Homeopathy - Swift March 16

[Gary]

Whilst I applaud any attack on the nonsense that is homeopathy, I think Randi has his double negatives in a twist in this commentary. When this product is advertised as 'for wakefulness and diuresis' the implication is that it cures this problem, as in the claim on the previous line 'for irritability'. So the use of caffeine is entirely consistent with homeopathetic principles. However......, the first claim made is use of calcium phosphate to 'support dentition', when surely use of calcium would hinder bone and teeth growth? This product also highlights a problem (one of many of course) with the claim of the 'water memory effect' as a mechanism for how homeopathy is supposed to work, as the product is supplied as a completely dry lactose tablet.

[Zep]

Absolutely NOTHING makes sense in Homeopathyland. Nothing whatsoever. There's not a scrap of consistent logic involved. But that's the point that most educated people get stuck on trying to counter that culture. Even Randi.

It's not about the medicine, the claims, or even the process! It's about the money!

Homeopathy is simply another mechanism for any uneducated but canny operator to scam the unwitting. It sounds good, so they pay. And by dressing it up with pseudo-scientific jargon, regardless of its logical inconsistencies and outright poppycock chemistry, they get even more suckers! More suckers + more fame = more money... It's Sylvia Browne's enterprise with a cheap coloured water children's "chemistry set". Money for nothing...literally!

Think like they do, and it all becomes obvious! ;)

[Mojo]

Another reason for calling something "homoeopathic", at least in the US, is that as long as the ingredients are listed in The Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia the FDA will allow it to be sold without efficacy being demonstrated. In 1938, Sen. Royal Copeland of New York, the chief sponsor of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and a homeopathic physician, wrote into the law a recognition of any product listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. The Homeopathic Pharmacopeia includes a compilation of standards for source, composition and preparation of homeopathic drugs.

FDA regulates homeopathic drugs in several significantly different ways from other drugs. Manufacturers of homeopathic drugs are deferred from submitting new drug applications to FDA. Their products are exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating and from finished product testing for identity and strength. Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosage form must have an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and indicates that the drug is homeopathic. The imprint on conventional products, unless specifically exempt, must identify the active ingredient and dosage strength as well as the manufacturer.

"The reasoning behind [the difference] is that homeopathic products contain little or no active ingredients," explains Edward Miracco, a consumer safety officer with FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "From a toxicity, poison-control standpoint, [the active ingredient and strength] was deemed to be unnecessary."

Source (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html)There are homoeopathic remedies with ingredients at 1X on the market as "homoeopathic", apparently. That's potentially only a 1 in 10 dilution of the neat substance, and certainly not dilute enough to ensure safety.

The situation in the UK is slightly different. Under the special rules that allow homoeopathic products onto the market as medicines without demonstrating efficacy, the remedies must be dilute enough to ensure safety (and therefore dilute enough to ensure that they have no effects whatsoever ;) ). I don't know how this is regulated in Canada.

[BillyJoe]

Homeopathy is simply another mechanism for any uneducated but canny operator to scam the unwitting...Think like they do, and it all becomes obvious! ;)A broad generalisation which is not even correct.

Most homoeopaths actually believe in homoeopathy. Most are not uneducated. It serves no purpose to attack well-intentioned homoeopaths. They will not listen to you and neither will their patients who see them as practitioners who show interest and spend time with them helping them to alleviate their symptoms.

Attack Homoeopathy by all means though.

[Zep]

A broad generalisation which is not even correct.

Most homoeopaths actually believe in homoeopathy. Most are not uneducated. It serves no purpose to attack well-intentioned homoeopaths. They will not listen to you and neither will their patients who see them as practitioners who show interest and spend time with them helping them to alleviate their symptoms.

Attack Homoeopathy by all means though.Sorry to disillusion you, but the majority of homeopaths ARE not very well educated. That does not mean that they all are.

Their reliance on faith / belief in homeopathy utterly in the face of overwhelming evidence that it does not work means at least one of two things need to be true:

1) Conscious denial of contrary evidence. Educated or not, this condition indicates that the practitioner knows the evidence on inefficacy exists, deliberately chooses to discard it, and that other factors are at work in the denial process. Or that they do not know, but refuse to accept that it might exist. Very rapidly, this can be found to centre on personal power, but more usually on money.

