A couple of homoeopathy questions

[Rat]

Apologies if these have been covered before, but a couple of quick searches didn't reveal much. I was wondering a couple of things about homoeopathy, and I know that several people here are more familiar with it than me.

Firstly, and I know this has been covered before, how does one best answer the oft-made point that homoeopathy is at least superficially similar to vaccination? I know I'm missing something very obvious, so I need to get it straight in my head what the differences are. I know some differences - homoeopathy doesn't work, homoeopathic dilutions contain nothing, and so on - but is the principle (treating like with a small quantity of like) really as similar as it seems?

Secondly, while trying to search for this, I came across adverts for homoeopathic dentists. What on earth does a homoeopathic dentist do? Apart from prevention, dentistry in my experience consists mostly of fillings, extractions, root canal work, abscesses, and similar. I'm (perhaps naïvely) assuming they don't claim that homoeopathy can replace surgery for an abscess and the like. So what in the world can they actually do?

[Madalch]

The main difference between vaccination and homeopathy is that vaccination gives you a weak version of a virus for your immune system to practice on. Homeopathy gives you nothing.

Vaccinations aren't an attempt to "treat like with like", because you don't give a vaccination to someone who already has the disease.

I would assume that a homeopathic dentist would put a trace of mercury amalgam in a glass of milk, take a small quantity of that milk and dilute it with fresh milk, repeat several dozen times, then make you drink the milk. But what do I know?

[DRBUZZ0]

Firstly, and I know this has been covered before, how does one best answer the oft-made point that homoeopathy is at least superficially similar to vaccination? I know I'm missing something very obvious, so I need to get it straight in my head what the differences are. I know some differences - homoeopathy doesn't work, homoeopathic dilutions contain nothing, and so on - but is the principle (treating like with a small quantity of like) really as similar as it seems?


It's common for homeopaths to compare it to vaccination. The two are not at all the same.

(most) vaccines are a means of causing your body to recognize and produce antibodys to a given virus without actually causing a full blown infection. The given virus is not simply diluted by taking it and mixing with water. It's either dead, genetically modified, modified by being forced to live in a non-human medium for many generations, only part of the virus RNA is present and so on.

It's an actual science that does not just start off with something and make it more dilute. Furthermore, nobody claims that vaccines should be diluted more and more to make them "more potent." The vaccine is ineffective or unreliable bellow a certain dose.

And generally vaccines are preventative and not something that you use to "cure" although some are effective if given very early with an infection.


Secondly, while trying to search for this, I came across adverts for homoeopathic dentists. What on earth does a homoeopathic dentist do? Apart from prevention, dentistry in my experience consists mostly of fillings, extractions, root canal work, abscesses, and similar. I'm (perhaps naïvely) assuming they don't claim that homoeopathy can replace surgery for an abscess and the like. So what in the world can they actually do?

Um... If I had to guess it's just some nutty guy who does "alternative" medicine type stuff and has a few preparations for use such as toothpaste which is made out of inert ingredients with a dilute amount of sugar and plaque preadded. But who knows? Anyone who claims to be a homeopathic dentist probably doesn't care that much about being legitimate.

[JoeTheJuggler]

All good answers thus far, though I'll underscore two points that DrBuzz already made:

Even a vaccine has a minimum effective dose. It is not a case that the smaller the dose, the stronger the immune response.

If you're already infected, taking a vaccine will NOT help you in the least. It is strictly for getting your body to produce antibodies BEFORE you're infected so your immune system can respond quicker and you can avoid getting sick when you are exposed to the real pathogen.

As for "homeopathic" dentistry, I'd also agree with DrBuzz. "Homeopathic" is frequently mixed up with naturopathy and herbal medicine. Sometimes with no logic whatsoever.

The "homeopathic" sleep aid Calms Forte is a relatively high concentration (1x to 3X) of a bunch of herbals (chamomile, oatmeal, etc.) that are ordinarily thought to induce sleep. (So in homeopathic terms, you'd expect these things to cause wakefulness.) It's either an illogical homeopathic remedy or a very weak herbal remedy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Surely, the simplest answer is that we know exactly how vaccination works and we also know that homeopathy does not work the same way.

[fls]

Firstly, and I know this has been covered before, how does one best answer the oft-made point that homoeopathy is at least superficially similar to vaccination? I know I'm missing something very obvious, so I need to get it straight in my head what the differences are. I know some differences - homoeopathy doesn't work, homoeopathic dilutions contain nothing, and so on - but is the principle (treating like with a small quantity of like) really as similar as it seems?

Vaccination involves the causative agent. Homeopathy specifically does not involve the causative agent. Instead it involves an agent that leads to symptoms that are similar to the symptoms the patient is experiencing. So vaccination is not an example of "treating like with like" in the way that homeopaths use the expression. And homeopathy is not an example of "treating like with like" in the way that vaccine developers use it.

