More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Dana Ullman]

Wow...I seem to have stirred up the hornet's nest. What is interesting is how few people on this list seem knowledgeable about homeopathy at all. Usually, a good scientist is humble about he/she knows and doesn't know and realizes that there are many mysteries of this world. I hope that people on this list maintain a healthy humility, and I hope that this discussion encourages you to read homeopathic literature, both the theoretical and the experimental, so that you can speak or write with greater knowledge than I see on this list to date.

Further, the best scientists will take the true scientific attitude to the next step and may experiment with the subject themselves. I encourage you to try homeopathic Arnica (commonly for shock of injury; for injury to soft tissue) or homeopathic Oscillococcinum (for flu symptoms). Because homeopathic medicines are reasonably safe, there isn't too much about which to worry.

For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range). In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines.

For those of you who know the origin of the word "nano," you know that it derives from the word DWARF or DWARFISH, and the exceedingly small doses that are used in homeopathy are obviously dwarfish.

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work. First...I do not know a single physician or patient who didn't take aspirin just because s/he didn't know its mechanism of action (and we only began to understand this just 20 or so years ago).

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).

Let me also suggest that people on this list try to avoid the knee-jerk anti-homeopathic reactions that you've used in the past. Read what I've written below, find and read some or all of the references, and consider the fact that some or all of what is written below may actually be true.

When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century primarily due to its significant successes in treating epidemics of cholera and typhoid, it seems unlikely that the "placebo response" is an adequate explanation for these successes, especially since these successes were observed all over the world. Other types of MDs, including the allopathic, the naturopathic, the eclectic physicians, osteopaths, or chiropractors, didn't experience similar successes. (For the record, medical historians acknowledge these facts. Are there any medical historians out there? William Rothstein, PhD. is one of many leading and living sources)

Rather than assuming that homeopaths had some magical powers, it is more likely to assume that their medicines were effective.

The renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

The fact that living organisms have some truly remarkable sensitivity is no controversy. The challenging question that remains is: how does the medicine become imprinted into the water and how does the homeopathic process of dilution with succussion increase the medicine’s power? Although we do not know precisely the answer to this question, some new research may help point the way.

The newest and most intriguing way to explain how homeopathic medicines may work derives from some sophisticated modern technology. Scientists at several universities and hospitals in France and Belgium have discovered that the vigorous shaking of the water in glass bottles causes extremely small amounts of silica fragments or “chips” to fall into the water (Demangeat, Gries, Poitevin, 2004). Perhaps these “silica chips” may help to store the information in the water, with each medicine that is initially placed in the water creating its own pharmacological effect.

Further, the micro-bubbles and the “nano-bubbles” that are caused by the shaking may burst and thereby produce microenvironments of higher temperature and pressure. Several studies by chemists and physicists have revealed increased release of heat from water in which homeopathic medicines are prepared, even when the repeated process of dilutions should suggest that there are no molecules remaining of the original medicinal substance (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, Baiano, Napoli, 2004; Rey, 2003).

Also, a group of highly respected scientists have confirmed that the vigorous shaking involved with making homeopathic medicines changes the pressure in the water that is akin to water being at 10,000 feet in altitude (Roy, Tiller, Bell, 2005). These world-renown scientists have verified how the homeopathic process of using double-distilled water and then diluting and shaking the medicine in a sequential fashion changes the structure of water (Roy, Tiller, Bell, 2005).

One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long!

As for the questions from "Badly shaven monkey"...I've seen some grafting of homeopathic medicines seem to work sometimes, but this is not any more weird that a magnet magnetizing previously unmagnetized iron. As for X-ray in airports affecting homeopathic medicines, many people are fearful of X-rays but it is NOT conclusive that they neutralize homeopathics. As for those machines...no comment.

Finally, please remember that homeopathic manufacturers use a double-distilled water. We start with a relatively clean slate.

