, dependent upon other symptoms and expressed preferences of the patient.

This means that if the first remedy they give the patient doesn't work, they can just claim that it wasn't the correct individualised remedy, rather than having to admit that it didn't work.

In parctice, they just keep on giving the patient different remedies until they show some improvement (or even a worsening of their condition, which they call an "aggravation"), and then claim that they have found the correct individualised remedy.

This is the origin of their claim that "the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy" (see the story I linked to further up the thread). It is possible to run double-blind placebo controlled studies of individualised homoeopathy, by letting the homoeopaths go though all the usual rigmarole and then having a third party issue the patient with either a placebo or the "real" remedy. But homoeopaths will still claim that this isn't a proper test of homoeopathy as it is actually practiced.

[Mojo]

For a better description of a trial of individualised homoeopathy, see this article (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2006/05/lets_not_fund_quacks_in_our_nh.html) By Sue Blackmore.

[scotth]

Well, provings aren't individualized.

Those fail completely when the recipient is blinded to the symptoms he should be displaying during the proving.

Homeopaths cannot tell one tincture from the next, under any circumstance, even if they personally prepared them. That is, when they are held to conditions that would prevent cheating, of course.

[NobbyNobbs]

Easy:

Every time I empty a bottle of milk, wine, whatever, I fill it with water, put my thumb on the opening, shake it about 10 times, and poor it out in the sink, then I repeat that a couple of times (say, 3 or 4).
By their reasoning, I've just poored, in this order, a 1X, 2X, 3X and 4X homeopathic remedy down the drain, which enters the sewers and becomes even more diluted there.

Does anyone one know the effect of a "4X cabernet sauvignon" remedy on the environment? Diluted even further to, say, a 5M or some such once it reaches the sewage treatment plant, where, by then, it's been mixed up with many other "5M milk" remedies, and "5M dishwasher detergent" remedies, and of course lots of "5M urine and fecal" remedies, to name some. And all of that is then mixed and shaken thouroughly to create one big cocktail of all these remedies and pumped back into our kitchens as "drinkable water" :eek:

We must be f:Dckin' insane to even touch that stuff ...


I generally sum this up to my students with just one sentence:

*Everybody* lives downstream.

[NobbyNobbs]

[QUOTE=Big Al;1955239]If you could ever have absolutely, perfectly pure water, just hydrogen hydroxde and nothing else, wouldn't it be deadly poison?

?[/QUOTE

No, it would be pure water. Just like if you mixed carefully measured same quantities Sulfuric acid (say 3M - which will eat your skin + with no problem) and Sodium Hydroxide (also 3M - which will, by wild coincidence, do even worse damage) together they forget all about that "eat you alive" stuff and give you a nice batch of strong salt water. Used to mess with students by doing that in class (high blood pressure precludes it now)

Are you sure? Where does the sulfur go? Where does the chlorine (NaCl) come from? Is this a different "salt water" than I'm used to?

[Cuddles]

Are you sure? Where does the sulfur go? Where does the chlorine (NaCl) come from? Is this a different "salt water" than I'm used to?

I'll assume he meant hydrochloric acid. Although technically any acid and base react to form water and salt, just not the same salt that is meant in general useage.

[scotth]

NobbyNobbs, cuddles is correct... your definition of salt is throwing you off. It means much more than just NaCl.

More on salt from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt).


In chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry), a salt is any ionic compound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_compound) composed of cations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cation) (positively charged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge) ions) and anions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anion) (negative ions) so that the product is neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge) (without a net charge). These component ions can be inorganic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound) (Cl−) as well as organic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry) (CH3COO−) and monoatomic (F−) as well as polyatomic ions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyatomic_ion) (SO42−); they are formed when acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acids) and bases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_%28chemistry%29) react.

[politas]

I am willing to test this, if anyone can get me a homeo solution for it (is there one for gluten allergies?). I am not allergic and therefore am not going to die or required hospitalisation, but I am intolerant to foods containing wheat, gluten, msg, and various other additives. I miss bread. Lots.

So - surely homeopaths would argue that using wheat based solutions would cure my intestines of reacting so badly to it, and I should then be able to resume eating bread to my eternal blissness.

From what I gather, that's not how it's supposed to work. Wheat-based solutions don't cause the symptoms you have in a healthy person, so they won't cure you. If your intolerance causes vomiting, they'd give you an emetic (suitably diluted, of course).

[chillzero]

From what I gather, that's not how it's supposed to work. Wheat-based solutions don't cause the symptoms you have in a healthy person, so they won't cure you. If your intolerance causes vomiting, they'd give you an emetic (suitably diluted, of course).

Surely not? Surely most complementary therapies are all about treating the patient, and not just the symptoms?

[0oTITANo0]

Granted, it is not well proven that this 'vibration' or 'memory' exists, but a debunking (i.e. "it can't possibly work" rather than a mere weak-agnostic "it's not proven to work") has the burden of showing that it's impossible or at least showing what needs to be changed about known physical law to allow it to work.