Secondly, while trying to search for this, I came across adverts for homoeopathic dentists. What on earth does a homoeopathic dentist do?

My guess is, drum up business or charge extra.

Linda

[Madalch]

Homeopathy believes "like cures like".
Vaccination belives "that which does not kill us makes us stronger".

[nathan]

but is the principle (treating like with a small quantity of like) really as similar as it seems?

I'm not sure if other replies have called this one out specifically, so here goes ...

Vaccine - preventative treatment with something similar to the *causative agent*. I.e. using a neutered virus to defend against the fully functional one.

Homeopathy - using something that produces *similar symptoms* as the thing being treated. An example might be using (dilution of) soap to treat rabies, because they both cause foaming at the mouth (I've no idea whether homeopathic soap is considered a treatment for rabies, and I know rabies has other symptoms).

[bigbossmatt]

Here is a snippet from an essay I am writing at the moment about homeopathy. I think it answers your questions via explaining how exactly homeopathy CLAIMS to work. I have tried to be objective, but I'll admit I think homeopathy is ridiculous.

This is just a part of the intro...
********
In the late 18th century, Samuel Hahnemann created homeopathy in response to the conventional medicines and practices available at the time. Compared to blood letting, homeopathy was became a favoured option because it is non-invasive and therefore sterile. The philosophical premise upon which homeopathy is founded is the concept of vitalism, a widely accepted notion during Hahnemann’s time. According to vitalism, every person has a force that -when disturbed- can result in illness. Homeopathy attempts to restore the balance to this force. In homeopathy, a substance is taken and diluted in ratios of 1:100 with succussion (shaking in three dimensions; up-down, left-right, back-forth) between each successive dilution. This process can be repeated until not one atom of the original substance remains in the dilution. The final result is a homeopathic dose of a substance, which homeopathic practitioners argue contains an imprint of the original substance, due to the succussions that were done between dilutions. For example, if too much coffee normally is noticed to make one over active, then a homeopathic practitioner might claim homeopathic dose of coffee could calm an ADHD sufferer. Homeopathic principles state that the more dilute the final solution, the stronger the medicinal strength of the solution will be.
*****

I'll just add this: homeopathy's "Law of similars" or "like cures like", is similar in concept to vaccination because in vaccination you give your body just enough of the 'disease' so that your body can overcome it and also develop its own protection against any dose you may come by later on. Homeopathy says that if you give a little bit of a substance you will induce the opposite effects of the substance. It is a similar concept as to vaccination; giving a little of a substance to induce the opposite effect of the symptoms of the particular illness, but it is different in that in homeopathy they do not give you the actual illness creating substance (i.e. they don't give homeopathic doses of saliva with influenza in it to cure influenza, they give you a substance that they have deemed effective at reducing the symptoms of influenza). There is a whole series of tests that homeopaths go through to "prove" that a substance is effective for reducing the symptoms of X illness. The term "proving" in my opinion is a deliberately deceptive term to confuse the science ignorant to lending homeopathic practices more credentials than they deserve.

[Spiro]

Apologists for Hahneman, who founded homeopathy, sometimes point out that with vaccination being discovered around the same time (late 1700s) as Hahneman's "like cures like" philosophy was being developed, the homeopathy principle looked reasonable. This hardly stands up to much scrutiny. By the late 1700s it was already well established, for example, that citrus fruit cured scurvy abd that digitalis greatly improved dropsy (no like for like principle in either case). There were many other successful remedies around that used herbal medicines (chemistry not yet up to isolating the active ingredient) which did not cause the disease symptoms. So "like cures like" was, and has always been, a highly fanciful medical philosophy.

[bahrketnaten]

So "like cures like" was, and has always been, a highly fanciful medical philosophy.

Unless one is an immunologist or subscribes to modern immunolgy, eh?

BKN

[JoeTheJuggler]

My own bolding.

I'll just add this: homeopathy's "Law of similars" or "like cures like", is similar in concept to vaccination because in vaccination you give your body just enough of the 'disease' so that your body can overcome it and also develop its own protection against any dose you may come by later on. Homeopathy says that if you give a little bit of a substance you will induce the opposite effects of the substance. It is a similar concept as to vaccination; giving a little of a substance to induce the opposite effect of the symptoms of the particular illness, but it is different in that in homeopathy they do not give you the actual illness creating substance (i.e. they don't give homeopathic doses of saliva with influenza in it to cure influenza, they give you a substance that they have deemed effective at reducing the symptoms of influenza).

That's a really generous use of the word similar (where I bolded it).