REFERENCES:
Demangeat, J.-L, Gries, P, Poitevin, B, Droesbeke J.-J, Zahaf, T, Maton, F, Pierart, C, Muller, RN, Low-Field NMR Water Proton Longitudinal Relaxation in Ultrahighly Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Silica-Lactose Prepared in Glass Material for Pharmaceutical Use, Applied Magnetic Resonance, 26, 2004:465-481.

Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.

Elia, V, Baiano, S, Duro, I, Napoli, E, Niccoli, M, Nonatelli, L. Permanent Physio-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathy, 93, 2004:144-150.

Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.

Roy, Rustum, Tiller, William A., Bell, Iris, Hoover, M. Richard. The Structure of Liquid Water: Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy, Materials Research Innovations. 9,4, December 2005. (Rustom Roy has had 13 papers published in NATURE; Tiller was head of the material sciences dept at Stanford for over a decade; Bell is an MD, PhD, homeopath. Quite an impressive team. Roy's newest research provides experimental evidence that shows specific differences between one homeopathic medicine and another...and one potency and another. More later on this...

 

[Mojo]

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work.

Why waste time and effort trying to explain an effect that may be non-existant?

What could possibly be a "more fundamental issue" with respect to a treatment than whether or not it actually works?

 

[Mojo]

I encourage you to try homeopathic Arnica (commonly for shock of injury; for injury to soft tissue)

I don't think I'll bother. Others seem to have tried it already:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9820349

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12562974

 

[Chris Haynes]

...For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range). In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines....

Wrong. Most "homeopathic" stuff is at solutions far more diluted than 10^-9. They are usually something ridiculous like 30C or your influenza remedy of 200C of duck stuff. Next week I am going to a function (our sons attend the same high school) at the house of a top-notch nanotechnology researcher (who has excitedly described how one researcher he knows has managed to use these little machines to deliver precise doses of medications to tumors), I will try to remember to relay your opinions on homeopathy as being "nanopharmacology". I am sure it will be quite amusing at your expense (which is one of the reasons I would really like to see you present a paper at a nano conference!).

You really do not understand simple mathematics at all, do you?

As far as your references go... the Roy Rustum was discussed in this very thread. Did you miss it? Also, Rey's "Thermoluminescence" paper has been the subject of many threads on JREF. Take the time to use the Search function to read how that was disassembled.

Oh, and one paper by someone who actually wants homeopathy to work is really not sufficient (author bias). It really does not count until the research has been replicated. Do you understand what that means? It seems that those who want homeopathy to work tend to create data that supports them... but when the controls are tightened and bias essentially removed homeopathy only works as well as a placebo.

 

[Mojo]

What is interesting is how few people on this list seem knowledgeable about homeopathy at all.

...

For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range).

I'm amazed that you are ignorant of the common use of remedies at 6X.

In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines.

In other words, you're using it to try to give homoeopathy a spurious appearence of effectiveness and science (wow, look at that long word!).

I suggest that, if you must use it, you should only use "nanopharmacology" for remedies of around 9X, and use the appropriate prefixes for other potencies.

For those of you who know the origin of the word "nano," you know that it derives from the word DWARF or DWARFISH, and the exceedingly small doses that are used in homeopathy are obviously dwarfish.

That's what the word it derives from meant in ancient Greek. It's not what the prefix means in English.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

What is interesting is how few people on this list seem knowledgeable about homeopathy at all.

Presumptuous and wrong. Several of us have extensive knowledge of the literature. We certainly understand it better than the deovotees.

Further, the best scientists will take the true scientific attitude to the next step and may experiment with the subject themselves. I encourage you to try homeopathic Arnica (commonly for shock of injury; for injury to soft tissue) or homeopathic Oscillococcinum (for flu symptoms).

This is particularly hilarious. While claiming to understand the scientific method and criticising us for not accepting the homeopaths' published evidence you trot out this most simple, fundamental and serious fallacy. The sad thing is that I suspect you don't have any grasp on why this is so important

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).

