Homeopathy is everywhere!

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Updated:

The Horizon "Homeopathy" program

• What do you base your claim on that there were "no controls" on this trial?
  Answer: "The security arrangements, who prepared the solutions and the control solutions, who held them, etc were not mentioned in any account. I did not see the original program but I am told by those who did it was not discernible from that either. It was TV, it was edited, remember? It was a pile of rubbish."
• By whom were you told, Steve?
• If TV is edited, why did you have such problems acknowledging that Crossing Over was edited as well?
• Did you watch the program at all?
  Answer: "No, did you?"
  No. However, I have not made a lot of claims about a program I haven't seen. You have.
• Why can't a scientific experiment be conducted on TV?
  Answer: "It CAN BE but this doesn't mean it has any validity. No peer review, editing, etc."
• But results can be found on TV, right?
• Please show how Randi "engineered" the television stunt to "discredit" homeopathy.
  Answer: "You're not serious right?"
  Yes, I am. Please answer the question.
• How do you know that the scientist had a "preconceived bias against a possibly effective alternative treatment"?
  Answer: "The scientists were approved, perhaps even selected by Randi and the producers ahead of time. How do we know if they were biased or unbiased? Have we reviewed a record of their opinions on homeopathy before their involvement in this?"
• How do you know the scientists were approved and perhaps even selected by Randi?
• Did the protocol not exclude any bias on the scientists? If not, how so?
• Do you claim that the test was conducted differently than what you said should be done: "Usually the control substance (e.g. pure water) and the allegedly active substance are put into identical formats and labeled with numbers or letter or coded. The code is held by one person and locked in a safe. Both substance A and B or 1 or 2 or whatever are tested. Then the code is broken."?
  Answer: "The problem is from descriptions of the program as well as from those who viewed it, we don't know. (see above)."
• So, your claim was completely unfounded. Do you retract it?
• Do you maintain that judging was used, and not objective testing?
  Answer: "'Scientists' were chosen by Randi and the program and asked to give their opinion, their guess, their observation that they could not tell the difference between the control and the active substance. This is judging. You can call it anything you want. Who else besides these referees got to oversee their results? Even judges in courtrooms have judicial oversight. Who backed them up?"
• Now you are saying directly that the scientists were chosen by Randi. Please show your evidence of this.
• Please explain how the scientists could have cheated.
• Why would you need to be an expert on homeopathy to judge a result that needs to judging?
• How big a trial do you consider of "significance"? And why?
• Who among those backing the results claims that the trial was too small to be of significance?
• Please point to the evidence published in peer reviewed journals that "dictate" that homeopathy is real.
• In what "peer-reviewed", "scientific" journals did Schwartz publish his studies?
• The data from the homeopathy test were published. Why is Schwartz not publishing his?
• Why is this experiment "controversial", and not Schwartz' HBO-experiment?
• When you dissolve duck liver in water (a very common homeopathic cure), what "duck liver particle" do you imagine would be left in the dilution?

Schwartz

• If the Horizon experiment was not "scientific" because it was on TV, what about Schwartz' HBO-experiment?
  Answer: "Schwartz did studies before and after the televisied segment tapings and published all his results in a peer reviewed journal. I didnt see this happening with the Hotizons program or with any Randi challenge in fact. Schwartz studies were done on site at the University of Arziona, not on a TV studio stage. "
  Moving the goal posts. I asked about the HBO experiments, not what happened afterwards. Please answer the question: Was Schwartz' HBO experiments scientific or not?
• Was judging required at Schwartz' experiments?

CSICOP/JREF

• Please point to what the "party line of CSICOP, JREF or the other groups" is.
  Answer: "Who are the donors to CSICOP and CFI? Is this list available? Anyone connected to the development and manufacture of streptokinase or tissue plasminogen activator would do ... I will not say more at this time."
  What are you talking about?? Please answer the question or retract it.
• Please name the "other groups" you mentioned.
  Answer: "CSICOP has dozens of affiliates. And there are also other indie groups like The Skeptic Society but I was more thinking along the lines of the CSICOP branches."
  Please answer the question.
• How do you know the health of Randi?
  Answer: "Randi had open heart surgery and has a heart condition. He publicly revealed this information himself on television. otherwise it would be PHI and I would not mention it if I came by it in any other manner."
• How would "taking a kiddie aspirin" help the repercussions of open heart surgery?