A vaccination does not give the body any dose of the disease. In fact, it doesn't even have to be the actual disease-causing agent. It only has to be surface proteins that are similar enough to those of the disease-causing agent to trigger the body to make antibodies that will work against the actual pathogen.

Also, the quantity of a vaccination is not part of why it works. You still need enough of it to work. Less does not make it stronger (as in homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals").

Also a vaccination is not given in order to "induce the opposite effect of the symptoms of the particular illness". Its purpose is to induce an immune response (the production of antibodies) that will fight off subsequent infections of the pathogen. In the case of influenza, many of the symptoms are in fact the body's fighting off the infection. So just causing an arms build up (to strain the fighting metaphor) in advance of the battle can't be said to be the "opposite" of the symptoms. The vaccine just makes the battle so one-sided that you never even notice it as the pathogen is efficiently eradicated.

[sthomson]

Unless one is an immunologist or subscribes to modern immunolgy, eh?

BKN

Really, the more i think about it, the more I reject the notion that modern immunology has any tenet resembling like cures like, except perhaps as an inspiration. Immunology is like causes-an-organism-to-react-in-the-same-way-and-eventually-develop-defences-against like.

Imagine that your immune system is a big dog, like a rottweiler. And you want to train your dog to attack your enemy: the mailman. Now, you could wait for the mail delivery, and hope that eventually your dog learns to attack the intruder. OR, you could dress up a dummy in the same clothing as the mailman, and train your dog to attack that. Then, when the mailman comes, your dog is going to recognize the mailman as its enemy and defeat it. If you then tried to imply that the dummy defeated the mailman, you would mean this only metaphorically.

In homeopathy, to ward off the mailman you would collect some dirt that the mailman walked on, and throw them at him whenever he came by. Better yet, you'd use some mailman particles to ward off the door-to-door salesman.

[fls]

Really, the more i think about it, the more I reject the notion that modern immunology has any tenet resembling like cures like, except perhaps as an inspiration. Immunology is like causes-an-organism-to-react-in-the-same-way-and-eventually-develop-defences-against like.

Imagine that your immune system is a big dog, like a rottweiler. And you want to train your dog to attack your enemy: the mailman. Now, you could wait for the mail delivery, and hope that eventually your dog learns to attack the intruder. OR, you could dress up a dummy in the same clothing as the mailman, and train your dog to attack that. Then, when the mailman comes, your dog is going to recognize the mailman as its enemy and defeat it. If you then tried to imply that the dummy defeated the mailman, you would mean this only metaphorically.

In homeopathy, to ward off the mailman you would collect some dirt that the mailman walked on, and throw them at him whenever he came by. Better yet, you'd use some mailman particles to ward off the door-to-door salesman.

In homeopathy you don't use anything related to the mailman. You look at the result (or symptom) of the mailman's arrival - bills to pay - and you send the dog to the mall with your credit card in order to generate more of the same. Fortunately, a diluted effort - perhaps drooling over some doggie toys - will be sufficient.

You then arrange to pay all your bills online and take the lack of bills arriving in your mailbox as evidence that the mailman has been scared away.

Linda

[Rat]

Thanks. This all makes sense, and answers my question to my satisfaction. I will now have something to say to people who make the original claim. I would have had something to say to them already, of course, but now I can counter that specific misapprehension.

[DRBUZZ0]

Unless one is an immunologist or subscribes to modern immunolgy, eh?

BKN


Question 1: Since when do vaccines "cure" a disease which has already reached a full blown infection?

Question 2: Since when does immunology care about the symptoms when creating a vaccine? The original smallpox vaccine was based on the cowpox virus. A close cousin to smallpox, but lacking many of the symptoms and generally more mild. I have never seen a vaccine based on something like a metabolism booster for a disease which causes fever. Or a vaccine based on a skin-irritant for a disease which causes rashes.

Question 3: Did you read any of this thread?

Question 4: Are you an immunologist?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Unless one is an immunologist or subscribes to modern immunolgy, eh?

BKN

No.

[bahrketnaten]

Really, the more i think about it, the more I reject the notion that modern immunology has any tenet resembling like cures like, except perhaps as an inspiration. Immunology is like causes-an-organism-to-react-in-the-same-way-and-eventually-develop-defences-against like.

Imagine that your immune system is a big dog, like a rottweiler. And you want to train your dog to attack your enemy: the mailman. Now, you could wait for the mail delivery, and hope that eventually your dog learns to attack the intruder. OR, you could dress up a dummy in the same clothing as the mailman, and train your dog to attack that. Then, when the mailman comes, your dog is going to recognize the mailman as its enemy and defeat it. If you then tried to imply that the dummy defeated the mailman, you would mean this only metaphorically.