I think you have been told this several times by now. Reading comprehension problem? Show that it works then we can wonder why[/i ] it works. We only discuss of homeopaths' notions of the underlying mecahnisms because they are in themselves so amusing. Please try to grasp this point once and for all: there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, but it is still fun to comment on homeopaths' ideas of their social etiquette and cultural history.

When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century primarily due to its significant successes in treating epidemics of cholera and typhoid, it seems unlikely that the "placebo response" is an adequate explanation for these successes, especially since these successes were observed all over the world.

You are quite right. I don't expect any one has seriously suggested that the placebo response would be the explanation.

As a "Master of Public Health" I am sure this is right in the centre of your area of expertise.

So, 6. what are the more likely explanations of these alleged successes?

An honest atttempt to answer this question would be quite useful for you.

Rather than assuming that homeopaths had some magical powers, it is more likely to assume that their medicines were effective.

No. It's not magic. The explanations are much more mundane. Answer question 6 and see whether you can show that you understand this.

...may...may...perhaps...may

and the magic powers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn may potentise homeopathic remedies. So, what?

As for the questions from "Badly shaven monkey"...I've seen some grafting of homeopathic medicines seem to work sometimes,

So, what are we to say of the homeopaths who claim it always works for them?

Why should the multibillion dollar lactose/water/alcohol manfucturers continue in business?

As for X-ray in airports affecting homeopathic medicines, many people are fearful of X-rays but it is NOT conclusive that they neutralize homeopathics.

But some homeopaths say they always neutralise the remedies. Others say they never neutralise the remedies.

We have seen above how keen you are to promote personal anecdotal experience. Please recooncile these contradictory experiences. Or learn something valuable from your inability to do so.

As for those machines...no comment.

Coward. This flat refusal to answer is sufficiently revealing in itself.

But you have missed;

3. Do you tell agree that during a homeopathic proving the people involve risk serious and long-term harm being caused?

5. Can you tell us whether "constitutional remedies" work?

Another hopelessly floundering performance from a famous homeopath. Please try harder or learn from your inability to address these questions adequately.

 

[Mojo]

How about calling it "nonopharmacology", to reflect the fact that there's often nothing in it?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Please keep my seat warm, guys. I'm away for the weekend.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

How about calling it "nonopharmacology", to reflect the fact that there's often nothing in it?

How about calling the tablets "lactose" and the liquids "water/alcohol"?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Finally, please remember that homeopathic manufacturers use a double-distilled water. We start with a relatively clean slate.

Dammit, missed one.

From your self-proclaimed understanding of the chemistry and physics of water,

7. please explain why, in the context of homeopathic pharmacy, this is so utterly irrelevant. (Clue: do the arithmetic to find out the concentrations of substances other than H2O in DDW).

Claiming the benefits of using DDW actually undermines the logic of your position even further. Can you see why?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Just a note of caution: Do not upset a real pharmacologist.

These are people who know how to kill with stuff that cannot be detected!

(Yes, I live near a large university... So I've attended some parties with some very interestingly weird wickedly smart people!)

 

[Mashuna]

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work. First...I do not know a single physician or patient who didn't take aspirin just because s/he didn't know its mechanism of action (and we only began to understand this just 20 or so years ago).

So rather than check for clinical efficiency, you want to look for possible reasons how this treatment might work. Seems like putting the cart before the horse to me, but ok. Let's see what the next paragraph says.

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).

Wait, so now not only are we ignoring the clinical results, we also don't understands how it works either? So the best way to investigate homeopathy is to not get worried just because our theories are disproved and the clinical trials have shown no effect .

When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century primarily due to its significant successes in treating epidemics of cholera and typhoid, it seems unlikely that the "placebo response" is an adequate explanation for these successes, especially since these successes were observed all over the world. Other types of MDs, including the allopathic, the naturopathic, the eclectic physicians, osteopaths, or chiropractors, didn't experience similar successes. (For the record, medical historians acknowledge these facts. Are there any medical historians out there? William Rothstein, PhD. is one of many leading and living sources)

This was the only part that looked interesting, although I'd like to see some more detail on the treatments used and the quality of the supporting evidence. It's amazing that the 19th century successes seem to have dropped right off in the modern day.