Aspirin as treatment for coronary thrombosis

• Who are these people who "screamed the loudest and the longest" against the use of aspirin for this?
  Answer: "You have to read the S.I. for articles on this subject. CSICOP came out very heavily opposed to the validity of large scale studies showing that aspirin was of value. They questionned the fact that aspirin was such a miracle in this area."
  You made the claim that these people exist. You claimed to know who they were. Please tell us who these people are, by name. Also, provide the references of your claims of CSICOP "very heavily" opposing this.
• How do you know it has cost the patients or their insurers three thousand+ dollars a pop?
  Answer: "Treatment with TPA costs at least this much. It is a matter of record. I know it from personally being told this by a hospital pharmacist, however. When a pt is on aspirin, TPA cannot be given so its one less expensive treatment the pt can get for coronary thrombosis. Whether they'll admnit it or not, this irks the makers of TPA."
  You have not provided your evidence of your claim. Please do so, or retract your claim.
• Can you point to where CSICOP refuted the use of aspirin in coronary thrombosis/chest pain victims or as a prophylactic for coronary artery thrombosis?
  Answer: "Again, I would have to ferret out back issues of SI on this subject;"
  Please do so. Until you get back, the question remains.
• If they did, do they still hold these views?
  Answer: "The subject sort of died with them as the handwriting on the wall became apparent but somebody brought it up in SI about a year ago again but I dont remember the details."
  Again, you have not been able to back up your claim. Please provide the evidence hereof, or retract the claim.
• Please point to where you got the information that "many thousands probably died" due to CSICOP and JREF's "efforts to to discredit the treatment for this purpose".
  Answer: "I agree I am speculating. If you read the original articles on aspirin in SI and you believed them and you had a heart condition you would not have agreed to use aspirin and you would be increasing your risk of sudden cardiac death. Do I have specific cases? No, but some day there should be a congressional inquiry as to why CSICOP immersed itself in this. This is not over. Everything comes out in the wash sooner or later."
  Again, you have not been able to back up your claim. However, in this case, you retract your claim and admit that it was purely speculation.

Misc.

• Please point to the rule of this board that allows you to post a whole page from another site.
  Answer: "Fair used as confirmed by Pyrrho. The website itself gives permission for non-commercial and non-advertising. I posted those words above below the text. I was not finished adding to this post when you made your feeble attempt to silence a legitimate reply to the "there aint no evidence" claim based on b.s."
  By posting the words, you also admitted that your post violated copyrights: You did NOT include ownership.

Please either:

• address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
• state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

 

[Yahzi]

Steve Grenard

That is true ...there are no MOLECULES left. But, this doesn't mean there are no particles left.

A deeper misunderstanding of physics is hard to imagine.

Do you own any Lego blocks? Do you understand that physics is like Lego blocks?

Imagine you had a set with 120 or so different kinds of blocks. That's chemistry. Everything in chemistry is made from those 120 odd blocks. You can stick them together in all sorts of ways, like for instance sticking a natrium block with a chlorine block to make salt.

Now imagine that you discover your Lego blocks are made of tinier blocks. These little blocks are called particles. There are exactly three kinds: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Your entire chemistry set of blocks is made out of various configurations of those three particles.

The point you seem unable to grasp is that those particles are all the same, exactly like every Lego block is indistinguishable from every other Lego block of the same type.

So even if you left some particles in the water, how could you tell that those particles were once part of the original substance? How can you tell a neutron from a block of salt apart from a neutron from a bar of lead? The answer is that you can't. A neutron is a neutron. Period.

Ergo, whatever substance you started your dilution with cannot possibly matter. All that matters is the number of particles left over. What they came from does not matter because you can't tell what they came from.

And finally, chemical reactions do not break atoms into particles. The word for that process is "nuclear" reaction.