Good grief, the like is the mailman's clothing, you can't get more alike than the same. Whether antigen of the original microbe or a preventative or therapeutic vaccine it's still like. Treating before challenge doesn't change the likeness, preventative treatment is still treatment..

Google therapeutic vaccine, bacterial vaccine/bacterin

Another like treament, allergy desenstization where like antigen is administered in hopes of reducing/elimination the allergic response to it.

BKN

[bahrketnaten]

Question 1: Since when do vaccines "cure" a disease which has already reached a full blown infection?

Treatment with vaccines when infection is already present may be tried when other approaches fail or are not available. This is often due to the trouble/expense of coming up with the vaccine, said trouble expense does not invalidate the scientific validity of such an approach, note there are factors which may make a vaccine inappropriate for specific diseases. Google 'therapeutic vaccines', 'bacterial vaccines', 'bacterins' for further illumination.

Question 2: Since when does immunology care about the symptoms when creating a vaccine? The original smallpox vaccine was based on the cowpox virus. A close cousin to smallpox, but lacking many of the symptoms and generally more mild. I have never seen a vaccine based on something like a metabolism booster for a disease which causes fever. Or a vaccine based on a skin-irritant for a disease which causes rashes.

Not a question I have yet addressed, homeopathic principles do not rule out a cause based remedy.

Question 3: Did you read any of this thread?

I might ask you the same, you would have known the answer to #2.

Question 4: Are you an immunologist?

I am not impressed with appeals to authority, I hope you are not either.

BKN

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really, the more i think about it, the more I reject the notion that modern immunology has any tenet resembling like cures like, except perhaps as an inspiration. Immunology is like causes-an-organism-to-react-in-the-same-way-and-eventually-develop-defences-against like.


Amen!

And we don't have to pretend that we're ignorant of exactly how immunization shots work. If a homeopath claims, for instance, that Oscillococcinum somehow provides immunity to the flu, wouldn't it need to be reformulated every year the way the flu vaccine is? Wouldn't it also need to be administered prophylactically the way the flu vaccine is? (Also, since it's a 200C preparation of incubated Duck's heart and liver, it's really nothing but magic water, so there's no reason it should stimulate the production of any antibodies.)

When Hahnemann cooked up homeopathy, it might have been as good an idea as the current state of "medicine" at the time, but it certainly is not so any longer.

[DRBUZZ0]

Treatment with vaccines when infection is already present may be tried when other approaches fail or are not available. This is often due to the trouble/expense of coming up with the vaccine, said trouble expense does not invalidate the scientific validity of such an approach, note there are factors which may make a vaccine inappropriate for specific diseases. Google 'therapeutic vaccines', 'bacterial vaccines', 'bacterins' for further illumination.



"illumination"??? I'm quite aware of what a theraputic vaccine is. I'm further aware of what a bacterial vaccine is and what bacterins are.

At this point there are not vaccines which are truely "theraputic" in the sense that they can effectively treat of cure an infection after it has actually become fully developed.

There are some vaccines which may be useful if given directly after exposure but before the infection has reached a certain stage, or if it remains in remission and has not begun to generate large numbers of viruses... or bacteria for that matter.

Example being tetanus: you cut yourself on something that might not be so clean you can go get a shot right away, but if you wait until the lockjaw and seizures start the vaccine will do you no good at all.


"trouble/expense"????? Is that some kind of a joke. I can go to the doctor and get a flu shot with no problem. It's not flu season so there shoudln't be any kind of difficulty getting it. It's not expensive either. But if I already have the flu it does me zero good. Ditto for polio and every other vaccine.

Besdies, if it's just a matter of diluting something then it certainly should be no trouble. Just take a culture and dilute it repeatedly.


Not a question I have yet addressed, homeopathic principles do not rule out a cause based remedy.


It does not rule out a remedy that causes the same condition or, baring that, a condition of identical or similar symptoms. The only thing homeopathy rules out is significant amounts of active ingredient or any ingredient that might actually counteract the condition.

Both are as baseless anyway.



I might ask you the same, you would have known the answer to #2.


What?


I am not impressed with appeals to authority, I hope you are not either.

BKN

Appeal to authority? No, it's just you're talking like you speak for immunologists when it has nothing to do with immunology. An actual credible immunologist would not see modern medicine as relating to homeopathy. The question is rhetorical.

Anyway, one thing I do actually like about homeopathy is that it does not require any sort of appeal to authority or people taking the word of doctors or scientists. There are many things in science which seem counter-intuitive until you fully understand them, or which would not be apparent without a complete knoweldge of the principals at work.

Homeopathy is different because not only is it totally unsubstantiated on the chemical and biological level, but the very basis of it is apparently illogical and completely bogus to the average lay person, with just a basic explanation.

