SteveGrenard said:
Pyrrho, I disagree that seeking a physico-chemical explanation for purported homeopahic effects is either futile or unimportant.
I did not say that. What I said is plainly readable in my previous post. I said that I felt homeopathy should not be too quick to identify with such research, especially since the purported effect is in doubt. Today the purported "explanation" may be micro-crystalline structures in water; tomorrow it may be quantum mechanics; next week it may be shared beauty between top quarks. An illustration of why it's not a good idea:
Point A............................................................
Point B
There's a huge gap there. You don't assume Point B and then retrofit to explain Point A, especially when Point A has not been proven. Point B then is pointed at as proof of Point A, even if Point A turns out to be nothing.
As far as homeopathy is concerned, indeed, for any drug, Point A is pharmacokinetic effect; Point B is the "physico-chemical" explanation; between Point A and Point B is how the drug/homeopathic is absorbed by the cells; how it affects their function, and so on. Point A for homeopathy has not been established. It may not be futile or unimportant to try to explain homeopathy through extremely high science, but it is certainly premature.
Since the Lancet meta-analysis and the 89 studies it deals with (many were discarded due to design flaws as it proper for a meta-analysis; 89 "good" studies were left) already provides some tantalizing rationales for pursuing this on a non-medical (non-biological basis.) Certainly many aspects of medicine deal with physics (e.g. radiation) on a pure and applied basis, and chemistry in many other respects; it is disingenous to dismiss pure and applied researchers whose findings may impact on explaining the assertions of homeopathic tresearchers who work from provings or observational studies. I realize some consider this attacking the problem backwards, but that's only because homeopathy exists; but... if it did not, then we have to consider the fact many advances have been made from this direction as well.
Well, I haven't dismissed those researchers. I'm not qualified to do so. If they are doing good science, they will succeed. If not, they won't. What I am dismissing is the jump to the conclusion that such research "proves" or otherwise "explains" homeopathy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many laugh homeopathy out of serious consideration. One of the main reasons concerning this disbelief in the efficacy of homeopathy lies in the difficulty in understanding how it might work.
If homeopathy has efficacy, it will show in clinical trials conducted under the same level of control and professionalism as clinical trials for other drugs. This has nothing to do with understanding how it
might work. It is far too easy to fall into the trap of believing that something works because of some seemingly-related, but not medically-related, laboratory science.
If there was an acceptable theory then more people would consider it more seriously. However, it is difficult at present to sustain a theory as to why a truly infinitely diluted aqueous solution should retain any difference from any other such solution. It is even more difficult to put forward a working hypothesis as to how small quantities of such 'solutions' can act when confronted with large amounts of complex solution in a subject. A key feature of any difference between water before and after its use in preparing homeopathic dilutions is likely to be the ritualized shaking (succussion) that must be carried out between successive dilutions [335]."
excerpted from a much longer review at:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html
by Professor Martin Chaplin....who deals with applied science but is trained in biology and medicine as well. His subsite on water in homeopathy is definitely worth a read.
Again, if there is medical efficacy to be shown, it won't be shown by complex physical science (even if it can be shown why homeopathics must be shaken but not stirred), but in properly conducted clinical trials, using real subjects and/or patients. Unfortunately the FDA does not require such trials for homeopathy. This is unfair to other drug manufacturers. Homeopathy should be forced through the same set of trials as any other drug.
BTW, many laugh at homeopathy because the premises it is based on are patently absurd. Succussion is one such absurdity. Does every homeopath succuss in exactly the same manner? Are all homeopathic preparations succussed by hand, or is it done by machinery? What are the approved manufacturing processes?
There are other absurdities. Why would a homeopathic preparation retain potency once it is absorbed by a "milk sugar" pill? Why are many such preparations made of not one but several dilutions of different substances? It's nonsense, and that's why we laugh, but we're not laughing because it's funny. We're laughing because it's tragic.