2) Lack of the very basic skills to appreciate the contrary evidence. That is, lack of education. This does not mean the practitioners are stupid, just uninformed, unlearned.

I have found both these conditions to be almost universal amongst the most populous homeopathic communities. First hand.

[BillyJoe]

Regardless of the percentages, it is also true that there are medical practitioners who incorporate homoeopathy into their practise of medicine, there are also university courses in homoeopathy, and there are university professors who have looked at all the evidence and find in favour of homoeopathy. I'm not saying it should be this way, all I'm saying is that there are homoeopaths who are not uneducated, who do genuinely believe homeopathy works, and who are therefore not in it just for the money.

What percentage I don't know, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you, by chance, have any statistics on the educational status of homoeopaths. And how do you go about obtaining percentages of homoeopaths who are in it just for the money.

[rjh01]

I must put it to both of you that your positions are very close. I am too tired to try to explain in detail this statement to you.

A thought for you. An intelligent person can subject most things to critical analysis, but other things, such as homoeopathy he can accept on blind faith.

[Zep]

Regardless of the percentages, it is also true that there are medical practitioners who incorporate homoeopathy into their practise of medicine, there are also university courses in homoeopathy, and there are university professors who have looked at all the evidence and find in favour of homoeopathy. I'm not saying it should be this way, all I'm saying is that there are homoeopaths who are not uneducated, who do genuinely believe homeopathy works, and who are therefore not in it just for the money.

What percentage I don't know, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you, by chance, have any statistics on the educational status of homoeopaths. And how do you go about obtaining percentages of homoeopaths who are in it just for the money.I agree, what you said is true, but only in a minority of cases.

In a country where literacy is not widespread (I'll use Pakistan or India as an example because I spent over a year discussing this with them directly), "homeopathic training" is considered by the students to be leading-edge science training that is considered fully equivalent to a university degree. It is the next step after their basic schooling, it gives the student a "tertiary training" diploma, and gives them considerable status among their peers. They are looked up to, they are sought after, they are honoured, they are paid for their work. So the rewards for completion of training are very desirable to them. And while they usually say they are not in it for the money but for the humanity, they can make a decent living out of it nonetheless.

Please note: I am NOT saying that they are all money-grubbing thieves. Not true - most are genuinely trying to do good in their society - a totally benevolent motive which is to be encouraged.

Point being that to tell them that their training is in the art of blatant self-deception, and of doing little more for a patient than giving them reassurance, simply cannot be countenanced. In their society. To get them to change as we would like is to demand a denial and discarding of a firmly held belief, in what is a very faith-based society. It's not just a simple change of view of science; it would be like getting a Catholic bishop to convert to Judaism! ;) That the practical medical training consists almost solely of a basic First Aid course in the third year of study is neither here nor there, in their scheme of things.

I won't expand on the money side of the equation for Pakistan, but let me just say that the students pay handsomely to be taught, there are hundreds of thousands of them, so a LOT of money goes into the education system for very little output as a result. And my first-hand experience of homeopathic hospitals in India was of absolute squalor, without exception.

Meanwhile, back in, say, England, where homeopathy in the medical and veterinary professions are rife, the instances of university researchers who genuinely hold faith in the efficacy of homeopathy can probably be counted on the fingers of one foot. You need only talk with BSM and Rolfe here to see that there is a strong groundswell not in favour of homeopathy in those fields.

Digging further on this subject on the forum, you will find the tale of at least one instance of a vet taking over an old country practice, and the retiring practioner giving instructions on how to continue the blatant ruse of homeopathy with the clientele because their ignorance pays so well.

To summarise again:

1) Uneducation;
2) Blatant ripoff for money;
3) Any combination of the above.