One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long!

Not wishing to go into too much detail here, but what is it with homeopathy and bad metaphors? You realise that a long wavelength bears no similarity to non-existant medicine - your metaphor makes no sense. It's up there with the quantum entanglement as a metaphor for homeopathy papers.

 

[Michael C]

Finally, please remember that homeopathic manufacturers use a double-distilled water. We start with a relatively clean slate.

But how do you know that it's clean, or even relatively clean? How do you know that the distilling of water removes all the "memory" that it had, but water that comes into contact with lactose and then evaporates will transfer its memory to the lactose? There is not one single piece of experimental evidence for this.

As to having tried homeopathic remedies: oh yes, I've tried them. I've been treated by many homeopaths, including a very eminent French one. I took the remedies carefully, as directed. None of them worked. There was not even the slightest effect.

That got me thinking. And I started gathering information. The first time I took a homeopathic remedy I didn't know anything about the "science" behind it. Now I know a lot. The result: no more homeopathy for me!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Wow...I seem to have stirred up the hornet's nest.

Well, you can take that as a compliment. Unfortunately, it is a rare occasion for us to have somebody on board who is both a homeopath and literate. And since we are all here for a good discussion, you shouldn't need to get bored .

What is interesting is how few people on this list seem knowledgeable about homeopathy at all.

OTOH, several of us are quite well studied on the subject, at least theoretically. You are, however, welcome to teach us; we all love knowledge.

Usually, a good scientist is humble about he/she knows and doesn't know and realizes that there are many mysteries of this world. I hope that people on this list maintain a healthy humility, and I hope that this discussion encourages you to read homeopathic literature, both the theoretical and the experimental, so that you can speak or write with greater knowledge than I see on this list to date.

Well, perhaps you need to convince us that there is any scientific merit to homeopathy. You know, a good scientist is also economic about his/her time; we can't study every subject in detail, just because it's there.

Further, the best scientists will take the true scientific attitude to the next step and may experiment with the subject themselves. I encourage you to try homeopathic Arnica (commonly for shock of injury; for injury to soft tissue) or homeopathic Oscillococcinum (for flu symptoms). Because homeopathic medicines are reasonably safe, there isn't too much about which to worry.

I think you should be aware that even though, as mentioned, quite a few of them have been bordering on illiterate, we have encountered a good deal of homeopaths. One thing they always ask us to is try out some remedy, probably assuming that this will somehow make us see the light.

Now, since one of our observations about homeoapthy is that subjective observations have nothing to do with science, such testings are really totally irrelevant, but several of us have still made such tests, simply to please our homeopathic opponents. I myself have done so twice. Unfortunately, it appears that none of us have observed any effect.

For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further.

Actually, our point is that they are not in any range at all. There is NO active ingredient in them whatsoever.

In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range).

In actual fact, what homeopaths usually prescribe, at least according to the many published case stories, is in the range 30C and higher.

In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines.

This is what we are contesting. It is exactly our position that homeopathy is nothing but "popular parlance". Also, since you profess to be a scientist (at least you ask US to be scientific), you should be above misusing scientific terms in order to achieve public appeal.

For those of you who know the origin of the word "nano," you know that it derives from the word DWARF or DWARFISH, and the exceedingly small doses that are used in homeopathy are obviously dwarfish.

No, they are not dwarfish. Unless you are able to prove otherwise, we must maintain that they are non-existent.

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work. First...I do not know a single physician or patient who didn't take aspirin just because s/he didn't know its mechanism of action (and we only began to understand this just 20 or so years ago).

That is one route we could take. In that case, let us discuss the concept of "like cures like". This, much more than potentized remedies, is the cornerstone of homeopathy. For homeopathy to work at all, like cures like must be a universal principle. Please provide your evidence for this to be the case. Note that isolated situations where like actually appears to cure like is not enough; homeopathy needs it to be universal.

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).