Do you understand that advancing such a absurd, pathetic, and insane picture of physics destroys your credibility completely? At this point I wouldn't believe you if you said the sky was blue. You can't get the most elementary concept of physics right, why would you be able to get the color of the sky right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yahzi,

I have to admit that I am not at all surprised about the appalling low level of knowledge that Steve has. He once claimed that electrical resistance was measured in Volt...


Let's see how Steve tries to worm himself out of this whopper...

 

[Darat]

I pointed out things that made your reference not science related, despite your claim otherwise.

Do you not understand that those very constraints (that I posted twice and you didn't respond to, twice) make it not science, but some form of edutainment (at the very most)? My prediction is that you'll probably ignore them again, or someone else will post answers for you to bail you out.

Let me again try and make you understand that there is evidence that your statement:



"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"



is quite simply wrong.

Some science is "done" on TV, the link I showed you demonstrates that.

It appears you have a bias as to what science is, this is shown when you use phrases like "Science is done in labs and written about in journals." However please try to recognise this and just admit your mistake.

As for your statements such as "My prediction is that you'll probably ignore them again, or someone else will post answers for you to bail you out. " are an attempt to move the focus of the discussion.

I do not need to "answer" any of the points you have made as they are not relevant to the matter I have brought to your attention.

The simple fact of the matter is that I can and have shown instances where scientists "do" science on TV and therefore your statement,

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

is wrong.

 

[uneasy]

Someone: There are no black dogs.
Others: Here's one right here.
Someone: One example is not enough
Others: You said none, and here's one, so you are wrong.
Someone: That's not a Black dog with a capital B. Where are its papers?

Sense ain't made in this thread, sense maybe, but not Sense with a capital S.

 

[JamesM]

I have to admit that I am not at all surprised about the appalling low level of knowledge that Steve has.

One small nit-pick: the English name for Na is sodium, not natrium. It is as well to get one's facts completely straight before one accuses someone else of lacking scientific knowledge.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks for the Lego Lesson. I wish molecules and subatomic particles were Lego blocks and it would be all the more relevant
but I appreciate the time you took to put forth an example of conventional physics.

In the meantime, I am not advancing any particular point of view but merely referring you all to the various theories that are out there and they are.

Enter "quantum physics and homeopathy" in Google to see what I mean. Or find yourself a serious book on the subject such as


The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science

by Michel Schiff

"Let's get one thing straight, water has no more memory than a CD or cassette! BUT they all have the ability to store information (electro-magnetic fields) If all matter is energy, which is nothing more than electrons, then one electron from that particular matter would be exactly the same as the billions that make up the entire substance (similar to fractals).

"ANY electro-magnetic field can be copied or recorded within a simple static charge(electrons), which is the basis of homeopathy.

"Because water is di-polar it's a great medium for holding/storing that charge. Voila, homeopathy or better described as quantum physics. When HPs succuse remedies the only thing that happens is: a simple static charge is created. It then can be diluted thousands of times, it doesn't matter, as long as the charge is still there so is the electro-magnetic field that had been captured.

"If you're still in denial about homeopathy, then it's time to take quantum physics 101. If entire images, along with video, can be captured on a CD rom with organized patterns of 1's and 0's (electrons or no electrons) what is so difficult about taking it one step further? "(from blurb)

Homeopathy apparently not only deals with matter but also deals with energy. Therefore, it cannot be explained by Newtonian physics and conventional chemistry. Some recent work done in the fields of quantum physics, quantum photochemistry, triboelectricity, studies on electrical resistance of homeopathic dilutions and, their waveforms etc. has proved that the Avogadro’s number is no barrier for the existence of homeopathic dilutions.

These studies serve to have proved that

homeopathic potencies per se are not mere dilutions.

the electrical properties of homeopathic dilutions are different from simple dilutions.

each preparation has a different spectroscopic pattern.

each preparation can be differentiated from each other.

different potencies of different preparations can be differentiated from each other ..............but not using conventional qualitative and quanitative analysis.


The Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Solutions - New Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Microdoses by D. Ullman

http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/research/thermodynamics.php

<snipped> a few quotes from the above URL:

Two Italian professors of chemistry, Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli measured the amount of heat emanating from plain double-distilled water and compared that with double-distilled water in which a substance was placed. Both the control water and the treated water underwent consecutive dilution between one to thirty times, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, which represents the common pharmacological method in which homeopathic medicines are made.

The researchers conducted over 500 experiments, approximately half of which were made with double-distilled water that was mixed with a specific acid and base substance and half were in the control group of only double-distilled water. The researchers found that 92% of the test solutions with the added acid or base substance had higher than expected heat emanating from them (sodium chloride was one of the salt substances and a type of vinegar was one of the acid substances tested).

 

[Darat]

Thanks for the Leggo Lesson. I wish molecules and subatomic particles were Leggo blocks and it would be all the more relevant
but I appreciate the time you took to put forth an example of conventional physics. ...snip...

Please Yahzi and Steve if you are going to argue over them please get it right it is LEGO , not Lego, Legos or LEGOs just LEGO !


(Edited to add - thanks for the edit Steve, but still not quite right - LEGO is an all-caps "word" and no I don’t think I could get anymore pedantic even if I worked on it! )

 

[BTox]

Re: Can QP explain homeopathy?

BoTox I have a question regarding your comment that only the placebo effect has been shown as operative in homeppathic trials. How exacty does one determine the placebo effect if the active ingredient is a homeopathic remedy and the control or pacebo is pure water? If the patient/subject reports a favorable response with the water, I would agree with the assesment this is a placebo effect. But if the subject reports a response to the homeopathic substance, what is this? It would be "opinion" that the effect, if it occurs, is placebo.

It's the same with any drug clinical trial. Half the population gets the "drug", in this case homeopathic remedies, the other half gets placebos that look identical (either water/alcohol solution if it's liquid or lactose pills if solid). Then compare the outcome with both groups. What they typically find is a small decrease in symptoms in both groups, with no statistical difference between them. Hence the placebo effect.

Also on the subject of no molecules left after diluting many times, I would agree with that so long as the dilution goes a notch past Avogadro's limit... 6.02 x 10 to the 23rd. However Avogadro's limit and law does not apply to atoms and subatomic particles, of which there are 6 hadrons or quarks. This clearly begs the question as to whether or not quantum physics principles
can explain homeopathy ............

You argue that there is not one single molecule of material substance left in a high potency homeopathic remedy. That is true ...there are no MOLECULES left. But, this doesn't mean there are no particles left. I recall eading that it would take a volume of water that could fill the entire sphere of the earth to
displace such particles from even the smallest dose of a homeopathuc remedy. In short it would be impossible.

I'm not a physicist, I'm a chemist. All I can tell you is that molecules of particular structure and conformation are responsible for phsiological activity, which is dose dependent. You break up an active molecule and it is no longer active. Of course, dilution does not break up molecules into their constituent atoms or sub-atomic particles, it only reduces their concentration, and therefore the efficacy of the solution.

 

[BTox]

We must examine things through science. Gee, I wonder why Randi participated in a test of homeopathy? Gee, I wonder why he just doesn't say 'the laws are well established, it is impossible' as you do? Gee, I wonder why there are respectable scientists who are out there testing it? Hmm, perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do. [/B]

I never said it doesn't have to be tested. I said it has been tested, ad infinitum. It doesn't work. Randi performed his test because there are obviously people like you that still believe in magical health systems.

You can't predict the future. If there is any thing even seemingly worthwhile about homeopathy, science will be investigating it to see if anything is actually there.

I dislike your philosophy of 'it never will'. You aren't in any position to say what will or will not happen with any more certaintly than I am. Science will decide though, and that is the tool that we must use instead of our opinions.
[/B]

Sorry, but I dislike ignorant fools who push fraudulent health care systems. There is NOTHING to homeopathy, as proven by science.

I'm sure you also want science to prove that psychic healing and surgery is wothwhile, too....

