If homeopathic remedies work so well, then what would be the problem with the FDA regulating them?

[FLAprogressive]

After all, something that works so well shouldn't have any problem meeting the FDA regulations, like any other medicine has to do. Why shouldn't we regulate homeopathic medicine?

[gateley]

1. Because the big pharma houses don't have a financial stake in them. nt

[Jane Austin]

4. I don't trust the influence of Big Pharma on the FDA.

I can see them sinking alternative remedies because Big Medicine and Big Pharma want them to.

[gateley]

5. That's my point. We've seen what horrors "safe" drugs have

wrought, and then there's the Aspartame/Rumsfeld betrayal.

[johnd83]

29. Big pharma is really the problem, not the FDA

I agree that the FDA is far from perfect but it is way, way, way better than nothing. I actually think we should socialize pharmaceutical research for a number of reasons. The first is that the government pays for all the basic research for the drugs, and then the pharmaceutical companies make huge profits. The taxpayers should get the return on investment. The second is that big pharma targets large groups with mild conditions rather than small niche markets that there is a serious need. We can give an 80 year old man an erection, but we can't treat concussions, have superbugs because our antibiotics are very primitive, etc. If we had a socialized system we could better target the real need because the main driver would be the good of people rather than profits.

[gateley]

30. Yeah, it's better than nothing, but I think it's largely inefficient,

and too at the whim of pharma. And understaffed, probably.

[johnd83]

31. Small government at your service!

Or disservice.

[HuckleB]

41. Got logical fallacy?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathy-and-evidence-based-medicine-back-to-the-future-part-i/

[HuckleB]

40. "Alternative" remedies should sink all on their own.

They are a scam. Stop falling for the scam.

[HuckleB]

17. Uh, what about big placebo?

They have a stake in keeping the phony crap they sell unregulated. If they really wanted to treat people with honesty, they would submit to FDA regulation. Yet, they don't.

Hmmmmmmmm.

[FLAprogressive]

27. They swindle people into an elaborate game of "Good Cop, Bad Cop".

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[TheWraith]

3. BAM. Right there. K&R. nt

[arcane1]

6. Because water is regulated by the EPA?

:evilgrin:

[targetpractice]

14. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Game over. Well played!

[laconicsax]

33. We have a winner!

:applause:

[BuddhaGirl]

7. they are regulated by the FDA

just like over-the-counter drugs.

[FLAprogressive]

8. They are not regulated in the same way, though.

"The FDA makes significant exemptions for homeopathic remedies as compared to other drugs. Here are a few:<32[br />
They are not required to submit new drug applications to the FDA.
They are "exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating".
They are exempt from "finished product testing for identity and strength".
They may "contain much higher amounts" of alcohol than other drugs, which may contain "no more than 10 percent...and...even less for children's medications"."

Why are they not required to prove efficacy like regular drug makers are?

[Merlot]

9. to answer a few questions (according to homeopathic theory):

They are not required to submit new drug applications to the FDA. - they are not new and will never be, they were created over 100 years ago.
They are "exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating". - They don't expire ever.
They are exempt from "finished product testing for identity and strength". - The process by which they are made would be considered the testing for identity and determines the strength. They aren't made like pharmaceuticals.
They may "contain much higher amounts" of alcohol than other drugs, which may contain "no more than 10 percent...and...even less for children's medications"." homeopathics in pill form don't contain alcohol.

Really though, why does anyone care? People want to take homeopathics, the only ones hurting from that are the big pharmas.

And how many big pharma drugs have caused death and/or horrible side effects, and been recalled? Some people choose to take pharmas anyhow.

Pick your poison!

[FLAprogressive]

11. .

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

[Merlot]

16. I'll pass on the info from the internets, thanks.

[HuckleB]

18. So you'll ignore basic science, and just about everything else that science has discovered.

Got it.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

23. No, I have a problem with companies swindling people out of billions of dollars a year.

It's literally billions of dollars wasted on snake oil.

[Remember Me]

57. Sales in homeopathic remedies in the U.S. is in the BILLIONS?

I'd like to see a link on that, please.

[HuckleB]

83. The industry itself says it had sales of $300-450 million in 2003.

So, yeah, it could be in the billions by now, and that probably doesn't count the money "homeopaths" scam for appointments.

[lbrtbell]

22. As usual, you miss the point of homeopathy

It's not meant to be used for severe disorders of the sort listed on that fearmongering site. That would be like expecting medications to take the place of lifesaving surgery. Homeopathy is for things like allergies, pain relief, cold/flu relief...minor ailments.

Which you would know if you had actually read up on homeopathy, instead of just trashing something you know so little about.

[FLAprogressive]

24. Minor ailments that are generally self-limiting and go away on their own.

That's why homeopathy is not used for serious ailments....because without actual medicine, those serious ailments wouldn't go away! Ain't it funny that homeopathy only seems to treat illnesses that eventually go away on their own anyway....