Of course not. In principle you cannot prove a negative. So let's prove a positive, instead: Where is your positive proof of clinical efficacy?

Let me also suggest that people on this list try to avoid the knee-jerk anti-homeopathic reactions that you've used in the past. Read what I've written below, find and read some or all of the references, and consider the fact that some or all of what is written below may actually be true.

Let me remind you again, that you are not the first homeopath to present the case for homeopathy here. The apparant knee-jerk reactions are simply people reiterating arguments that we have had to use many times before. The homeopaths preceding you have failed to counter them. Maybe you can do better.

When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century primarily due to its significant successes in treating epidemics of cholera and typhoid, it seems unlikely that the "placebo response" is an adequate explanation for these successes, especially since these successes were observed all over the world.

Unfortunately, when studying the accounts of the application of homeopathy to cholera and thyphoid epedemics, it becomes obvious that the results of the homeopathic practitioners is not readily comparable with those of other practitioners. They also used much improved hygiene, and their patients were primarily privileged people (because they had to pay for the service), whereas the regular hospitals had to deal with whoever presented.

Finally, I think it is telling that homeopaths seem to need to dig centuries back to produce their success stories. Can't you present something a little more recent?

Rather than assuming that homeopaths had some magical powers, it is more likely to assume that their medicines were effective.

You keep saying this. Who exactly is it who is assuming that homeopaths have magic powers?

The renowned astronomer *snip*

I am afraid that all these "if"s and "maybe"s will not impress us much.

Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long!

And the relevance of this is?

As for the questions from "Badly shaven monkey"...I've seen some grafting of homeopathic medicines seem to work sometimes, but this is not any more weird that a magnet magnetizing previously unmagnetized iron.

Yes, it is indeed more weird. You see, we know exactly why a magnet can magnetize a peice of steel. We know the exact physics.

As for X-ray in airports affecting homeopathic medicines, many people are fearful of X-rays but it is NOT conclusive that they neutralize homeopathics.

But please explain: WHY is it not conclusive? Why have homeopaths not found out conclusively? How difficult is it to take a remedy, test if it works, expose it to x-rays, and test if it still works?

Ahh, yes: You cannot test whether a remedy works.

As for those machines...no comment.

I take it then that you agree that such machines are sham.

Finally, please remember that homeopathic manufacturers use a double-distilled water. We start with a relatively clean slate.

Unfortunately, double destilled water is only clean to about 0.01 ppm, which corresponds to 4C. Below that, the impurities in the water will outnumber the remaining mother tincture.

Roy's newest research provides experimental evidence that shows specific differences between one homeopathic medicine and another...and one potency and another. More later on this...

Then perhaps HE can test whether X-rays influence remedies or not?

A note: In the above, I several times take the liberty of using the word "we". Obviously, I really speak for nobody here but myself, but as we have been covering this ground repeatedly, I know my position is in accordance with several others here. Hence "we".

Hans

 

[Lothian]

I've seen some grafting of homeopathic medicines seem to work sometimes, but this is not any more weird that a magnet magnetizing previously unmagnetized iron

Excuse my ignorance here I am a little confused. I understood that grafting was a legitimate method of homeopathic pill manufacture. You appear to be giving it a Lukewarm reception.

Can you please clarify.

1. Does homeopathic grafting always work ?

2. In what cases will it not work ?

3. If you graft a pill of C30 (or C200 if you want to work with something stronger) concentrate onto a bottle of blanks, can you tell (without administering them to a patient) whether they have taken on the properties of the master pill ?

Further to this last question and your magnet analogy. I understand that when a piece of magnetised iron is used to magnetise an unmagnetised piece; the magnetism in the original weakens.

How does this principle work with homeopathic grafting ? Does the strength of the original pill like the magnet get weaker?

If so does that mean the mother tincture gets more concentrated or does it mean the pill gets more potentised. In other words will multiple grafting of a C30 pill turn it into a C1 or C100 ?

Thanks in advance for your expert analysis.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Further to this last question and your magnet analogy. I understand that when a piece of magnetised iron is used to magnetise an unmagnetised piece; the magnetism in the original weakens.