The ultimate implications of the "theory" are very obviously logically absurd. It's something I use as an example of bad science because it's nutty on every level.

[DRBUZZ0]

Really, the more i think about it, the more I reject the notion that modern immunology has any tenet resembling like cures like, except perhaps as an inspiration. Immunology is like causes-an-organism-to-react-in-the-same-way-and-eventually-develop-defences-against like.


The analogy I've always used is that a vaccine is like handing out a "wanted" or "fugitive" poster to the white blood cells in your body which says "POLIO: Armed and dangerous. Shoot to kill on site."

Thus if the pathogen comes into the system the immune system says "Hey.. wait... I know that guy." This is why the vaccine doesn't contain the actual fully functional virus, but the protines or other structures which characterize it. Thus, the body has the information to recognize the intruder without actually having to put the whole working virus in the body.

Hence, it's got nothing to do with dilution. To claim it is the same is actually a bit insulting to the scientists who have worked to determine how to best produce vaccines, by producing the characteristics of a virus without the infectious qualities.



Anyways, the analogy is imperfect because generally they don't hang "Shoot to kill" posters up anymore. They may have in the Wild West. But the point stands.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Anyways, the analogy is imperfect because generally they don't hang "Shoot to kill" posters up anymore. They may have in the Wild West. But the point stands.

I still like the warfare analogy (immunization helps your body arm up before the enemy attacks), except that it leaves out the part about identifying the enemy as the enemy. OK, that'd be the pre-war intelligence leading up to the production of these special decks of cards with pictures of the most-wanted enemy leaders. . . .

Remember the Simpsons episode where Bart wills himself to get sick (to stay home from school), and the white blood cells busy battling the pathogens get the order from on high that they should lay down their arms and surrender to the enemy. :)

[Mashuna]

I am not impressed with appeals to authority, I hope you are not either.

BKN

Just a minor point. Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when it's inappropriate authority. Quoting an immunologist regarding an immunology point is perfectly valid.

[bahrketnaten]

Amen!

And we don't have to pretend that we're ignorant of exactly how immunization shots work. If a homeopath claims, for instance, that Oscillococcinum somehow provides immunity to the flu, wouldn't it need to be reformulated every year the way the flu vaccine is? Wouldn't it also need to be administered prophylactically the way the flu vaccine is? (Also, since it's a 200C preparation of incubated Duck's heart and liver, it's really nothing but magic water, so there's no reason it should stimulate the production of any antibodies.)


On the other hand we have Rhus Tox 6X for a poison oak remedy. Hey that's the same thing! And it's not diluted away to nothing! (homeopathy does not require that it be so). Gosh could it be that it works by modifying the delayed hypersensitivty immune response? Nah, better to just ignore the science and claim it can't be so.


When Hahnemann cooked up homeopathy, it might have been as good an idea as the current state of "medicine" at the time, but it certainly is not so any longer.

Agreed. I suspect he stumbled on some real biology at times which only served to reinforce the nonsense he got caught up in.

BKN

[fls]

On the other hand we have Rhus Tox 6X for a poison oak remedy. Hey that's the same thing! And it's not diluted away to nothing! (homeopathy does not require that it be so). Gosh could it be that it works by modifying the delayed hypersensitivty immune response? Nah, better to just ignore the science and claim it can't be so.

I note that skin rashes due to poison oak is only one of many conditions that Rhus Tox is recommended for. And immunotherapy would not have an effect in the acute situation. Plus immunotherapy is usually given by injection. There is some research and practice supporting the idea that sublingual or nasal administration is effective in certain conditions, but the dose is much larger (not much smaller).

So, basically, Rhus Tox 6X is not used in a way that could have any clinical effect.

Agreed. I suspect he stumbled on some real biology at times which only served to reinforce the nonsense he got caught up in.

BKN

That's the problem with his approach, and with all the homeopaths that have followed. Even if there was an occasional brush-up against biology in their practice, there would be no way for this to come to their notice.

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

On the other hand we have Rhus Tox 6X for a poison oak remedy. Hey that's the same thing! And it's not diluted away to nothing! (homeopathy does not require that it be so). Gosh could it be that it works by modifying the delayed hypersensitivty immune response? Nah, better to just ignore the science and claim it can't be so.


6X is one part per million. That sounds like a trace contaminant in real chemistry, rather than anything like an effective dose.

At 24X, we're confident that none of the ingredient is left , but long before that, we get to practical considerations. How clean must your lab be to keep out other contaminants in the 1 PPM range?

Rhus Tox probably has a lot more stuff at a lot higher concentrations than its 6X ingredient.

Also, how would exposure to a little poison oak modify the immune response after you've already been expose to real amounts of poison oak? A better question is, can anyone prove it works using double-blind, placebo controlled studies?