[Remember Me]

47. You have a strange idea of cause and effect

and so does your linked website. It asks:

What's the harm in homeopathy?

and then goes on to cite a bunch of cases that show NOTHING harmful about homeopathic remedies themselves, but instead try to indict homeopathy for the sins or faults of the practitioner in some cases or the patient in others (as if MDs have never given wrong advice and caused harm including death, and drugs -- even taken as prescribed -- have never caused death, or conventional medical patients have never taken bad advice or refused good advice and died):

A homeopath told her to give up her asthma medication. She later died of an asthma attack.


Lorie's parents, concerned about modern food additives, were advised to give her an organic vegetarian diet. She was also treated with herbal & homeopathic remedies and an energy machine. Her parents were convicted of neglect.


She saw a doctor for a throat infection and an injured ankle. The doctor used dowsing to select a homeopathic remedy. Her throat did not improve and she had to get antibiotics in another city. The doctor was disciplined.


Sylvie was diagnosed HIV positive, but pursued alternative treatments for her disease including homeopathy, acupuncture and drinking her own urine. She eventually died of AIDS.


Lucille concealed the diagnosis of breast cancer from her family. She secretly consulted a naturopath and took homeopathic remedies. She also used quack treatments like blood irradiation. Her cancer raged out of control and she died.


Isabella was prescribed medications for her epilepsy. Instead of using them, her parents consulted an iridologist, an applied kinesiologist, a psychic and an osteopath. She was being treated purely with homeopathic medication when she died.


Ralph went in for outpatient cosmetic surgery. The doctor performing his liposuction was actually a homeopath. Instead of looking better, Ralph ended up dead.


Had to go to India for this one, where there's no FDA:
Gundawar was a homeopath who sold a new tonic, recently introduced on the market, that was supposed to reduce fatigue. He himself died, along with several of his patients. Several others were blinded, and other cases occured elsewhere in India


And back to 1923 for this
Despite the misgivings of a physician, his personal homeopath let him do arduous tasks and speak in the heat. When he had a bout of food poisoning, the homeopath applied heavy doses of purgatives to flush out toxins. He died. No autopsy was done.


But at least this one includes the failure of conventional medical treatments as well:
In 2007 Healey underwent surgery to remove cancerous tissue from his legs and both lungs. Radiation and chemotherapy failed to halt the spread of the disease, as did alternative homeopathic treatment in the U.S. this year.

The truth of the matter is that unlike pharmaceuticals, homeopathic remedies themselves have NEVER caused death or even serious injury or harm.

Further, pretty much the same holds true for herbs and other health supplements (and this news via a bunch of DOCTORS, btw):

Zero Deaths from Vitamins, Minerals, Amino Acids or Herbs:
Poison Control Statistics Prove Supplements' Safety Yet Again
http://www.doctoryourself.com/nodeaths.html

[HuckleB]

86. Pure hogwash.

http://whatstheharm.net/

[Remember Me]

90. Yes, that site IS pure hogwash.

Lots of innuendo, false associations, etc.

What's the harm in homeopathy?

Homeopathy is a practice created by Samuel Hahnemann that believes that incredibly minute quantities of substances dissolved in water can have powerful effects. Read more about homeopathy

Here are 437 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically.

That last sentence is actually the one correct thing about this site, but no one's reading it correctly. Despite the headline, those people weren't harmed by homeopathic remedies, they were harmed by a lack of critical thinking on the part of the patients or the practitioners. That, of course, NEVER happens in Western medicine, does it?

And, as I already pointed out, on the very first page they cite anecdotal evidence of "harm" from 1923, and another from India that really had nothing to do with homeopathic remedies. REAL reliable and up-to-date source ya got there.

[HuckleB]

93. Wow! I was so wrong.

Wait. No, I wasn't.

Do you think that citing one or two old examples somehow makes all the others go away?

:rofl:

[lbrtbell]

19. Are you smoking crack?

Let's debunk this idiocy.

1. Of course they don't have to submit "new" applications. Homeopathic drugs have been in use for ages; the only "new" ones are combinations of old ones that already exist, and are already regulated.

2. That's a flat-out lie. All homeopathic remedies have expiration dates on them. Go to the store, look at the packages for yourself.

3. Of course they're exempt from "finished product testing", for the simple reason that they aren't new products that require testing (see #1).

4. Homeopathic remedies do not contain alcohol. They're in tablet form, dissolved under the tongue or taken like a regular pill. The only person I ever saw claiming to dispense a "homeopathic" remedy in a liquid was a con artist NATUROPATHIC doctor who had NO training in homeopathy...one of his other "cures" was injecting people with their own urine. In fact, he was the reason I was so skeptical of homeopathy, until I tried a REAL homeopathic remedy for myself, and learned that he was a scam artist who knew nothing about it.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a paid shill for Big Pharma infiltrating DU.

[FLAprogressive]

26. The entire concept of homeopathy is bunk. Explain to me, how diluting something millions of times

makes it stronger. That simply makes NO sense. It would turn all laws of physics upside their head.

Homeopathy dates back from a time before modern science.

[Remember Me]

54. Of course it' dosen't make sense...

under Newtonian physics.

But wait a while longer, and I predict you'll find something from quantum physics serves to explain it (if there isn't something already).