How does this principle work with homeopathic grafting ? Does the strength of the original pill like the magnet get weaker?

Sorry, but this is wrong. In pratice, it might happen if the permanence of the original magnet is poor, but it is not a case of magnetism being transferred to the new magnet. The energy required to create the new magnet is obtained in other ways (for example from the motion involved in the action). In principle, a magnet can be used to magnetize en indefinite number of magnets, without loosing strenght.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

For the record, I like the term "nanopharmacology" for a couple of reasons. First, the word "nano" refers to "at least a billionth" and most homeopathic medicines are in this range or further. In actual fact, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies in the US are at or under the 9X potency (which is in the billionth range).

I'm amazed that you are ignorant of the common use of remedies at 6X. In other words, you're using it to try to give homoeopathy a spurious appearence of effectiveness and science (wow, look at that long word!).

In popular parlance, the word nano has come to mean "very small and yet powerful," and as such, this is an apt description of homeopathic medicines.

I suggest that, if you must use it, you should only use "nanopharmacology" for remedies of around 9X, and use the appropriate prefixes for other potencies.

That's what the word it derives from meant in ancient Greek. It's not what the prefix means in English.

Ah. On reading Hans's more recent reply, I see that I may have been a little confused about what you meant by "under the 9X potency". I thought you were talking about remedies more dilute than 9X; you may have meant less dilute. You are not entirely clear; when you say "at least a billionth", do you mean "diluted by a factor of a billion or more" or "diluted by a factor of a billion or less"?

If you were talking about potencies of 9X and less, it still is inappropriate to describe 6X as "nano-" anything. The correct prefix is "micro-".

And, as Hans has pointed out, dilutions far greater than 9X are in common use. There is an appropriate prefix for you to use for most of these: "yocto-", which corresponds to 10^-24. At this level or above they're all the same.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>
When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century primarily due to its significant successes in treating epidemics of cholera and typhoid, it seems unlikely that the "placebo response" is an adequate explanation for these successes, especially since these successes were observed all over the world. Other types of MDs, including the allopathic, the naturopathic, the eclectic physicians, osteopaths, or chiropractors, didn't experience similar successes. (For the record, medical historians acknowledge these facts. Are there any medical historians out there? William Rothstein, PhD. is one of many leading and living sources)

Ah, I see... So when faced with a cholera outbreak in a refugee camp and with a supply of clean water available, you would recommend mixing the cholera with the clean water at a potency of 6X (nothing to powerful)?

 

[Rolfe]

Please keep my seat warm, guys. I'm away for the weekend.

Lucky blighter! I'm not promising to keep the seat warm, because the number of boxes to be unpacked in the New House has just doubled and I think my time may be better spent in having a nervous breakdown, but I may call in from time to time.

Going back to the start of the thread, what struck me as interesting was the reaction the original blog post about a Dr. Strange comic provoked in James Gully, especially if we are correct in assuming he and Dana Ullman are one and the same (and I don't see him denying it). The post and the subsequent discussion were a jokey aside - certainly by homoeopathic unbelievers, but still not a serious attack. And yet suddenly we have this po-faced apologist jumping in as if it was a Lancet editorial he had to respond to!

This seemed to me to be extraordinary behaviour from a busy "professional" homoeopath. Why should he stoop to concern himself about such a minor off-hand comment? How did he know about it in the first place? How long does he spend searching the Internet for sceptical comments on homoeopathy so that he can go in to rebut them? Is this the best use he can find for his time?

Yes, yes, I know, here I am and here we all are, but I find debating with homoeopaths to be amusing. It's a hobby of mine. I certainly don't spend my free time trawling the net for people making dismissive comments about the type of medicine I practice and jumping in to "set them right" - I've got enough work to do simply doing the work!

