Are low homeopathic dilutions safe?

Milbrandt said:
I saw a parody of a homeopathic "remedy" package that was shared on facebook by the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. I quickly assumed that it was originally a package of Oscillococcinum and commented, like others, that it was 100% sugar.

When I took a closer look however, I saw that it was actually a package of Sinusalia, which is also produced by Boiron. I then checked whether it actually is just sugar (I like to be thorough) and was surprised to find a picture that says it contains a 3C dilution of Belladonna, Sanguinaria Canadensis and Spigelia Anthelmia (all of which are plants): http://www.downtowncdn.com/files/261643/sinusalia2.2.jpg
Boiron's website confirms this dilution: Link

That would mean that there is actually still some of the original substance left in the pills. I reckon there are other homeopathic "remedies" which contain substances in these low dilutions too.

This raises several questions to me (I use belladonna as an example here, but the same questions apply to other substances as well):

1. Does this mean that 1 part in a million (3C) of one tablet is actually from the belladonna plant? It says on their website that it "contains less than 10-8 mg alkaloids per dose" (I assume this refers to the tropane alkaloids, found in belladonna), one dose being two tablets (with a maximum of 6 doses, ie 12 tablets per day).
2. Do they really just put one drop of the diluted substance on a heap of pills and then let it evaporate, like I've heard many times? In that case, could you still actually call this a 3C dilution?
3. Is this even homeopathy? I've heard that dilutions below 12C aren't considered homeopathic by most homeopaths, though some disagree. I guess there is no objective way of telling which version homeopathy is the "real" one.
4. Most importantly: Is this safe? I assume the dose found in one single pill won't be dangerous, but what if someone used it regularly and/or a lot (say, the maximum dose or more) or takes a homeopathic overdose for the 10:23 campaign? Is this a real concern, or is it still too dilute to be dangerous (again, the same question applies to other substances)?

Also, I wonder how well this is regulated. I know that in many countries homeopathic remedies aren't subject to the same rigor of testing as real drugs are. In the USA, the FDA exempts them from "finished product testing for identity and strength". Does that mean that, in the USA, the maximum doses for these remedies aren't determined by the FDA?
Click to expand...

Mostly safe and completely useless!!! Two qualities in one product!!!
 
Just a few molecules of BarsLeaks in my swimming pool keeps it free of clogs.

Homeopathy from the Greek: ὅμοιος hómoios, "-like" and πάθος páthos, "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), whereby a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. It is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.

So a substance that stops or plugs leaks in a healthy radiator, will, when diluted and shaken, open clogs in a pool drain.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
:)




I'm speechless. :rolleyes:
Someone's clearly making a ton of money on this stuff. Nice equipment. Looks all sciency. I wonder where they find qualified PhD chemists.
Click to expand...

The principle of potentiation is applicable to education.

Educated chemists don't understand homeopathy. So the less education a chemist has, the better understanding of homeopathy. People with no measurable amount of education are far more effective at homeopathy than educated people. :boggled:

This sounds so logical, given homeopathic principles, that it scares me:boxedin:
 
I think that I finally understood the confusion between Mojo and myself. Mojo thought that when I used the term "opposite" I meant induce a chill rather than induce a fever. I meant reduce a fever rather than induce a fever. Sorry.
 
Mojo said:
They are supposed to reduce a fever by inducing a fever. Perhaps it makes sense to homoeopaths...
Click to expand...

I don't think so. But we are arguing about the mechanism by which some people fantasize a non-drug works, when it doesn't work at all. It's not even present in the final diluted produce. So, no hypothesis as to mechanism is worth discussing further.
 
Mojo said:
They are supposed to reduce a fever by inducing a fever. Perhaps it makes sense to homoeopaths...
Click to expand...

OK, brace yourselves....

The basic idea in homeopathy is as follows (remember this was thought out around AD 1800, when it was still far from understood what caused diseases and thus how medicines might work):

Hahnemann (the "inventor" of homeopathy in its classic form) theorized that the normal function of the body was governed by something called the "vital principle". What this is, is and were somewhat vague, but it might be defined as that which makes the difference between life and death; a living organism posesses the vital principle, a dead one or an inanimate object does not.