[HuckleB]

87. You "predict?"

You have zero basis for your prediction. You are pushing faith healing upon yourself and others.

[Remember Me]

91. Oh, dear

You mean now I have to have a scientific basis for my speculation about the future?

My life experience of quite a few decades, my familiarity (such as it is) and study of these subjects don't allow me to simply speculate about the future course of events in an open, informal discussion forum??

How utterly ridiculous. How arrogant.

I think you've just convinced me that my time here has drawn to a close.

[HuckleB]

92. Yes, your need to push baseless beliefs upon other is arrogant.

Oh, and how many logical fallacies can you fit into one post?

:rofl:

[Remember Me]

45. They're NOT drugs would be a major reason too.

They operate in a completely different paradigm.

And whoever said that "if they worked, it would physics on its head" must not be very conversant with quantum physics, which WILL turn Newtonian physics on its head when it filters into mainstream consciousness and causes the much-needed cultural paradigm shift we're due for.

[FLAprogressive]

50. That "paradigm" is magical thinking.

[Remember Me]

52. Yes, that's what some people think, and call it.

Cool, isn't it? I think we all need a little more magic in our lives.

YMMV.

[FLAprogressive]

53. Are you religious?

[Remember Me]

55. None of your business

But no, I'm not.

[FLAprogressive]

58. Alternative medicine and religion have many parallels

Both have people who attribute it to cures and healing, and both have the same amount of scientific evidence to back those claims up. Both also have great amounts of followers who will preach to you about the "right path"....

[Remember Me]

62. Both populated by ...

well, people;

* both evident in the United States -(well, and other places, e.g., Europe)

* both with ancient roots

* both accessible via the English language (and I'm sure other languages)

* both having books written about and of them

* both denigrated by certain groups (e.g., skeptics)


My list is as valid as yours, frankly, in proving anything or even making a coherent, VALID point. But go on and have your fun.But it's

But it's still none of your business and an offensive question.

[Maru Kitteh]

96. you most certainly are religious, and you prove it with every post

Not all religions of the earth revolve around a deity/deities. Yours is one of them.

You cling to an irrational belief in magical rituals and potions you profess have the faith to save you from ills and harm. You adhere to this faith against all principles of reason and evidence to the contrary. That, is a religion.

[johnd83]

10. A lot of homeopathic products are scams

Case in point "Natural remedies THEY don't want you to know about" written by some idiot who claims the FTC censored his chapter on the remedies that work. The rest of the book is full of BS like sun block causes cancer. The other problem is that a lot of natural remedies are actually really expensive and can be potentially dangerous. The FDA does actually fulfill a very important role. Before the FDA most medicines were just narcotics being marketed for every conceivable problem. And in my experience the homeopathic stuff just doesn't work.

[lbrtbell]

12. Natural remedies and homeopathic remedies are not the same

Herbal remedies cause a lot of side effects for me, so I avoid them. Homeopathic remedies, on the other hand, are very effective; maybe you just didn't get yours from a reliable, respected company (Boiron, etc.).

I thought homeopathy was BS until I had a horrible flu, and the 24-hour grocery store was sold out of other flu remedies (it was flu season). Thinking it was a waste of money, I nevertheless picked up a box of Oscillo out of sheer desperation, until the pharmacy opened the next day.

I didn't bother going back. Within 2 hours, the Oscillo had eased my symptoms considerably, and ever since, I take that stuff whenever I feel the flu coming on. It almost always stops the flu in its tracks, only failing if I don't take it soon enough.

This skeptic is convinced. Homeopathy works--period.

[FLAprogressive]

15. *sigh*. If homeopathy were proven to be effective, the laws of physics would be turned completely

upside down.

[lbrtbell]

20. It has been proven effective.

You're just refusing to look at all the research that has proven it, in many countries.

[FLAprogressive]

25. I'm waiting to see the scientific consensus.

[HuckleB]

28. No, it hasn't been proven effective.

Try again.

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.632/healthissue_detail.asp

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathy-and-evidence-based-medicine-back-to-the-future-part-v/

And that doesn't even address the plausibility issue. Do you understand plausibility? Or are you a faith healer guy?

[johnd83]

32. SOME treatments have been proven effective.

The only thing that has ever helped me are very specific high dose vitamins and minerals, and probiotics. These are known to be helpful. But there is a LOT out there, and some of them can do very harmful things that have shown up in bloodwork.

[HuckleB]

34. The placebo effect in action.

Oh, and you are not talking about homeopathy.

[johnd83]

36. Actually not placebo

They have shown up as better on tests. And you need to take probiotics with a lot of medical treatments or you will get some serious complications.

[HuckleB]

39. The full spectrum of evidence says otherwise.

Supplement swindlers are good at pushing selective evidence. That's why regulation is needed. They are conning you, and millions of others.

[Remember Me]

56. Pharmaceutical companies are pretty keen on

selective evidence themselves. I'll trust the most "supplement swindlers" over any pharmaceuticals any day, thank you very little.

[laconicsax]

59. If that's the case:

Be sure to stock up on Miracle Mineral Supplement! Just ignore all those science-y types telling you that it's just bleach.