So, I just think it's an interesting insight that he does this. As I find it interesting the Peter Fisher chose to post a Guardian "Comment is Free" article defending homoeopathy. Can you see Robert Winston posting a similar article promoting IVF, or Magdi Yacoub doing the same regarding heart transplants? Or jumping into Marvel Comics discussions that seem a bit critical of their subjects? Somehow I doubt it. My impression is that in spite of its apparent current popularity, homoeopathy's number is close to being up. Too many people are asking awkward questions. Too many healthcare providers are looking for objective evidence of efficacy and value for money, and starting to hold homoeopathy to the same standards real medicine has to meet. And vague hand-waving along the lines of "people want it" and "70% of our patients said in a questionnaire that they thought they felt at least a little better" (a frankly pathetic result) just aren't going to cut it. So we see a fair bit of defensiveness here.

Even if Mr. Gully/Ullman doesn't want to take up the million dollar challenge, the basic question it poses is still a valid one. Is it possible to distinguish a potentised homoeoapthic preparation from the unpotentised stock solvent, in any way at all? Homoeopaths claim to be able to affect the real world (either by "curing" people, or by inducing proving symptoms in them), in a way which is at least predictable enough to provide a useful and practical means of treating illness. Surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of any of them to devise a protocol for demonstrating that they can actually tell the tools of their trade from unprepared material?

This is, you see, at the very heart of the debate. The mammalian organism is an extremely complicated affair, possibly the most complicated entity known to science. It has a remarkable capacity for self-repair. It also has many many weird things that can go wrong which are hard or impossible to predict. It is for this reason that we simply can't take all these anecdotal and uncontrolled stories at face value. We all know that most things, left to themselves, get better anyway. We also know that drastic things can strike out of the blue. It's a perfect example of how the post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy works, especially when you factor in the emotional involvement of the patient in his or her own health, their desire to get better, and the desire of any healthcare worker to get them better.

One thing which distinguishes homoeopaths from real medics is their approach to this problem. Real medicine never assumes that just because B follows A, B has been caused by A. Even when it seems to have happened quite often. Instead it asks, how would A progress if I didn't do anything? What would happen if I did something different? What would happen if both I and the patient thought that the usual thing had been done, but in fact some saboteur had replaced my magic potion with a dummy solution? This way, progress happens. (Something which is entirely foreign to homoeopathy by the way - I simply can't understand those homoeopaths who take pride in the unchanging nature of their practice. It's as if someone was rejecting a brand new top-of-the-range Jaguar because a Model T Ford was just so obvioulsy the pinnacle of the art and couldn't be improved upon.)

Homoeopaths simply don't seem to think like that. Instead of asking, what other explanations could there be for my observation, and honestly looking for these with an open mind, we see a closed-minded leap to the post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion without a backward glance. The rest of the hand-waving about quantum metaphors and water clusters and so on is simply a backside-covering exercise in post hoc justification.

We can't get a straight answer as to whether airport security scanners deactivate homoeopathic remedies because there's no way to tell whether a remedy is active or not. We can't get a straight answer as to whether or not grafting works because there's no way to test whether the product of the grafting is active or not. We don't know what to think about the eLybra and similar devices, because the products of these machines are indistinguishable in every possible way from the products of classical dilution and succussion.

And remember, Mr. Gully/Ullman, the evidence provided by those who believe that grafting is effective, or that the eLybra works, is exactly the same as the evidence you provide for your brand of homoeopathy. That is, anecdotal, uncontrolled and subjective.

So how about addressing this very simple point? How can you distinguish an active homoeopathic remedy from the inactive stock solvent? Because until you can do that, you can make no progress at all towards answering these very fundamental questions about under what circumstances an alleged homoeoapthic remedy is the real deal or not.

And just as a supplementary, the matter of the water. How do you know that double distilling the water wipes its memory? Where is the experimental database to justify that assertion? How do you know that ordinary tap water isn't just as good (or bad)? And finally, if double distilling is so important, what did Hahnemann use for his preparations, on whose results the whole foundation of the method is based?

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Heheh.. JamesGully, meet Rolfe. Now we all know exactly who's seat is going to be kept warm .

Hans