[DRBUZZ0]

That's the problem with his approach, and with all the homeopaths that have followed. Even if there was an occasional brush-up against biology in their practice, there would be no way for this to come to their notice.

Linda


Yep. If a homeopathic preparation is made by adding the diluted "active agent" to a lotion base and it's found to have some effect on skin problems, it's probably because the "inactive ingredient," The lotion base is just helping to keep moisture in the skin, or because the simple act of rubbing a cream on the skin provides some soothing effects.

If you take enough of a homeopathic remedy for fever, it may help you out a bit just by giving you some extra hydration. If you take a homeopathic cough medicine with a mint/menthol sort of flavor added, that alone might provide some mild temporary soothing.

I suspect any actual non-plecebo releif from homeopathic preparations has little to do with the homeopathic and more to do with what is actually in it.

[fls]

I am not impressed with appeals to authority, I hope you are not either.

BKN

I believe that was an appeal to knowledge, rather than authority.

Linda

[blutoski]

Unless one is an immunologist or subscribes to modern immunolgy, eh?

Please don't pretend to speak for a profession you do not understand, and whose members do not agree even slightly with what you are implying. Immunologists are the most qualified to say that homeopathy is not at all related to immunology, and that any such comparison is utterly ignorant, if not fraudulently dishonest.

Immunization acts as protection against a physical particle *** even if the new particle causes different symptoms than the origional exposure ***. Often, the original particle is not even capable of producing any syptoms at all (such as protein fragments), but it protects against a particle that does produce symptoms (a virus or bacteria).

In contrast, homeopathy treats upon the basis of vaguely similar symptoms, rather than specifically identified causitive agents.

(PhD in immunology and clinical immunologist)

[blutoski]

Just a minor point. Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when it's inappropriate authority. Quoting an immunologist regarding an immunology point is perfectly valid.

Yes, I always try to point that out:

* Appeal to authority is how science operates, and is a valid argument format.

* Appeal to unqualified or questionable authority is a logical fallacy.

Some people are 'not impressed' by appeals to authority. These people are better known as 'wilfully ignorant.' Led to the well of knowledge, but they refuse to drink.

[Mojo]

Firstly, and I know this has been covered before, how does one best answer the oft-made point that homoeopathy is at least superficially similar to vaccination? I know I'm missing something very obvious, so I need to get it straight in my head what the differences are. I know some differences - homoeopathy doesn't work, homoeopathic dilutions contain nothing, and so on - but is the principle (treating like with a small quantity of like) really as similar as it seems?


Apparently not, according to this page (http://www.cure-guide.com/Vaccine_Guide/Vaccine_Guide_excerpts/Homeopathic_vaccines/homeopathic_vaccines.html) from a homoeopath's website:Homeopathic preparations have not been shown to raise antibody levels. Smits tested the titre of antibodies to diphtheria, polio and tetanus in ten children before and one month after giving homeopathic preparations of these three vaccines (DTPol 30K and 200K). He found no rise in antibody levels (Smits, 1995). He speculates that protection afforded by a homeopathic remedy acts on a "deeper" level than that of antibodies. Other homeopaths have stated similar opinions. Golden says, "unlike conventional vaccines, the Homoeopathic alternative does not rely on antibody formation." He postulates that "Homoeopathic remedies reduce the patient's sensitivity to the dynamic stimulus of the virus or bacteria, thus lessening the patient's predisposition to being overcome by this stimulus" (Golden, 1994).

[hipparchia]

About homoeopathic dental products: the toothpaste does not contain menthol or any other strong scents. See, even a strong scent will bust the treatment. I have heard that adherents of homoeopathy should ask their dentist not to use menthol products. I don't know how that will happen, since a lot of the products are mint-scented. Maybe there are special no-scent supplies?

Oh, and coffee also busts the treatment, perfumes too. So, while taking the sugar pills, you better resort to a tasteless, scentless existence for a while.

[Mojo]

And airport scanners*, so don't plan any trips.






*Or maybe not, depending on which homoeopath you ask.

[JoeTheJuggler]

About homoeopathic dental products:

The OP asked about "homeopathic dentists" which really isn't the same thing as toothpaste, I'd say. (Though I wonder if they've got homeopathic dental floss!)

[Rat]

The OP asked about "homeopathic dentists" which really isn't the same thing as toothpaste, I'd say. (Though I wonder if they've got homeopathic dental floss!)
Wouldn't that be a bit like mouthwash? Only without the minty taste.

[bruto]

The OP asked about "homeopathic dentists" which really isn't the same thing as toothpaste, I'd say. (Though I wonder if they've got homeopathic dental floss!)