 

[SteveGrenard]

BoTox: What they typically find is a small decrease in symptoms in both groups, with no statistical difference between them. Hence the placebo effect.

With allopathic or conventional medications, it is often found that there is, for example, no difference found between placebo and active substance with respect to side effects. For example, and this is just an example, let's say headache is targeted as a side reported effect in a population where headache occurs 10% of the time. If 10% of the active ingredient recipients reported headache and 10% of the placebo takers also reported (or numbers close to that) heache, the presumption is that 10% of the all the recipients ... the population of all recipients ...experienced headaches and that neither the active substance or the placebo in fact caused these headaches.
It is interesting to note that if the researchers were testing a drug in people duffering from severe headache, headache shows up as a side effect in both the placebo and the active group.

What does this mean?

that water causes headaches?
that water doesn't cure headaches?
that the active drug cures some of the headaches?
that the drug itself causes headaches?
that the recipient group are prone to these side effects without
having taken either placebo or the active drug?

My point: there can be some serious problems wrenching out the significance of the findings in drug studies that are random, double blind AND placebo controlled.


The type of alleged and I emphaszie alleged, side effect which can occur in a population of all trial recipients contains a built in bias which is a reflection of the recipient's medical condition.
If they were testing a new anti-depressant on patients with depression, such patients would be apt to have side effects which also happen to be symptoms of their primary conditions. The example of ProZac, an anti-depressant, alleging to cause people to commit suicide comes to mind as a notorious and controversial example of this.

I have not seen any positive studies of homeopathic trials where there is a similar (%) between reported positive effects and no effect. The homeopathic community, of course, point to positive end-points in resolution of the diagnosis rather than the fact that pure water and active substances work equally as well. I think they are looking at symptom resolution at much higher rates than those of pure water recipients. I will have to read some of those studies again and get back to you on the numbers. From what you say, the studies you have looked at had similar %s between both groups. Can you reference those?

 

[T'ai Chi]

As for your statements such as "My prediction is that you'll probably ignore them again, or someone else will post answers for you to bail you out. " are an attempt to move the focus of the discussion.

Once again, you swing and miss, and completely ignore my questions. I should be a psychic.

I do not need to "answer" any of the points you have made as they are not relevant to the matter I have brought to your attention.

Oh, I'm loving this! You really think that those points I outlined from the website you gave me HELP science? Um, are you for real here? Do you really NOT see how these can and are limiting towards and real science? Here they are again for you to completely ignore:

"the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention"

"the experiment must work on live TV"

"the experiment must be comprehensible by a lay audience"

"viewers must be able to take part from home and report results over the phone"

"the conclusion must be ready before the end of the 30 minute programme."

These criteria alone rule out, oh, 95.345345% of non-kiddie science I'd estimate.

I'd say neither of us are wrong, technically, but your definition of science must be different than mine. I'll stick to labs and journals and thingies, and you can stick to TV, thanks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Remember that one friend who assembled some Lego blocks into a shape you've never seen before?

That is what the case with homeopathy (or any complementary and controversial treatment) could be.

There are building blocks out there, no question about that. They may be able to assemble in a shape that no one has ever seen, or there may be a new kind of block somewhere.

The point is that there have been some studies on configurations of these blocks that show significance. Whether this is due to the treatment or due to error, chance, etc., is not entirely clear. (and BTW, I'm not favoring any of these outcomes, I'm pretty impartial)

Further science will make it entirely clear, and it is the only way to make it entirely clear.

Do you understand that advancing such a absurd, pathetic, and insane picture of physics destroys your credibility completely?

Absurd, pathetic, and insane are your emotional opinions. We hav to test things by science, no matter where they may lead. There may be ways of matter or matter/consciousness interaction that we are unaware of, or we may discover that an experiment was in error, etc. You just can't sweep significant studies under the rug because they contradict other things.

You must explore more.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It doesn't work. Randi performed his test because there are obviously people like you that still believe in magical health systems.

I don't believe in magicial health systems, but thanks for another strawman for my collection.

Randi stated that if there is something there, he wants to know about it. I'd say that that was also one of his motives for doing the show, wouldn't you?