This is just flat out wrong. The burden of proof is on the claim. When homeopaths start writing papers about how and why water retains the properties of other chemicals in a way that makes sense and fits in with the rest of what we know about chemistry I will pay attention. There are the basic rules sazai. The burden of proof is on the claim.

Anyway its well understood how water interacts with itself. Only someone without a basic understanding of chemistry could believe that nonsense. How exactly does a liquid of molecules containing only hydrogen and oxygen held together by Van Der walls Forces "retain properties" of complex organic molecules containing benzene rings, chains of carbon, functional groups, and atoms not found in water like N, P, K, C.

The claim is so retarded that it makes my head hurt. Homeopathy is claiming that you can have the properties of chemical structures that water is not even capable of creating because it lacks the necessary atoms to generate the structures that the homeopaths claim water is "remembering".

[Jeff Corey]

"This claim is so retarded" js an insult to retarded people.

[Davo]

Just a quick thought- an argument against homeopathy

Homeopathy relies on a substance being diluted in water, many times.

The water must be pure water otherwise it would be a contaminated solution.

What do homeopaths use as pure water ? I thought homeopaths seemed to be saying water has a memory so the water can`t be pure !

Anyone`s comment on this logic.

[saizai]

davo - Maybe they have some way to make it forget first?

[saizai]

This is just flat out wrong. The burden of proof is on the claim. When homeopaths start writing papers about how and why water retains the properties of other chemicals in a way that makes sense and fits in with the rest of what we know about chemistry I will pay attention. There are the basic rules sazai. The burden of proof is on the claim.

Oh, I definitely agree on that point.

But this is the difference between merely saying "I don't believe your claim because you haven't made a good enough case" and saying "You are wrong". The latter is 'debunking', and is what I was referring to. It is also an actual claim in itself, whereas the former is neutral.

The rest of your post is a lot closer to what I was wanting - logical refutation that 'memory' can work. :)

[saizai]

Has been done. Any study conducted under proper double blind conditions shows no effect above placebo for homeopathy. Then the homeopaths whine that double blind studies aren't an appropriate tool for testing homeopathy because the treatment must be determined for each participant individually - never mind the generic homeopathic remedies that they push for common ailments, you weren't supposed to see them palm that card.

Homeopaths are much like psychics: If you prevent them from cheating, their "powers" stop working.

I see no reason why you can't have individualized double blind trials.

Give them the whole analysis etc etc per desires. The have multiple ailments so that's multiple stuff. Homeopath prescribes in their usual way.

Patient double-blindly receives one of the prescriptions. See if they can figure out which one.

[Mojo]

Just a quick thought- an argument against homeopathy

Homeopathy relies on a substance being diluted in water, many times.

The water must be pure water otherwise it would be a contaminated solution.

What do homeopaths use as pure water ? I thought homeopaths seemed to be saying water has a memory so the water can`t be pure !No, thay have some way of making the water only remember what they want it to remember.

[politas]

Surely not? Surely most complementary therapies are all about treating the patient, and not just the symptoms?

Well, yes, which is why Homeopaths always need to have a half-hour, expensive consultation to find out all your symptoms, including such things as craving for peanut butter, sexual attraction to Bridget Fonda and opinions of the colour blue. They need to match up the "remedy" to all of these "symptoms".

Homeopathy is not medicine, it is magic.

[Big Al]

If this individually-tailored consultation is so vital to the homeopathic "healing" process, why are "respected" homeopaths not lobbying every establishment where off-the-shelf homeopathic products are sold?

Why, these irresponsible vendors could be putting people's lives at risk! My own sister gave me homeopathic zinc pills once for my psoriasis - no detailed consultation. As it was, took them as indicated, just so I could tell her they didn't do a damn' thing.

When my prediction came to pass, she said it was because I didn't believe in them - I countered by replying that you didn't need to believe in paracetamol to have it cure your headache.

However, now I know that I may have put my life in jeopardy by taking homeopathic remedies without due consultation! What a good thing that I didn't succumb to my initial urge to tip the whole lot down my throat in one go . . .

Hang on . . . presumably that would cause fewer deleterious effects than only taking one pill . . . but then half a pill would be better . . . but then presumably no pill at all would be better still . . .

Oh, stuff it! The whole homeopathic thing is just utter, total tripe. If any wooster wants to give me a pint of 100C homeopathic cyanide, I'll be happy to gulp it down right in front of them.

[vbloke]

I really can't wait until I pass my homeopathic course and become a fully-fledged qualified homeopath.

One of the major drawbacks of the DBT method is, as has been pointed out by others, not being personalised for each patient (another excuse has been that the people carrying out the test aren't homeopaths, so it won't work).

I will be more than willing and happy to consult with the volunteers for any DBT and prescribe appropriate homeopathic remedies for their conditions, to remove those objections.