[HuckleB]

42. Ahem.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathy-failing-randomized-controlled-trials-since-1835/

[FLAprogressive]

13. All of them are, there's just nothing in it.

[laconicsax]

35. It's funny, if homeopathy actually worked, "big pharma" would be making money hand-over-fist on it.

I mean, this is an industry that pours considerable resources into finding new uses for their products. Why would they not jump at the chance to exploit homeopathy?

I guess "big pharma" isn't very profit driven...either that or homeopathy is bullshit and doesn't actually work.

[FLAprogressive]

37. Exactly. It would be so much cheaper to produce and the profit margins would be huge.

If it actually worked why wouldn't they jump in the game?!

[trotsky]

38. Bingo! n/t

[Remember Me]

44. Because they can't patent it -- there's where the money is

The remedies have been around for generations now. There's no proprietary possibility involved.

Same with herbs. The ONLY interest any drug companies have in any medicinal herb is if they can isolate THE "active ingredient" so they can synthesize it and then get a patent. Usually they can't, so that eliminates the profit potential.

[trotsky]

46. The homeopath companies seem to make plenty of money.

And:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=6&fldAuto=149

[Remember Me]

48. Oh, clever, clever.

BUT, it really doesn't negate the argument at all.

What you're forgetting, and this article is overlooking, is that bringing something new onto the market that isn't GRAS requires millions to produce the requisite double-bind studies everyone is always clamoring for. And THAT is what motivates drug companies to get patents for their products when they're initially introduced.

Here are some clues, from the article itself:

They’ve got the legal and regulatory knowledge for selling products which are aimed at being ingested by consumers.

and

That particular treatment has been out of patent for at least 130 years. I’m pretty sure, with the above, the point has been made. There are many large pharmaceutical companies who sell products which are no longer under patent protection, and in fact probably face stiff competition from “store brands” and/or other large drug companies. They also sell vitamin and mineral supplements, and (although rarely) herbal products.

Yes, they're perfectly free to start producing their own line of herbal supplements -- and won't have to do double-blind studies IF their products meet certain FDA regulations (e.g., GRAS status and who knows what else). If not, it requires costly clinical studies for which any company footing the bill wants (usually more than) adequate compensation once approved.

[trotsky]

49. "costly clinical studies"

Yeah, it's difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and frustrating to actually have to PROVE your product works. Would you rather that no one has to back up what they say about their product, like the current supplement/homeopathic businesses?

[Remember Me]

51. The cuerrent supplement/homeopathic businesses

don't have to prove ANYthing to me: AFAIC they've been proven and for the most part many times over.

YOU may want to insist on a particular methodology for that proof to be "valid," and that's your right, I suppose. But I am an experienced consumer (not so knowledgeable of homeopathy, but I do use it on occasion and definitely know enough about its "proof" in years past to continue to use it) and am just fine with things exactly as they are for these industries.

Thanks for your concern.

[laconicsax]

60. LOL!

It sounds so cute the way you feel that homeopaths don't need to prove, let alone substantiate their claims. Good thing an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst">actual professor of CAM has taken the time to evaluate homeopathy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610">Here's what he had to say on the subject just last year:

The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.

I'm happy for you that you're highly susceptible to the placebo effect.

[Remember Me]

64. You science types sure have certain weak logic skills

I didn't say they "don't need to prove..." I said AFAIC they've ALREADY proven. Big difference. Now perhaps you're insisting on one single type of proof: double-bind studies, and if so, you'll just have to continue living under the impression that there can be no other kind of "proof."

As for your professor of CAM, you're not really reading your own post:

The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.


The professor is reviewing someone else's reviews of studies. Gee, can we get a review of his review, and then a review of that review of his review of their reviews?

I won't even waste my time looking at it. As for the professor himself, have you never heard of the DLC? Koch brothers and ALEC? Anti-climate change "scientists"? If that is his ultimate take on the subject, it destroys his credibility with me entirely.

[laconicsax]

66. You remind me of a creationist.

-You've already made up your mind and ignore everything that challenges your conclusion.
-You say that your position is proven, yet refuse to provide that proof.
-You attribute contradiction to agenda.

It must be cramped in that closed mind of yours.

[Remember Me]

67. Actually, my mind is a lot more open than yours

However, there ARE things in this world that are settled matters, even if not everyone agrees.

I understand there are people who still believe:

* the earth is flat
* man didn't walk on the moon
* the planet isn't warming
* there's nothing to homeopathy :D

I see absolutely no reason to "open" my mind to inanities, and won't be lured into it by attempts to manipulate me with well-worn cultural insults.

[laconicsax]

69. The funny thing is that homeopathy has been disproven.

Law of similars? Disproven.
Serial dilution does not make a solution stronger.
Water doesn't have a memory.

I know this may be hard to accept, but homeopathy is based on pre-atomic chemistry and has no basis in scientific fact.

Do you know how Hahnemann invented homeopathy? It's a fun story.