Sorry, but I dislike ignorant fools who push fraudulent health care systems.

Well, that is where you are incorrect. I'm not pushing anything. I'm for exploring homeopathy more. There have been several studies where significance was found. We could find there is a real effect, or we could find a sloppy experimental design, etc. I'm about as impartial on homeopathy as I am on any other area of science. But I am not impartial about science as a whole, and that is why we must test things.

There is NOTHING to homeopathy, as proven by science.

That is interesting, because there are some studies that say there is some significance. True, we don't know what that exactly means (effect, or some error), but that is why we must do more tests.

I'm sure you also want science to prove that psychic healing and surgery is wothwhile, too....

Another one for my collection I suppose.

 

[Darat]

Once again, you swing and miss, and completely ignore my questions. I should be a psychic.

[/b]

Oh, I'm loving this! You really think that those points I outlined from the website you gave me HELP science? Um, are you for real here? Do you really NOT see how these can and are limiting towards and real science? Here they are again for you to completely ignore:

"the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention"

"the experiment must work on live TV"

"the experiment must be comprehensible by a lay audience"

"viewers must be able to take part from home and report results over the phone"

"the conclusion must be ready before the end of the 30 minute programme."

These criteria alone rule out, oh, 95.345345% of non-kiddie science I'd estimate.

I'd say neither of us are wrong, technically, but your definition of science must be different than mine. I'll stick to labs and journals and thingies, and you can stick to TV, thanks. [/B]

My whole point has been that your statement

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

was incorrect.

Therefore, as I’ve said several times before, your points and other questions were irrelevant in determining if your statement was right or wrong. I showed you evidence that science was and is “done” on TV; this evidence falsified your statement.

However I'm glad you have now realised your mistake and agree that science can be "done" on TV.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Y: And finally, chemical reactions do not break atoms into particles. The word for that process is "nuclear" reaction.

And who is talking about a chemical reaction? Are you implying that diluting a substance in water results in a chemical reaction?
Are you also implying that the only way a molecule can liberate
subatomic particles is to subject it to a nuclear reaction?
The quantum explanation for homeopathy is that particles that once belonged to molecules that are left behind as a result of
serial dilution and vigrous shaking somehow carry information
reflective of the original molecule. "Atom smashing" using a reactor is not necessary. Chemical reactions are not in play.
Check out "free floating subatomic particles" in your next search string.

PS: Considering these matters under quantum theory may indeed provoke a reaction that one is suffering under a deep misunderstanding of conventional physics and chemistry because
one is clinging to those without considering the other. Please try and remain cognizant of this. I am not advocating anything but simply making sure that all who read this are aware of the
QT posits for homeopathy and other phenomena made by scientists much more knowledgeable than either of us. If some folks want to remain in 1970s for the rest of their lives , then so be it.

 

[Pyrrho]

Steve,

Updated:

Misc.

• Please point to the rule of this board that allows you to post a whole page from another site.
  Answer: "Fair used as confirmed by Pyrrho. The website itself gives permission for non-commercial and non-advertising. I posted those words above below the text. I was not finished adding to this post when you made your feeble attempt to silence a legitimate reply to the "there aint no evidence" claim based on b.s."
  By posting the words, you also admitted that your post violated copyrights: You did NOT include ownership.

[/B]

I feel I must clarify this. The position on Fair Use that I stated in an earlier post regarding Steve Grenard's cut-and-paste of the BOIRON web page is my own personal interpretation. BOIRON may in fact have a different opinion; indeed, their web site specifically requires permission for use of their materials, and specifically requires that full credit be included when their materials are used. Readers can decide for themselve whether or not that was properly done. A strict interpretation of the JREF Forum rules would have required deletion of the cut-and-pasted information and a link provided instead. It is not Fair Use when proper authorship credit is not given. When you post someone else's material in such a way that it appears to be your own work, that's plagiarism.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled brickbat toss.

 

[JamesM]

Considering these matters under quantum theory may indeed provoke a reaction that one is suffering under a deep misunderstanding of conventional physics and chemistry because
one is clinging to those without considering the other.