Now, Hahnemann inferred that disease was due to some disturbance or malfunction in the vital principle. Hahnemann then concluded that since all diseases came from the vital principle, one could only suffer from one disease at the time. He supported this by some observations all of which we can today recognize as special cases.

Now, Hahnemann had noticed that medical substances (in his era herbal extracts and various chemicals), in suffuiient doses always had an effect on the body. They were thus able to disturb the function of the vital principle. Obviously, once the effect wore off, the VP was came back to normal.

So, his theory was that if you give the patient a medicine that causes similar symptoms as the disease, the patient right away remained ill, but since he knew that the effect was now caused by the medicine, and he thought that only one disease could exist in the body at any one time, he assumed that the medicine had now replaced the original disease. Thus, once the effect of the medicine wore off, the patient would be cured.

Pretty consistent logic, - unfortunately not based on fact.

So Hahnemann set out to map the effects of a lot of substances. He did this by giving them to healthy persons (including himself) and noting all and everything those persons felt while they took the substance.

As some of the substanced were poisonous, he started to dilute them, and lo and behold, since the observation method was very subjective, test subjects kept reporting various feelings, even after the remedy was diluted to a ridiculous level. Instead of the obvious conclusion, Hahnemann assumed that the dilution somehow purified and accentuated (potentized) the effects.

So, a classical homeopathic treatment works as follows:

Patient reports a set of symptoms.

The homeopath looks up those symptoms in a big book, where all remedies and their symptoms are listed (Materia Medica).

The homeopath selects a remedy that seems to fit the patient's symptoms.

After the patient has taken the remedy, three things can happen:

1) Patient gets better (most diseases are, after all, self-resolving). This is noted as a homeopathic cure.

2) Patient gets worse. This is noted as "aggravation", that is, the symptoms from the disease and the remedy are added. This is taken as a sign that the remedy is working, so the treatment continues. (After which #1, #2, or #3 will follow).

3) There is no change. In this case, a new remedy is selected, until #1 or #2 will occur.

There is a fourth option: The patient fails to come back. This is also noted as a cure.

Thus you will note that homeopathy can never fail.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
OK, brace yourselves....

The basic idea in homeopathy is as follows (remember this was thought out around AD 1800, when it was still far from understood what caused diseases and thus how medicines might work):

Hahnemann (the "inventor" of homeopathy in its classic form) theorized that the normal function of the body was governed by something called the "vital principle". What this is, is and were somewhat vague, but it might be defined as that which makes the difference between life and death; a living organism posesses the vital principle, a dead one or an inanimate object does not.

Now, Hahnemann inferred that disease was due to some disturbance or malfunction in the vital principle. Hahnemann then concluded that since all diseases came from the vital principle, one could only suffer from one disease at the time. He supported this by some observations all of which we can today recognize as special cases.

Now, Hahnemann had noticed that medical substances (in his era herbal extracts and various chemicals), in suffuiient doses always had an effect on the body. They were thus able to disturb the function of the vital principle. Obviously, once the effect wore off, the VP was came back to normal.

So, his theory was that if you give the patient a medicine that causes similar symptoms as the disease, the patient right away remained ill, but since he knew that the effect was now caused by the medicine, and he thought that only one disease could exist in the body at any one time, he assumed that the medicine had now replaced the original disease. Thus, once the effect of the medicine wore off, the patient would be cured.

Pretty consistent logic, - unfortunately not based on fact.

So Hahnemann set out to map the effects of a lot of substances. He did this by giving them to healthy persons (including himself) and noting all and everything those persons felt while they took the substance.

As some of the substanced were poisonous, he started to dilute them, and lo and behold, since the observation method was very subjective, test subjects kept reporting various feelings, even after the remedy was diluted to a ridiculous level. Instead of the obvious conclusion, Hahnemann assumed that the dilution somehow purified and accentuated (potentized) the effects.