He noticed that the effects of extreme doses of certain treatments resulted in similar symptoms to the conditions they treated (fever), and not understanding that fever is a natural response to a number of things, he said 'aha!' and came up with his law of similars. Next, he tried to use his new modality to treat patients and found that the those who received the most diluted dose did better than those who received a high dose. Not understanding how making someone worse can hinder recovery, Hahnemann said 'aha!' and concluded that dilution increases potency.

So there you have it, after a guess based on a hunch, Hahnemann conducted a trial with no control and concluded something that a someone with a middle-school understanding of chemistry could disprove. The funny part is that now, in the 21st century, people are still falling for 18th century misconceptions.

You seem like an intelligent person, so why do you believe in this stuff? Every part of it has been disproven, every study involving homeopathy has either shown it to not work, or not work at all. The placebo effect is all in the mind--it makes people think they're getting better even though they aren't. It's an imaginary effect.

[Remember Me]

72. Oh, no, no, no

No sirree.

You (and others) are insisting on a particular scheme or method of proof, which is inapplicable to homeopathy and certain other healing modalities. This is simplistic, but still serves I think: it would be like you insisting that someone who only has access to a metric scale (and no way of converting) to provide you with a weight measurement in lbs. and oz. It's a different SYSTEM. You simply can't force it to work in your system.

Here's some reading material for you:

Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis

[laconicsax]

73. You're funny.

The only reason why you say that science is "inapplicable to homeopathy and certain other healing modalities" is that they failed the most basic tests.

Had "homeopathy and certain other healing modalities" been shown to work through scientific inquiry, you (and others like you) wouldn't be saying that science is "inapplicable." It's a classic case of shifting the goalposts. Here's how it goes:

-Someone claims that a CAM modality works.
-The modality is tested and is shown to be no better than placebo.
-Advocates of the modality accuse the researchers of bias.
-Further research shows that the underlying principles of the modality are false.
-Advocates of the modality claim new, vague principles.
-Further research disproves those new, vague principles.
-Advocates of the modality claim that studies show it to not work because it's incompatible with science.

The system which you say is "inapplicable" is a system where (as applied to medicine) the modality is directly tested with controls to make sure that the effects are the result of the modality and not outside factors. A control group is used to compare the effect of treatment with no treatment at all the results show the level of effect that the modality has. If the modality has no effect when compared to the control group, it doesn't work. This isn't a case of using an incompatible system, it's a case of using the modality, recording the results, comparing them to the results of a control group, and finding that it doesn't have any quantifiable effect.

Don't believe me? Set up your own study. Take a decent group of people with the same condition. Separate them in to two groups at random, treat the first group and not the second. Tell both groups that they're receiving the same treatment and record the results. If the modality works, the first group will have different results than the second.

Of course, if you'd like to explain why this kind of study won't work, please do so.

[Remember Me]

75. No, it would work perfectly well --

IF done properly.

And btw, you people need to stop imagining you understand what's going on in my mind and can therefore elucidate my motives. You cannot. If you PAY ATTENTION to what I'm saying in this post, you'll get a clue to what I am talking about on this issue. And pigs will fly.

I really have to say (again) that homeopathy isn't one of my main interests --- I've not studied it enough to select any remedies for myself, haven't read the literature, etc. I USE it when my chiropractor gives it to me, and there's one product in particular I routinely buy and use (Arnica gel/cream). I'm much more familiar with similar (tho at the same time very different) healing remedies: Flower, Gem and Environmental Essences.


That said, by "properly" I mean designing the experiment operating within the principles of homeopathy, and not contrary to them. For example, when choosing a remedy, you have to look at the symptoms and minute details about the symptoms, even for something simple as a cold. I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking for examples, but here's a selection for fainting:

Specific remedies to be given every 5 minutes for up to 10 doses

Fainting due to intense emotion Ignatia 30c
Fainting due to over-excitement Coffea 30c
Fainting due to over-exertion Nux mosch. 30c
Fainting due to fright Aconite 30c
Fainting caused by loss of blood China 30c
Fainting caused by severe pain Chamomilla 30c
Fainting caused by Minor pain Hepar sulph. 30c
Fainting in hot, stuffy surroundings Pulsatilla 30c
Fainting at sight of blood Nux 30c
Fainting at sight of needles Silicea 30c
Fainting brought on by strong perfumes or odours Nux 30c

But any scientific experiment that honors those rules of the road ought to do just fine. But if you want to choose ONE of those remedies and design an experiment giving it to every fainter, no, not so much. This example is fairly straightforward. It's my understanding that it can be more complicated than that: a person's constitution and perhaps other details (other symptoms and other health issues??) also weigh in and may provide additional or different recommendations.

[laconicsax]

77. You don't seem to understand that the principles of homeopathy themselves are false.

Just like how a test adhering to the principles of geocentrism will still show geocentrism to be false because the principles themselves are false, a test adhering to the principles of homeopathy will still show homeopathy to be false because the principles themselves are false.