To make homeopathic dental floss, you must take regular dental floss, and carefully divide the strands in half. Continue doing this until you have divided it enough times to guarantee that at least one of the halves remaining contains no strands at all. This remaining half is then carefully returned to the spool and sold with the appropriate markup to reflect the value added in preparation.

[DRBUZZ0]

About homoeopathic dental products: the toothpaste does not contain menthol or any other strong scents. See, even a strong scent will bust the treatment. I have heard that adherents of homoeopathy should ask their dentist not to use menthol products. I don't know how that will happen, since a lot of the products are mint-scented. Maybe there are special no-scent supplies?

Oh, and coffee also busts the treatment, perfumes too. So, while taking the sugar pills, you better resort to a tasteless, scentless existence for a while.

The homeopathic treatment for bad breath would obviously be feces; dilluted by several quintillion times at least, of course. But if you dilute the feces too much like say 1/1*10^30 then it might turn out making your breath *too* fresh and you'll find you have an overpowering scent of freshly cut mint greens coming from your mouth..

[DRBUZZ0]

To make homeopathic dental floss, you must take regular dental floss, and carefully divide the strands in half. Continue doing this until you have divided it enough times to guarantee that at least one of the halves remaining contains no strands at all. This remaining half is then carefully returned to the spool and sold with the appropriate markup to reflect the value added in preparation.

no no no! Dental floss prevents things from getting stuck in your teeth so if you dilute it it will cause things to get stuck in your teeth. You need to start off with the opposite. Like, for example, pesto or pubic hairs or something else that causes stuff to be lodged between teeth. NOT the other way around. Then that will stop stuff from being between your teeth or something...

[JoeTheJuggler]

[anti-dentitic remark]
Your average dentist might be considered a homeopathic version of a real MD.
[/anti-dentitic remark]

[Deetee]

Another crucial "difference" between vaccination and homeopathy:

People assume vaccination means giving tiny amounts of the micro-organism that causes the disease in order to engender a suitable immune response.

In fact inpractice it usually consists of giving several orders of magnitude higher doses of the micro-organism than would be needed to cause disease naturally, but in an attenuated form which renders the bug clinically harmless/avirulent, yet contains enough immunogenic material to promote a long-lived immune response.

EG You only need a few (10-100) typhoid bacteria to cause disease, yet the vaccine gives you several million doses of attenuated salmonella typhi. Likewise with many other vaccines.

[DRBUZZ0]

Another crucial "difference" between vaccination and homeopathy:

People assume vaccination means giving tiny amounts of the micro-organism that causes the disease in order to engender a suitable immune response.

In fact inpractice it usually consists of giving several orders of magnitude higher doses of the micro-organism than would be needed to cause disease naturally, but in an attenuated form which renders the bug clinically harmless/avirulent, yet contains enough immunogenic material to promote a long-lived immune response.

EG You only need a few (10-100) typhoid bacteria to cause disease, yet the vaccine gives you several million doses of attenuated salmonella typhi. Likewise with many other vaccines.

Good point. Since the whole point of a vaccine is to have the characteristics of the virus or bacteria in a way that does not actually cause infection you need a lot more for the body to reconize it. Those few typhoid bacteria would very quickly multiply to several million. The agent in the vaccine cannot do this so you need more...

Again: Shows that the basis of homoepathy has nothing to do with vaccines

[briandunning]

Late to the game, so this is only a repetition of points already made by others, but here is a snippet from the Skeptoid podcast answering this question:

=====

One explanation made by some homeopaths is that it works the same way as a vaccine: putting a tiny amount of a disease-causing agent into the body — not enough to cause the disease, but enough to stimulate the body's natural defenses into fighting off that disease. Well, this is indeed the way a vaccine works, but it's got nothing to do with the way Hahnemann defined homeopathy.

- Vaccines are used to prevent an illness which does not yet exist in the body by triggering the production of preventive antibodies; and homeopathy is used to fight a disease already in the body, in which case any antibodies would already be in production.

- The number of the antibodies triggered by a vaccine can be measured in the bloodstream, whereas homeopathy is not intended to, and does not, produce any measurable reaction.

- Vaccines insert inert versions of the disease-causing agents into the body, where homeopathic substances are the same as that which causes the disease.

- Finally and most obviously, vaccines contain a large and fully measurable amount of active ingredient, whereas homeopathic remedies contain no measurable active ingredient.

So homeopathy can indeed be said to work just like a vaccine; well, at least, it works just like a spiritual imprint of a vaccine.

[fls]

Excellent point, Deetee.

Linda

[Pyrts]

The homeopathic treatment for bad breath would obviously be feces; dilluted by several quintillion times at least, of course.

In other words, filtered ordinary tap water, straight from your city's water system.