So, a classical homeopathic treatment works as follows:

Patient reports a set of symptoms.

The homeopath looks up those symptoms in a big book, where all remedies and their symptoms are listed (Materia Medica).

The homeopath selects a remedy that seems to fit the patient's symptoms.

After the patient has taken the remedy, three things can happen:

1) Patient gets better (most diseases are, after all, self-resolving). This is noted as a homeopathic cure.

2) Patient gets worse. This is noted as "aggravation", that is, the symptoms from the disease and the remedy are added. This is taken as a sign that the remedy is working, so the treatment continues. (After which #1, #2, or #3 will follow).

3) There is no change. In this case, a new remedy is selected, until #1 or #2 will occur.

There is a fourth option: The patient fails to come back. This is also noted as a cure.

Thus you will note that homeopathy can never fail.

Hans
Click to expand...
I like the "can't lose" concept.

In a related approach, I've noticed that some health insurers have made it much harder to see a doctor for a medical condition immediately, and that it may take many days or weeks to be treated. So some people get better spontaneously, or they die. In either case, the insurer saves money. My idea is that all health insurers should have to also provide life insurance for their clients, so that at least one of these outcomes will also cost them.
 
Giordano said:
I like the "can't lose" concept.

In a related approach, I've noticed that some health insurers have made it much harder to see a doctor for a medical condition immediately, and that it may take many days or weeks to be treated. So some people get better spontaneously, or they die. In either case, the insurer saves money. My idea is that all health insurers should have to also provide life insurance for their clients, so that at least one of these outcomes will also cost them.
Click to expand...

We do.

Provide life insurance, that is. Our parent company is a life insurance company, and the health insurance company is a wholly owned subsidiary. Of course, we're a not-for-profit corporation (the health insurance side).
 
It brings up a valid concern. You do have to be a little wary of homeopathic preparations because they're very close to entirely unregulated. Some may contain a measurable dose of something - either a harmful substance or a real medication. I wouldn't trust the labeling, either. The best practice is to avoid anything that isn't actually medicine.
 
Trebuchet said:
Here in the USA, homeopathy is not defined, but is exempted from FDA regulation. (Thanks, idiots in congress.)
Click to expand...


If you have a homeopathic remedy labeled for use on livestock, and you're willing to pay large sums of money, you can have your product certified by OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute) as suitable for use in agricultural facilities operating under the USDA's National Organic Program...and charge even more for them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8139096

Since the products contains nothing but water, it's hardly surprising, but they do base it on the ingredients that people pretend are in the remedies.
 
Oh, how long time since we had any homeopaths posting here. Where have they all gone?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
OK, brace yourselves....

The basic idea in homeopathy is as follows (remember this was thought out around AD 1800, when it was still far from understood what caused diseases and thus how medicines might work):

Hahnemann (the "inventor" of homeopathy in its classic form) theorized that the normal function of the body was governed by something called the "vital principle". What this is, is and were somewhat vague, but it might be defined as that which makes the difference between life and death; a living organism posesses the vital principle, a dead one or an inanimate object does not.

Now, Hahnemann inferred that disease was due to some disturbance or malfunction in the vital principle. Hahnemann then concluded that since all diseases came from the vital principle, one could only suffer from one disease at the time. He supported this by some observations all of which we can today recognize as special cases.

Now, Hahnemann had noticed that medical substances (in his era herbal extracts and various chemicals), in suffuiient doses always had an effect on the body. They were thus able to disturb the function of the vital principle. Obviously, once the effect wore off, the VP was came back to normal.

So, his theory was that if you give the patient a medicine that causes similar symptoms as the disease, the patient right away remained ill, but since he knew that the effect was now caused by the medicine, and he thought that only one disease could exist in the body at any one time, he assumed that the medicine had now replaced the original disease. Thus, once the effect of the medicine wore off, the patient would be cured.

Pretty consistent logic, - unfortunately not based on fact.

So Hahnemann set out to map the effects of a lot of substances. He did this by giving them to healthy persons (including himself) and noting all and everything those persons felt while they took the substance.