The law of similars is false and even if it were true, serial dilution negates it by completely removing the substance used in the treatment. It's been proven that water doesn't have a memory, so there's no way other than magic (which isn't real) for the original substance to have any effect whatsoever in the final solution. This leaves you with a choice to either accept that homeopathy as a system is impossible, or that it works by magic. 0+0=0

Anyway, I'm still laughing about that list of 30c remedies. You know what 30c means, right? It means that the solution is so diluted that not only are there no molecules of the original substance, there are no molecules of water from the first dilution. It's a dilution to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

If you want yet another way of thinking about that, 30c is equivalent to one molecule of the original substance in about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water which is about five billion times the mass of the Earth.

I'd like to have some neat way to visualize this, but 10⁶⁰ is so astonishing large a number, that I can't do it without overloading servers. To at least get some idea of the size of this number, go http://htwins.net/scale/">here and move the slider all the way from the left (10^-35) to all the way to the right (9.3x10²⁶.

The difference between the size of the universe and the Planck length is smaller than 10⁶⁰.

[Remember Me]

81. No, the pinrciples of homeopathy

simply aren't understood by the likes of you. BUT, fear not, because SOME scientists are beginning to get it, which might mean the laugh's on you:

'Proof' that homeopathy works (article)
Swiss chemist Louis Rey made the discovery while using a technique called thermoluminescence to study molecular structure.
Rey diluted samples of lithium chloride and sodium chloride far beyond the point where any molecules of the original substance could remain. But after close examination, it appeared that the diluted solutions were different to that of pure water, 'proof' that water has a memory of dissolved substances.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-184501/Proof-homeopathy-works.html#ixzz1UawT0LFA


Scientific Proof that Homeopathics Work NEW SCIENTIST WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
http://www.askahomeopath.net/ScientificProofthatHomeopathicsWORK.htm


PROOF in Quantum Physics:
The issue is that in Newtonian physics, mechanics are visible to our physical senses and energy is not. This makes energy more difficult to understand. Just like electricity (which is believed and accepted) we can only see the effects of this energy. But skeptics say this explanation for homeopathy is not acceptable. So lets look at QP (Quantum Physics).
http://www.hauserhomeopathy.com/pub/proof-for-homeopathy--beyond-material-thinking.html


You know, Newtonian physics would insist that a wave cannot simultaneously be a particle; and yet that's proven. Newtonian physics would scoff at the notion that the mere act of observing an experiment can alter the effects, and yet that's proven. Newtonian physics would scoff at the notion that two identical things separated by great distance "know" when one of the two are being acted upon, and yet that's proven.

Wake up, you guys! Quantum Physics is going to absolutely revolutionize the entire world and our understanding of it, and ourselves.

[laconicsax]

82. And now you're trying to have it both ways.

When science says that the principles of homeopathy are false, you say that science can't evaluate homeopathy because it's "inapplicable." Yet when someone suggests that science proves homeopathy, you jump on it.

Either homeopathy can be evaluated by science or it can't. You can't have it both ways.

Nevertheless, I suppose I need to explain why these new claims of yours are false too:

To start, the article in the Daily Mail (a RW tabloid with a documented history of inventing stories wholesale) is based on the study in your second link. Neither come even close to proving homeopathy, but instead suggest a new technique for testing the 'water memory' claim of homeopathy, a claim which has been already falsified on multiple levels (water loses any 'memory' within http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15758995">50 femtoseconds).

Here are links to the studies themselves:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16813507
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678813

Because I doubt you'll read or understand what's being described in these two studies, I'll summarize: Heavy water (deuterium oxide, which is toxic in humans) is frozen with liquid nitrogen and irradiated. Pausing right there, does that sound like the principles of homeopathy? Anyway, the results are far from proving homeopathy--they do show a difference in structure even at high dilutions, but not of liquid, non-irradiated water. What's more, the effect the team found varied based on the time between irradiation and thawing.

The conclusion of the first link states quite clearly, "The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained" and in the second link (a subsequent study) suggests the dispersed gas phase as a possible cause. That means that the process of freezing and unfreezing the water might be responsible, not the original dissolved substance or any principle of homeopathy (unless freezing deuterium oxide with liquid nitrogen is a principle of homeopathy).

Your third link is hilarious. It shows a total lack of understanding of what quantum physics is, what it says, and even basic physics. It reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_y4-z-kDqQ">this video in which a homeopath gets physics (including quantum physics and string theory) so wrong that it's hard to watch.

[Remember Me]

89. You're not reading with clarity or crtical thought either

When science says that the principles of homeopathy are false, you say that science can't evaluate homeopathy because it's "inapplicable." Yet when someone suggests that science proves homeopathy, you jump on it.

There are two main issues here. First is that you're mischaracterizing my position. I SAID that done properly, a nice "scientific" double-blind study should be able to prove the efficacy of homeopathy.

But now that's not good enough. The goal posts have been moved and now science must not only prove it works, but must put its imprimatur on why and HOW it works. Hell, science has proven that at least some acupuncture works (see various NIH studies from the 1990s), but they don't have a friggin' clue why or how. That's because there's no way to find, locate or MEASURE the energies involved -- ch'i or qi. So, science has certain inadequacies that prevent it from doing what you insist must be done. I can't help that. But to insist that they don't exist when an entire culture (China) for perhaps as many as 6 millennia know very well that they DO, is ludicrous in my estimation. YMMV.