[Mojo]

Regardless of the percentages, it is also true that there are medical practitioners who incorporate homoeopathy into their practise of medicine, there are also university courses in homoeopathy, and there are university professors who have looked at all the evidence and find in favour of homoeopathy. I'm not saying it should be this way, all I'm saying is that there are homoeopaths who are not uneducated, who do genuinely believe homeopathy works, and who are therefore not in it just for the money.If you want evidence that people who are highly qualified in medicine (in this case veterinary medicine) can remain remarkably ignorant about other areas of science, you need look no further than here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/29/nvet29.xml):"I am not surprised that the moon affects animals - and people for that matter. After all, we are mostly made up of water and the moon affects the tides."

Oh, and he's a homoeopath as well, by the way.

[BillyJoe]

Please note: I am NOT saying that they are all money-grubbing thieves. Not true - most are genuinely trying to do good in their society - a totally benevolent motive which is to be encouraged.So it seems we do largely agree as R said (at least in the case of Pakistan), because that was my point.

Point being that to tell them that their training is in the art of blatant self-deception, and of doing little more for a patient than giving them reassurance, simply cannot be countenanced.But what will it achieve to attack the homoeopaths themselves?

Meanwhile, back in, say, England, where homeopathy in the medical and veterinary professions are rife, the instances of university researchers who genuinely hold faith in the efficacy of homeopathy can probably be counted on the fingers of one foot. You need only talk with BSM and Rolfe here to see that there is a strong groundswell not in favour of homeopathy in those fields.Okay, but it seems to me the attack should be on Homoeopathy rather than homoeopaths - unless there is clear dishonesty by a particular homoeopath. Otherwise the effort must surely end up being largely counterproductive.

[BillyJoe]

If you want evidence that people who are highly qualified in medicine (in this case veterinary medicine) can remain remarkably ignorant about other areas of science, you need look no further than here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/29/nvet29.xml):Interesting article. As someone said "some people believe wierd things". My interest is with humans, though, rather than animals. (no pun intended :D )

[Zep]

So it seems we do largely agree as R said (at least in the case of Pakistan), because that was my point.Agreed!

But what will it achieve to attack the homoeopaths themselves?In most cases like the Pakistanis, I don't. The problem is, however, referring to the above, that any attempt on our part that we would call "rational" to bring them some facts about homeopathy as a practice is seen by them as a personal attack on their moral fibre or honesty or faith, or something like that. This needs to be made clear in this situation: They do not see rational refutation of their practices like we do. I surmise that it has much to do with a cultural public "loss of face" more than anything.

Okay, but it seems to me the attack should be on Homoeopathy rather than homoeopaths - unless there is clear dishonesty by a particular homoeopath. Otherwise the effort must surely end up being largely counterproductive.Some of them ARE totally dishonest. They make themselves stinking rich (at least in Pakistani or Indian terms) by touting cures for AIDS and cancers and other deadly diseases. The next step down is to tout mystical cures and attainment to godhead, etc - Sai Baba style.

Which reminds me: Many subcontinental homeopaths actually subscribe to the theories that homeopathy is based on the same mystical attributes that these "babas" and "ammas" (gurus) somehow have. Hence intricately and directly linking it to their religious faiths. So to attack homeopathy is to attack their faith. They also tie it the same way to ayervedic, an ancient Indian practice of herbology and spiritual practices with similar modes of operation. So there's a deep cultural link as well.

[BillyJoe]

In short, there is no hope?

[Zep]

In a few rare cases, there is hope. More and more secular Indians and Pakistanis are seeing through this facade and are moving towards evidence-based medical practices. Of course, such practices are not cheap to set up (another advantage of homeopathy: it's VERY cheap by comparison).

My limited experience with NCH suggests that the quack homeopath still holds sway in the same arena as the travelling gurus and medicine men - the rural villages and small towns, and possibly city slums, where education is less and religion is more deeply entrenched. The level of discussion we encountered (plus some pictorial evidence) suggests such is the case.

However education is playing a big part in addressing homeopathy's shortcomings. The general Indian science education level particularly appears to be on a steep rise, and they have many emminent people to be proud of in many scientific fields. certainly they are surging in the computing field.

The battle they have ahead is the entrenched attitudes from religion, a small GDP by comparison to advanced countries, and a population of over one billion people. So it's taking time to build up the momentum...