Doubting Didymus

Just trying to calm things down a bit. Obviously, not going to happen. Carry on.

LordSnooty

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I stand by that remark.
Right! You're correct. But 1:1000 means that there will be molecules of active ingredient in the medicine.

Most homeopathic medicine will have not have a single molecule of the active ingredient in it.

This is what I mean when I say 'idiot troll'. Nobody disputes dilution in medicine. We simply dispute COMPLETE dilution - so that none of the original substance survives. I have provided evidence that homeopathy does involve complete dilution. Why don't you discuss that evidence rather than this ludicrous strawman?

Your mind appears to be so open that your reasoning faculties have dribbled out. Discuss the evidence, or bow out gracefully.

Paul

Arrowman

corwin, LordSnooty et al: Please take a breath and cool it. It should be possible to have a passionate and even occasionally acrimonious debate without resorting to personal attacks in every post.

Why do you point out the technique of diluting real medicines, as though this in some way validates the voodoo techniques of Homeopathy?

There are various reasons why real medicines (I refuse to use the adjectives "conventional" or "alternative" to distinguish between science-based and belief-based medicine) are diluted. This includes the simple practicality of providing a dose of a fraction of a gram in a pill which can actually be picked up and swallowed, as well as the fact that it is easier to measure a dose more precisely when you're dealing with a diluted medicine in a larger volume (e.g. in a drip feed).

Homeopathic principles, on the other hand, assume that dilution actually improves the efficacy of the medicine, as described at the above-mentioned site <a href="http://www.heilkunst.com/dose.html" target="_blank">http://www.heilkunst.com/dose.html</a> as follows (my emphasis):

If I wasn't afraid of extending the flame war I'd at this point.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Arrowman

This doesn't really contribute much to the debate but I couldn't help noticing this on the <a href="http://www.heilkunst.com/dose.html" target="_blank">http://www.heilkunst.com/dose.html</a> page:

which is a bit self-serving, since according to <a href="http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk" target="_blank">http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk</a> the term was invented by Hahnemann himself:
Not to mention inaccurate in its description of the meaning of the prefix "allo" - from Dictionary.com:
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Coragyps

Not the best example, Corwin: aspirin is essentially 100% acetylsalicylic acid - it's one of the few madicines that just happens to compact nicely. The pills really do weigh 325 milligrams, just like the dosage says.

Edit: madicines are more popularly known as medicines.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

Duck!

I didn't know that....

Most medication I've checked the ingredients generally only contain very small amounts of active ingredient mixed with large amounts of inactive ingredients which are presumably to flesh out the pill and make it a usable size.

But a quick glance at the ingredient of a packet of "Anadin Maximum Strength" painkillers reveals that each tablet contains 500mg acetylsalicyclic acid and 32mg caffeine ph. eur. (whatever that is).

Interesting.


Duck!

Duck!

Whether or not homeopathic practictioners in general do or do not dilute their preparations to ridicilious proportions or not was not what interested me in the Horizon documentary.

The fact is that the experiments carried out were in response to experiments carried out by respected and trusted members of the medicinal science community which suggested that homeopathic medicines diluted up to 30C (1 in 10^60 dilution) COULD in fact be effective in treating allergic conditions.

I was fascinated by the idea that controlled experiments could suggest that something that was indistinguishable from water COULD somehow be provably effective in treating hay fever.

However, the results of the Horizon team's own experiments showed no stastical difference between the control (water) and the homepathic preparation (histamine diluted to absurd proportions, 1 in 10^60).

However, as I've heard pointed out before, normal water (even distilled water) contains all sorts of crap as a result of being in the rained from the sky, flown down rivers, drank, processed through our kidneys, pissed out, flushed down the bog, processed in a sewage plant etc. Not necessarily all of the above, but surely water that's been contaminated and diluted that much shouldn't be any different from stuff diluted in a lab.

Millons of people suffer from hay fever, surely a molecule or two of some histamine has gotten into someone's bloodstream and then into their urine and been processed, diluted, reprocessed, rediluted, etc. and ended up in someone else's body without them knowing.

Did it cure THEM of hayfever? Why not? Surely water can't know the difference between a scientist diluting histamine to nonexistent levels in it and an undirected process diluting histamine to nonexistenent levels in it?

If it's true, then I'd be fascinated to hear ANY explanation of it. Not that a lack of explanation means it's wrong. It's just that as a bit of a metaphysical naturalist, I'd LOVE to hear a plausible explanation for how 100% water with a certain molecular history can be medicinally different from 100% water with a different molecular history.


Duck!

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy2 ]</p>

Arrowman

Ah, Duck, you're forgetting the spirit-like energy which is released by succussion using the physician's kennen, and then applied to the Living Power of the patient. Ain't no kennen in a sewer.

Oolon Colluphid

Corwin (and any other proponents of Coragyps’s serendipitous coinage, ‘madicines’):

Let me put this simply. Science rejects homeopathy along two lines.

1. The mechanism(s) proposed undermine established science.
2. There is little-to-no evidence of any efficacy.

Taken together, these are reasons enough to think it’s a lot of nonsense. Here’s why.

1. The proposed mechanisms of homeopathy run diametrically opposite to great chunks of extraordinarily well tried and tested physics, chemistry and medicine. There is no reason why the proffered mechanisms should work, unless much of our understanding is plain wrong. This is extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

2. So in order to reject, or judge as flawed, the present knowledge, we need a good reason. Such as something happening despite the contrary predictions of ‘present knowledge’. But such a ‘something’ needs to be very well demonstrated, because what is at stake is an overhaul of ‘present knowledge’, which we already know is very effective.

3. However, when homeopathy is actually tested, the results are at best equivocal, at worst completely negative. It is full of ‘maybe’s, if you’re feeling kind toward it. It is nowhere near well enough demonstrated to require massive rethinking of physics and chemistry. This applies a fortiori if the proposed mechanisms (eg dilution) are rejected -- for then there’s even less reason to think that something should work contrary to how ‘present knowledge’ predicts, so it needs all the more to be thoroughly demonstrated.

In a nutshell: it shouldn’t work, and indeed it doesn’t seem to. End of story.

Corwin, let me suggest you check out John Diamond’s Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations. It should be a real eye-opener.

DT

Celsus

Corwin,

First cold fusion, now homeopathy. Robert Park's book Voodoo Science seems designed for people like you, and already has been recommended by others in the cold fusion thread. Please go and read it, and hopefully get a better understanding of the scientific process.

Joel