Either homeopathy can be evaluated by science or it can't. You can't have it both ways.

LOL. Sure I can. I just did. But you don't have to like it. :D


Nevertheless, I suppose I need to explain why these new claims of yours are false too:

Ah, gee, ya coulda saved your time. They're not MY claims and (haven't you noticed?) I could frankly care less. I KNOW homeopathy works, and I know science isn't up to getting it, explaining it, etc., etc. I've used homeopathy. Placebo effect -- if so, please tell me how to put the placebo effect to work for OTHER things I've tried and desperately wanted to work abut they didn't. In any case, I happened to run across them and thought they may be of interest to the science-worshippers around. IF not, okay. Shrug. I didn't even read them.

[laconicsax]

94. You're all over the place.

Clearly you have a belief about homeopathy. It's also obvious that you are a poster-child for http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/07a.pdf">belief perseverance and the http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect">Dunning Kruger effect.

The principles of homeopathy as invented by Hahnemann are false, and laughably so. The so-called "law of similars" is completely baseless and has been known to be false for over 100 years. The principle of strengthened dose through serial dilution is likewise completely false. It was based on the mistaken notion that matter can be divided infinitely, something which is disproven by basic chemistry. It's also disproven by basic toxicity--by the principles of homeopathy, 1 part per 100 of lead (for example) is less toxic than one part per million. Either homeopathy is true or 1 part per billion is safer than 1 part per thousand.

As I pointed out before, Hahnemann was inadvertently poisoning his patients and since those who received a smaller dose fared better than those given large doses, Hahnemann incorrectly concluded that his treatment worked best when heavily diluted.

The principle of water memory was invented as a way to explain how a substance can have an effect without being in the treatment dose. It has similarly been falsified, as water does not maintain structures for more than 50 quadrillionths of a second and the effect has never been replicated in a controlled setting.

Quantum mechanics does not hold the key to understanding homeopathy--ramblings about energy and vibrations never use either term in a consistent manner and usually use them to mean things radically different from what they mean in physics. The body's aura or "energy field" has never been defined, let alone observed, and while science has uncovered a great deal of information about the body's natural electricity, none of it even comes close to supporting the pseudoscientific pablum used to support long since discredited ideas.

You have claimed that homeopathy both can and can't be evaluated by science, and in what I think is the utmost damned astonishing thing I've ever seen, you insist that a statement can be simultaneously true and false. If you don't think that this undermines any credibility you may have had, then you're not competent to have any sort of intelligent discussion. This with your obvious belief perseverance, general ignorance and subsequent inability to self-evaluate.

Homeopathy is 18th-century garbage. I'm glad that you've had a good placebo experience, but being tricked into feeling better is a far cry from actually being better.

BTW: The "proof" of acupuncture is well understood--a sufficiently deep dermal stimulus releases adenosine, which is a natural pain killer. Also, simple skin contact can distract the brain from existing pain. Studies also consistently show that the effects are unrelated to where the needles are placed and even if there are needles. In other words, Qi and meridians have been falsified. You see, science works and answers questions regardless of whether you're paying attention.

Oh, and Chinese acupuncture isn't 6000 years old. It's a fairly recent invention and even if it was 6000 years old, there'd be no way to prove it since writing wasn't invented in China until about 3000 years ago. The only records of acupuncture in China are relatively recent and closer to blood-letting than modern acupuncture.

[trotsky]

79. If the laws of physics won't allow your magic to work,

just pretend there are special laws that allow it! Nice!

[trotsky]

61. I believe all businesses should be regulated and held accountable.

You do not. You are just more of an "invisible hand of the market" kind of guy who doesn't want regulation interfering with capitalism. I suppose then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Remember Me]

63. Are you claiming to be pro-science or something?

The reason I ask is that I said NOTHING about regulation or being held accountable and I'd expect a pro-science type to be keen on getting such "details" right.

As a matter of fact, I'm VERY pro regulation. In fact, I think healthcare should match those in European socialist democracies. I don't believe in "the invisible hand of the maarket," primarily because unregulated capitalism is absolutely brutal, and also because neither do the corporatists believe in it else they wouldn't lobby for pro-business legislation. But all that's another subject.

In the case of alternative healthcare, I just want the regulation to be sensible and based on the healing paradigms involved, NOT the limited paradigm of Western science. Now, I know that you -- and others here -- can't/don't/won't understand that paradigm, and that's okay with me. I'm not insisting, as you are, that YOU change your paradigm to match mine. I'm not even suggesting that your paradigm is wrong -- only that it's limited. That Western science doesn't and can't account for everything. There are many true and real things in this universe that Western science simply can't grapple with -- and so dismisses out of hand, thus throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[trotsky]

65. Nope, just pro-regulation.

You trust business to do the right thing. I would rather regulate and verify. We are just different that way, apparently.

[Remember Me]

68. There again, you've completely missed the reality of what I've said

Or are you mischaracterizing my position on purpose? Gee, that would be disappointing as a debating tactic. The alternative for me would be to think that your critical thinking skills aren't what you imagine them to be. That would be less disappointing than downright sad.