I would also like to see a DBT carried out in which EVERYONE gets homeopathic remedies, followed by a second trial in which EVERYONE gets a placebo and see which one has a greater effect between groups. Repeat, but add a second level of complexity into the placebo based trial whereby one group is told that they are receiving the homeopathic remedy (when they're not) and see what happens to the figures. I wonder what the homeopathic crowd would say to that?

[Mojo]

Surely not? Surely most complementary therapies are all about treating the patient, and not just the symptoms? Well, yes, which is why Homeopaths always need to have a half-hour, expensive consultation to find out all your symptoms, including such things as craving for peanut butter, sexual attraction to Bridget Fonda and opinions of the colour blue. They need to match up the "remedy" to all of these "symptoms". The real irony here is that homoeopathy doesn't address anything but reported symptoms. No underlying causes, just symptoms.

[MortFurd]

Surely not? Surely most complementary therapies are all about treating the patient, and not just the symptoms?
Ah, yes. The famed "homeopathy treats the cause, not the symptoms" claim.

Take a good look at all of the homeopathic documentaion you can find. It will be repeated ad nauseum that homepathy treats the cause while regular medicine treats the symptoms. Now, read carefully, and you will notice that the actual treatment by homeopathy is always based on the symptoms, and on a "medicine" that causes the same or similar symptoms. Now consider that conventional medicine works by treating the cause of the symptom (killing off the bacteria that cause strep throat using an antibiotic, for example) and ask yourself if the homepath claim is true.

[NobbyNobbs]

NobbyNobbs, cuddles is correct... your definition of salt is throwing you off. It means much more than just NaCl.

More on salt from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt).

I remember just enough of high school chemistry to realize there are other salts other than table salt, though I didn't remember the details. What threw me off was that he mentioned drinking the result. I didn't know whether the other salts were edible.

[Mojo]

Take a good look at all of the homeopathic documentaion you can find. It will be repeated ad nauseum that homepathy treats the cause while regular medicine treats the symptoms. Of course, in the case of regular medicine, they'll probably use the word "suppresses" instead of "treats", and imply that by "suppressing" symptoms regular medicine makes the situation worse.

[Big Al]

I remember just enough of high school chemistry to realize there are other salts other than table salt, though I didn't remember the details. What threw me off was that he mentioned drinking the result. I didn't know whether the other salts were edible.

Acid + base => salt + water (although there are other salt-producing reactions). There are all sorts of salts that aren't any more poisonous than NaCl (which can be made from the lethal combination of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda)).

A few other salts used in foodstuffs, medicines or drinks are

Calcium citrate (sour salt)
Sodium iodide (often used in table salt to prevent thyroid problems)
Potassium chloride (for people on low-salt diets by presciption)
Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
Magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts)

There are thousands of others, including some quite exotic organic salts.

[NobbyNobbs]

Acid + base => salt + water (although there are other salt-producing reactions). There are all sorts of salts that aren't any more poisonous than NaCl (which can be made from the lethal combination of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda)).

A few other salts used in foodstuffs, medicines or drinks are

Calcium citrate (sour salt)
Sodium iodide (often used in table salt to prevent thyroid problems)
Potassium chloride (for people on low-salt diets by presciption)
Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
Magnesium sulphate (Epsom salts)

There are thousands of others, including some quite exotic organic salts.

Well, you learn something new everyday.

What about the salt generated from a mixture of sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, as posited? Is it edible?

[Cuddles]

If this individually-tailored consultation is so vital to the homeopathic "healing" process, why are "respected" homeopaths not lobbying every establishment where off-the-shelf homeopathic products are sold?

Because they want more money. If they can get away with charging extortionate individual prices as well as selling tons of mass-produced crap you can bet they won't do anything to change this. In most cases of sCAM, cynicism is your friend.

Well, you learn something new everyday.

What about the salt generated from a mixture of sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, as posited? Is it edible?

You get sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) in a complete reaction. If equal proportions are used then you get sodium hydrogen sulphate, also known as sodium bisulphate, (NaHSO4), since to completely react two moles of NaOH to one mole of H2SO4 are required.

Sodium sulphate is basically harmless. This site (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s5022.htm) says that drinking more than 500mg/l is not a good idea, but you won't really notice small amounts if eaten or inhaled. Sodium hydrogen sulphate (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s3050.htm) is highly corrosive, since it undergoes effectively the same reactions as sulphuric acid. I wouldn't recommend drinking the products of sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide since any error in the proportions will result in a highly toxic solution - either excess sulphuric acid or sodium hydroxide, or unreacted sodium hydrogen sulphate.

[fuelair]

I'll assume he meant hydrochloric acid. Although technically any acid and base react to form water and salt, just not the same salt that is meant in general useage.

Yes, he did mean hydrochloric acid! He was a bit sleep deprived at the time!!