This would also hold true of many other things. All kinds of contaminants reach the water, and not all of them are reported on or are of high enough level to be reported on by the local agency. In the past, before water treatment plants were common, local water supplies would have all sorts of vegetation and animal byproducts in it -- some at the "homeopathic levels."

Therefore, if homeopathy is truly effective, then we will find that people who lived in the 1700's lived a LOT longer than our modern folk do.

[DRBUZZ0]

In other words, filtered ordinary tap water, straight from your city's water system.

This would also hold true of many other things. All kinds of contaminants reach the water, and not all of them are reported on or are of high enough level to be reported on by the local agency. In the past, before water treatment plants were common, local water supplies would have all sorts of vegetation and animal byproducts in it -- some at the "homeopathic levels."

Therefore, if homeopathy is truly effective, then we will find that people who lived in the 1700's lived a LOT longer than our modern folk do.


Well there are a couple of problems with this. First of all, the stuff in the water may not work unless it's shaken. Remeber "Chu-chunk chu-chunk chu-chunk"

Second of all, there are other things in the water that may cause your breath to get worse. For example, what if the levels of chlorine which were used in the water purification have been diluted to homeopathic levels? Bad breath is caused primarily by bacteria. Chlorine kills bacteria, so in homeopathic levels it would do the opposite and promote their growth.

So I think you're best off getting the diluted feces mouthwash from an accredited homeopathic practitioner.

(note: I don't actually believe this. I'm being ridiculous because if you take the concept of homeopathy to it's logical end, it's impossible not to be ridiculous)

[Mojo]

One explanation made by some homeopaths is that it works the same way as a vaccine: putting a tiny amount of a disease-causing agent into the body — not enough to cause the disease, but enough to stimulate the body's natural defenses into fighting off that disease. Well, this is indeed the way a vaccine works, but it's got nothing to do with the way Hahnemann defined homeopathy.

- Vaccines are used to prevent an illness which does not yet exist in the body by triggering the production of preventive antibodies; and homeopathy is used to fight a disease already in the body, in which case any antibodies would already be in production.


Well, there are treatments that homoeopaths claim will prevent your energy field from having malaria-shaped holes that naughty mosquitos can come along and fill in (at least, if they don't think anybody's watching (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm)).

[Madalch]

Well, there are treatments that homoeopaths claim will prevent your energy field from having malaria-shaped holes that naughty mosquitos can come along and fill in (at least, if they don't think anybody's watching (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm)).
YIKES!!!!

I hope these homeopaths were told to go immediately to Malawi or face charges.

[Mojo]

I hope these homeopaths were told to go immediately to Malawi or face charges.


Nope (http://dcscience.net/?p=43).

[DRBUZZ0]

ohhh... I just read the l just read the link. It seems that the homeopathic preperations contain dilute amounts of quinine. See... there's yer problem'

Quinine is an effective treatment for malaria, even though it's now been mostly replaced with more modern anti-malaria drugs. So when you dilute it it causes malaria. Don't these people know how homeopathy works?

If they want to cure you they have to dilute the malaria-contaminated saliva from the mosquitos and then that will fix it!

[bruto]

ohhh... I just read the l just read the link. It seems that the homeopathic preperations contain dilute amounts of quinine. See... there's yer problem'

Quinine is an effective treatment for malaria, even though it's now been mostly replaced with more modern anti-malaria drugs. So when you dilute it it causes malaria. Don't these people know how homeopathy works?

If they want to cure you they have to dilute the malaria-contaminated saliva from the mosquitos and then that will fix it!

And now comes the real challenge, to decide which is worse: good homeopathy or bad homeopathy!

[Zep]

And now comes the real challenge, to decide which is worse: good homeopathy or bad homeopathy!Simple, really. There is no good homeopathy.

[Mojo]

But there is a Bad Homeopath (http://www.badhomeopath.com/index.php?id=1)!

[Blue Bubble]

But there is a Bad Homeopath (http://www.badhomeopath.com/index.php?id=1)!

Talking of which ... Vbloke hasn't updated his blog for more than a year now. Has he managed to fail the course ? Using their logic, would that mean he's passed the course ? ;)

Vbloke, are you still alive ? Have you been diluted out of existence ?
We're starting to get really worried now ...

[Pyrts]

And now comes the real challenge, to decide which is worse: good homeopathy or bad homeopathy!

Is there such a thing? I've been reading some homeopathy boards and I notice that recommendations are seldom consistant. There's also arguments over "pure" and "blended" products -- both of which are simply more nails in the coffin.

[bruto]

Is there such a thing? I've been reading some homeopathy boards and I notice that recommendations are seldom consistant. There's also arguments over "pure" and "blended" products -- both of which are simply more nails in the coffin.

Kind of my point. It's arguing about the color of what's in an empty sack.