I DON'T trust business (as a class) to do the right thing, but when I say that I'm thinking primarily about the banksters, the Monsantos of the world, oil companies, big pharma, etc. Lots of very ugly large corporations out there and I'm sure plenty of smaller ones.

But not ALL are bad, untrustworthy, evil. Some are even very good. Some produce quality products with integrity and a genuine desire to serve. Is that true of the homeopathic companies? I don't actually know -- what I know is that homeopathy has been "proven" in its healing paradigm for generations now, and doesn't seem to need any more regulation that it's already under, AFAIC. Again, YMMV.

[trotsky]

70. No, you just don't like the reality of what you've said.

The question here is, should all for-profit companies be regulated and held accountable for their products?

For me, the answer is yes.

For you, the answer is no. You've said that several times now - trying to restate it to soften the blow each time, but yet your answer is STILL no.

It is just that simple. Your belief in homeopathy is irrelevant.

[Remember Me]

71. Here, let me try it on you

So, you believe in regulation -- that means that you want all little girls' lemonade stands shut down, right?

Go ahead, answer. And then I'll respond to the rest of the nonsense you posted.

[trotsky]

74. Ah, I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

I asked first. You respond. Then I'll answer your loaded question.

The question is: Should all for-profit companies be regulated and held accountable for their products?

Your answer should take the form of either "yes" or "no."

[Remember Me]

76. The answer is yes, of course

and the REST of the answer is:

It's a ridiculous question that actually has no merit or applicability.

These companies ARE being regulated and held accountable in accordance with the current laws of the U.S. and regulations of the FDA. If you don't LIKE those, then your beef isn't with me, it's with those who pass the laws and make the regs.

[trotsky]

78. No, they aren't being regulated and held accountable.

That's the point. But at least you changed your answer and realize that maybe, just maybe, your favorite homeopath or supplement company MIGHT just want to make money off of you.

[Remember Me]

80. What, you think they should be non-profit or something?

Get real. Of COURSE they want to make money. That doesn't automatically mean "rip off" or "scan" or "quackery" or anything else. You think it's immoral or unethical for them to have a profit motive but not doctors and not pharmaceutical companies? I don't see you complaining about the obscene profits of drug companies, or did I just miss that?

Critics of alternative healthcare really always try to impose a different standard from the one they accept from their pet industry.

And of course they're being regulated -- just not the way you think they should. If they exist in this country, they are under the laws of this country, period.

[HuckleB]

84. In this case, it does mean it's a scam.

It doesn't work. It's implausible. It's ridiculous.

It's a scam.

[trotsky]

85. Nope, I just want the same standard applied to all.

You want your companies to play by different rules.

[Remember Me]

88. Tha't not what you want at all.

But first, you're shown you're not a man of your word, not to be trusted. You bullied me into answering YOUR question before YOU would deign to answer mine, and then didn't bother to answer mine. Did you think I'd not notice? I noticed, and I'll remember it.


You don't want the SAME standard, you want DRUG standards applied to non-drugs. I predict it ain't gonna happen, because homeopathic remedies are simply NOT drugs.

But in any case, just how far would you take your campaign to impose DRUG standards on non-drugs? Would you regulate the sale of other non-drugs like dandelion? How about witch hazel? Comfrey? Ginger? Cayenne? Purple coneflower? Marigolds (aka: calendula)?

And btw, once more time: HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES HARM NO ONE but rather have helped millions for generations now on most continents. The biggest complaint you or anyone can make is that a certain remedy didn't work -- but we're talking no more money than you might spend on an OTC wart remedy that ALSO won't work. (Are you complaining about all the OTC drug store items that don't do a damn thing??? I didn't see those complaints from you so please point them out to me.)

So what's your beef? You complain of "billions of dollars," but I rather doubt that figure for homeopathics, unless you're talking world wide and several continents over time. Or perhaps you'll enlighten me with a link to the sales figures you're using? It's NOTHING to what is spent on allopathic medical treatments and pharmaceuticals that not only often don't work but can maim or kill the patient -- and frequently do! I don't see you complaining about the hundreds of thousands of deaths annually from pharmaceutical DRUGS taken AS PRESCRIBED. Why not? You choose to go after something incredibly benign instead. Smart, very smart.

Basically, though, we're done. I won't interact with people who do not discuss and debate in good faith.

[trotsky]

95. LMAO

You are the one claiming that homeopathy works. To treat illness/disease. In other words, you think homeopathy works JUST LIKE A DRUG. You are the one who has a double standard when it comes to then regulating said sugar water. If it works, why can't we test it? Why can't we hold the manufacturer responsible like big pharma is?

Oh I've been debating this in good faith the whole time. Trying to understand why you feel there are different rules that your preferred for-profit companies get to play by. But instead, all I have gotten is personal attacks and red herrings as your desperation increased. I succeeded in what I wanted to accomplish several posts upthread - the rest of your responses, digging your hole deeper and deeper, have been the proverbial icing on the cake. Thanks!

[Why Syzygy]

43. It IS regulated by the FDA.

It is in the Class of OTC (over the counter).