Quantum theory is conventional physics and chemistry.

 

[RichardR]

It has been scientifically tested and also has been shown to work.

Therefore your statement is without qualification. There are studies which are both pro and con as to whether it works. I have endeavored to provide that for you If you enter homepathy in Medline you will get back 103 citations, both pro and con, as well; these are only of studies in journals which Medline indexes. There are others as well.

Yes Steve, but you have to examine the basis of homeopathy – how were its principles arrived at? What reason did anyone ever have for believing it is true?

As I'm sure you are aware, homeopathy was originated by Samuel Hahnemann, when he noticed that people who were given quinine (a treatment for malaria), got a malaria-like fever from the drug. From this observation he decided that you could just give a patient whatever produces the same symptoms as his illness and you get a cure. In deciding this, Hahnemann was first committing the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy – because one followed the other it was caused by it. But there is no mechanism to explain how this would happen and he never tested it to see if it was true. He was also committing the Hasty Generalization fallacy – assuming that if it worked for Malaria (even if that wasn't the mechanism by which quinine works, but ignore that for a minute), it would work for all other illnesses. He never tested that either to see if it was true.

Following on from this, he noticed that giving people “whatever produces the same symptoms” also made them sick (duh). So he diluted the "medicine" until nothing was left. Homeopaths rationalize this by stating that water “remembers” the substance that used to be in it. This is of course, standard pseudo-science: it makes no sense, but invent an ad-hoc explanation that sounds good. Yet again, there is no mechanism that explains how this works and no evidence that it is true.

Homeopathy stems from these two basic ideas. Treat the symptoms with symptom-like remedies, and dilute until nothing is left. The fact that this was never tested, and goes against all science tells us, does not necessarily mean it is wrong. But it does mean we have no reason to suppose it is true – ie, it is MADE UP. This simple fact is something that seems to be lost on believers in homeopathy. Since it homeopathy is just MADE UP, the evidence it works needs to be stronger not weaker than the evidence we demand for other things. But homeopathy trials seem mainly to fail on this standard. Believers in homeopathy expect us to believe what they say based on weaker evidence. Below I have referenced some trials on homeopathy. All bold emphasis is mine.

Here are some comments on a study published in The Lancet (you may have to register to read them online): http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.351.9099.correspondence.7737.1&x=x.pdf

The report by Andrade (ref 38) is rated negative by Kleijnen and co-workers' meta-analysis,2 whereas in Linde's meta-analysis it is rated as favouring homoeopathy. Andrade's report shows that some criteria favour homoeopathy, some placebo work in rheumatoid arthritis, and daily doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and prednisone could be reduced in the placebo group. Andrade's overall conclusion is that no difference exists between the two treatments.
The report by Fisher and co-workers (ref 63) was so poor that a critical study was published in The Lancet showing the inappropriate use of statistics.3

With respect to the best controlled study mentioned in the report (Grecho, ref 67), it is interesting to recall that this study was prompted by French health authorities to confirm or contradict two previous quite poor reports already published in French (ref 39 and 51). It is then unfair to write, as Linde and colleagues do, that "pooled effect size difference ... was in favour of homoeopathy", and to conclude that the "negative outcome of this trial was the opposite of the effect reported in the other four trials".

I feel that all the data in Linde's report should be carefully checked, since his group's prejudice in favour of homoeopathy is obvious, and will be largely used by homoeopathic drug companies.

and

Klaus Linde and colleagues1 present a meta-analysis of 89 ran-domised controlled trials of various homoeopathic treatments for many conditions. Although a straightforward pooling of all results showed an apparent effect (odds ratio 2·45 [95% CI 2·05-2·93]), correcting for apparent publication bias2,3 greatly reduced this result (1·78 [1·03-3·10]). This correction is important. Studies with negative or ambiguous results are less likely to be published, especially in major MEDLINE-listed journals, than studies with positive findings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9310601&dopt=Abstract

INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

More homeopathic research:

#1

Results. 59 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 79% were from peer-reviewed journals, 29% used a placebo control, 51% used random assignment, and 86% failed to consider potentially confounding variables. The main validity problems were in measurement. 96% did not report the proportion of subjects screened, and 64% did not report attrition rate. 17% of subjects dropped out in studies where this was reported. There was practically no replication or overlap in the conditions studied and most studies were small and done at a single-site. Compared to research on conventional therapies the overall quality of studies in homeopathy was worse and only slightly improved in more recent years.