As some of the substanced were poisonous, he started to dilute them, and lo and behold, since the observation method was very subjective, test subjects kept reporting various feelings, even after the remedy was diluted to a ridiculous level. Instead of the obvious conclusion, Hahnemann assumed that the dilution somehow purified and accentuated (potentized) the effects.

So, a classical homeopathic treatment works as follows:

Patient reports a set of symptoms.

The homeopath looks up those symptoms in a big book, where all remedies and their symptoms are listed (Materia Medica).

The homeopath selects a remedy that seems to fit the patient's symptoms.

After the patient has taken the remedy, three things can happen:

1) Patient gets better (most diseases are, after all, self-resolving). This is noted as a homeopathic cure.

2) Patient gets worse. This is noted as "aggravation", that is, the symptoms from the disease and the remedy are added. This is taken as a sign that the remedy is working, so the treatment continues. (After which #1, #2, or #3 will follow).

3) There is no change. In this case, a new remedy is selected, until #1 or #2 will occur.

There is a fourth option: The patient fails to come back. This is also noted as a cure.

Thus you will note that homeopathy can never fail.

Hans
Click to expand...

This monkey is now on Twitter;


https://twitter.com/stumpedmonkey/status/576654912454557696
 
Giordano said:
I like the "can't lose" concept.

In a related approach, I've noticed that some health insurers have made it much harder to see a doctor for a medical condition immediately, and that it may take many days or weeks to be treated. So some people get better spontaneously, or they die. In either case, the insurer saves money. My idea is that all health insurers should have to also provide life insurance for their clients, so that at least one of these outcomes will also cost them.
Click to expand...

It won't help the problem of over subscription.

There is some data that suggests to me that some legitimate medicine
and surgery is oversubscribed. This is a dark truth hidden by homeopathic delusions.

Oversubscription takes several forms. Sometimes the 'scientific remedy' is prescribed using a false prognosis. This possibility adds to the risk taken by the patient. The patient could be killed by a medicine that greatly benefits other patients. Some of the tests doctors use have a large false alarm rate.

The initial 'success' of homeopathy probably came about because the treatments 300 years ago were often dangerous. Homeopathic doctors didn't allow bleeding. The patients that used homeopathy weren't 'bled'. Since 'bleeding' can kill people on occasion, the patient really had a better chance going to a homeopath than to a 'legitimate' doctor. Hey, the patient probably had a better chance going to a witch doctor than a legitimate doctor. The 'natural' remedy didn't do anything but prevent the patient from indulging in a more dangerous superstition.

Modern science has reduced the number of dangerous treatments in modern medicine. I suspect that if the medicine is used right, with careful prognostic methods, there are no scientific treatments whose average risk is greater than their average benefit. However, many 'legitimate' doctors don't really know or act on their science. Further, the emotional release of 'doing something' often clouds the patients judgement. Hence, the chances are that overprescription still kills a significant portion of patients.

Your suggestion would give an incentive to doctors to oversubscribe. The insurance company and the doctors are afraid of negligence suits, so the bias will be to prescribe a treatment even if it were better to 'wait it out'.

I despise all homeopaths and most herbal remedy advocates. However, I don't want to give doctors any incentive to overprescribe.
 
Darwin123 said:
It won't help the problem of over subscription.
*snip*
I despise all homeopaths and most herbal remedy advocates. However, I don't want to give doctors any incentive to overprescribe.
Click to expand...

That may be so. I don't doubt your motives, but when I have been discussing with homeopaths, they very, very often turn on slandering modern medicine, .. for overdosing, for side-effects, etc.

Let us be crystal clear here: The virtues or vices of modern medicine have absolutely no bearing on homeopathy. Even if modern doctors were homicidal quacks (as some proponents of homeopath seem to think), homeopathy still does not work.


Hans
 
An apt subject here since in another thread the question of what constitutes a "tu quoque" fallacy has come up.

It's true that a remedy that does nothing is better than a remedy that does harm. But it does not make the nothing something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom