Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 06-13-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
Did a quick perusal on all of those links, but I couldn't find any actual studies... just 'it's theoretically not possible'.

If I started selling bottles of "gravity defyer" and claimed that drinking this product would create an aura around you that would be the equivalent of sending you to the moon and reducing your gravity by 1/6, would we need to do a clinical trial to prove my claim wrong?

Check this quote out from <a href="http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html" target="_blank">the quackwatch page</a>:

Quote:

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100^200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024). Hahnemann himself realized that there is virtually no chance that even one molecule of original substance would remain after extreme dilutions. But he believed that the vigorous shaking or pulverizing with each step of dilution leaves behind a "spirit-like" essence -- "no longer perceptible to the senses" -- which cures by reviving the body's "vital force." Modern proponents assert that even when the last molecule is gone, a "memory" of the substance is retained. This notion is unsubstantiated. Moreover, if it were true, every substance encountered by a molecule of water might imprint an "essence" that could exert powerful (and unpredictable) medicinal effects when ingested by a person.

Don't need a clinical trial to prove these claims as false! The laws of physics and chemistry have been accepted and well-described, the homeopaths are the ones who are claiming to "break" these laws, the burden of proof is on them.

scigirl

Edited to put in the "^" to show how big the number really is (since the superscript font obviously did not copy)

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

Veil of Fire · 06-13-2002, 03:46 PM

"Don't need a clinical trial to prove these claims as false!"

Ok, but wouldn't it make a skeptic's life that much easier if they could just point to a study and say "See? It's crap!" Wouldn't it make the lives of standard medical practitioners who have to deal with kooks asking about homeopathic medicine if they had a trial to point to, even if it was only quasi-clinical?

My thought has always been, if it didn't work, nobody'd use it. Chiropractors were subject to the same critisims you're levelling on homeopaths just a few years ago...

I suppose my point is, it's so easy to design a study and prove, without much doubt, once and for all, to anyone with a question, that it's complete bunk.

scigirl · 06-13-2002, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
I suppose my point is, it's so easy to design a study and prove, without much doubt, once and for all, to anyone with a question, that it's complete bunk.

Yes, but think of all the studies you would have to do?

You would have to do one clinical trial for each disease/disorder that each herb claimed to heal. Do you have any idea how much money that would cost? Billions. Frankly, if the NIH started spending billions debunking theories that we can already debunk theoretically with our common sense (and physics, etc), I would be outraged! But that's because our lab gets NIH money, and we don't claim to break laws of nature (well at least usually! Sometimes if we drink too much coffee. . .

)

Point well taken Veil, but the thing is: people don't believe in homeopathy, or esp, or creation science because of a lack of evidence disproving them. So producing that evidence (as has been the case with YEC for over 150 years) is not going to make them skeptics.

scigirl

Mad Kally · 06-13-2002, 03:57 PM

Veil,
I don't think you clicked on my previous <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/03.1.jarvis-homeo.html" target="_blank"> link </a> and read the entire thing.

LeftCoast · 06-13-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
"
My thought has always been, if it didn't work, nobody'd use it.

If this were indeed the case, atheists would not be a minority.

Veil of Fire · 06-13-2002, 04:09 PM

Kally: Like I said, I just skimmed them... I probably missed the relevant part of your particular link.

LeftCoast: Arrogant much?

John Page · 06-13-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
Ok, but wouldn't it make a skeptic's life that much easier if they could just point to a study and say "See? It's crap!"

Veil:

Here's the control experiements you were looking for related to the <a href="http://www.hippocrates.com/archive/November1999/11departments/11integrative.html" target="_blank">Nocebos</a>, courtesy of the Hippocrates journal. They're Placebos with proven side effects.

Now all you have to do is tell people they're homeowhatsits and give them inert twigs, or something. But that's what homeowhatsits are, right?

Cheers, John

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

John Page · 06-13-2002, 04:57 PM

oops

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Baptist Vine · 06-13-2002, 07:31 PM

It's interesting to see the papers on homeopathic studies and the comments on their quality.

I asked about the existence of studies on the
BB board here:
<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000663," target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000663,</a>
but didn't recieve any pointers on studies.

scigirl · 06-13-2002, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baptist Vine:
but didn't recieve any pointers on studies.

Ha ha ha! People who actually care about scientific studies at the baptist board? That is too hilarious. I used to post there a lot (before they banned all the "evil atheists"), and they would be talking about how drug addicts were all sinners. Then I would post something about how there is some biological basis for some addictive behaviors. They would completely ignore it, or just say, "No, it's a consequence of sin." Another thread was about obesity - same exact thing. "People are ONLY fat because of sin, NOT because of genetics." I posted a zillion links proving this claim wrong. Nope, "People are fat because of sin and that's that, the holley babble says."

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

scigirl

Edited to add: Ok a few posters over at the BB would actually read the links and say, "that's interesting," and want to talk about it. But they were shunned by the moderators or other members.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

06-13-2002, 04:57 PM	#18
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	oops [ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2002, 03:46 PM	#12
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	"Don't need a clinical trial to prove these claims as false!" Ok, but wouldn't it make a skeptic's life that much easier if they could just point to a study and say "See? It's crap!" Wouldn't it make the lives of standard medical practitioners who have to deal with kooks asking about homeopathic medicine if they had a trial to point to, even if it was only quasi-clinical? My thought has always been, if it didn't work, nobody'd use it. Chiropractors were subject to the same critisims you're levelling on homeopaths just a few years ago... I suppose my point is, it's so easy to design a study and prove, without much doubt, once and for all, to anyone with a question, that it's complete bunk.

06-13-2002, 03:57 PM	#14
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Veil, I don't think you clicked on my previous <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/03.1.jarvis-homeo.html" target="_blank"> link </a> and read the entire thing.

06-13-2002, 04:09 PM	#16
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Kally: Like I said, I just skimmed them... I probably missed the relevant part of your particular link. LeftCoast: Arrogant much?

06-13-2002, 07:31 PM	#19
Baptist Vine Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 28	It's interesting to see the papers on homeopathic studies and the comments on their quality. I asked about the existence of studies on the BB board here: <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000663," target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000663,</a> but didn't recieve any pointers on studies.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.