Conclusions. Clinical homeopathic research is clearly in its infancy with most studies using poor sampling and measurement techniques, few subjects, single sites and no replication. Many of these problems are correctable even within a "holistic" paradigm given sufficient research expertise, support and methods.

#2

Of all 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 indicated positive results and a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used, mostly in comparison with placebo. Success of double-blinding was not checked in any trial. Regimens were largely unstandardized across studies and manufacturers of homeopathic products. Only 14 trials tested a classical form of homeopathy and only 1 of these was well designed.

#3

No firm evidence that high dilutions have pharmacodynamic effects.

Proof that a homeopathic dilution has a pharmacodynamic action would not demonstrate its therapeutic activity. However, it is highly unlikely that a drug would have a specific therapeutic effect without a corresponding pharmacodynamic action.

When we last looked at this subject we found no proof of pharmacodynamic activity in the published literature.

Fundamental research: no confirmation that '"water has a memory". The laboratory investigations conducted by J. Benveniste since 1985 remain highly controversial. You may recall that in June 1988 Nature published an article apparently showing a biological effect (destaining of basophilic polymorphonuclear cells) of an ultramolecular dilution of sheep anti-IgE antiserum (the dilution greatly exceeded Avogadro's number, being of the order of 10-120 M) (1,2). We have found no evidence that these findings have ever been independently confirmed.

#4

we reported on a meta-analysis that concluded that homeopathy was effective. There were a whole range of problems:

Eighty-nine trials could be analysed. They broke down like this:

• The median number of patients studied in each trial was 60.
• There were 24 clinical categories.
  [8]There were four types of homeopathy.
• There were 50 classes of homeopathic remedy.

The other problem was that although studies had to be randomised, and controlled, there was no formal sensitivity testing according to trial quality. There are enough examples now that even randomised studies can be of poor quality, and still be biased, so this is important.

If homeopathy works, why does it only "work" when the test protocols are weak?

 

[Pyrrho]

Y: And finally, chemical reactions do not break atoms into particles. The word for that process is "nuclear" reaction.

And who is talking about a chemical reaction? Are you implying that diluting a substance in water results in a chemical reaction?
Are you also implying that the only way a molecule can liberate
subatomic particles is to subject it to a nuclear reaction?
The quantum explanation for homeopathy is that particles that once belonged to molecules that are left behind as a result of
serial dilution and vigrous shaking somehow carry information
reflective of the original molecule. "Atom smashing" using a reactor is not necessary. Chemical reactions are not in play.
Check out "free floating subatomic particles" in your next search string.

Where can we find the calculations that support the quantum explanation for homeopathy? It's easy to cite quantum theory, but such citations are meaningless unless the mathematical calculations can be shown. That's not my opinion; that's the opinion of a nuclear physicist whom I happen to know.

PS: Considering these matters under quantum theory may indeed provoke a reaction that one is suffering under a deep misunderstanding of conventional physics and chemistry because
one is clinging to those without considering the other. Please try and remain cognizant of this. I am not advocating anything but simply making sure that all who read this are aware of the
QT posits for homeopathy and other phenomena made by scientists much more knowledgeable than either of us. If some folks want to remain in 1970s for the rest of their lives , then so be it.

Again, where can we find the science that supports quantum theory as an explanation for homeopathy? We're all very well aware of the profound implications of quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics doesn't negate "conventional" physics and chemistry. It's all part of the same reality.

Again, it's easy enough to speculate and "posit" quantum explanations for homeopathy and things like molecules losing particles while being shaken and not stirred, but unless one can show the science and mathematical calculations supporting those suppositions, one is merely talking out of one's ass.