Homeopathy. Mixing a diluted ingredient with the same undiluted ingredient.lu

[Dinwar]

I think in most cases it's treated as negligence.

Even there, I'm hesitant. There's a difference between neglect/negligence and disagreeing with someone. It opens the doors to all sorts of abuse. Don't like that your neighbors let their kids eat bread? Call Child Services and have them taken away from those negligant, evil people! Absurd, yes, but not inconsistent with the precident we're discussing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is why the homeopathy stuff sells. I shall try to explain.

Homeopathy is not the same as naturopathy, nor the same as something with natural/herbal ingredients.

It is the idea that if you take a substance that will cause a symptom you can dilute it in water and then shake it. You do this over and over again. Eventually, you get to a point where there are probably no molecules of the original substance in the water. This is supposed to produce a medicine that will cure the symptom or, by extension, a disease that also causes the symptom. The more you dilute it, the stronger it is.

So, (and while I have never seen this seriously used as an example, it works with the theory), if you take a drop of espresso, add it to water, vigorously shake, add a drop of that to more water, etc. and so forth and so on, then you will wind up with a powerful sleeping potion. The most powerful will contain no espresso whatsoever, so many times has it been diluted.

The meanings of the purple words you found difficult refer to this process.

Now, the idea that this works is obviously extremely stupid.

I would say that "extremely stupid" is a gross understatement.

My goodness people are dumb. I mean, I know that most people are dumb - half the people you meet are below average intelligence after all - but this seems just willfully dumb.

 

[blutoski]

Mmm.... Actually there's some question about how well pharmaceutical companies are held to that standard in practice. This gets a bit off topic, but there's plenty of information out there about abandoned and unpublished clinical trials, because the result was unfavorable... so the company goes back to the drawing board - and instead of changing the drug, they change the structure of the trial.

They only publish the positive results. So if a drug goes to 7 trials, and 6 of them have negative outcomes, but 1 has a positive outcome, guess which one gets submitted to the FDA?

This is the [File Drawer Problem]. It happened in the past, but probably not ongoing, as FDA prefers preregistration of clinical trials. The abandoned or altered trials would be taken into account when regulatory approval is sought. There is no regulatory requirement to pre-register, but failure to do so looks suspicious. We can thank initiatives like AllTrials^WP.

And File Drawering risky - they tend to get caught in post-marketing monitoring (this is how we caught Celebrex' heart risk), which is another regulatory 'burden' that dietary supplements are exempt from.

So, ultimately, I still think the consumer protection differences between dietary supplement and drugs is night and day. This is the rationale for restricting the medical claims: dietary supplements are prohibited from saying they treat illnesses or illness symptoms, so who cares if they tested it, who cares if it's monitored in the population.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In at least one case it did--there was a homeopathic "cure" recalled because it destroyed the user's sense of smell, something entirely unrelated to the disorder allegedly being treated. Other examples no doubt exist.

Then in that case, fine the bejeesus out of them. But don't paint the entirety of the category as dangerous because of it. No more so than you would paint the entirety of modern medicine as deadly because of medical errors.

 

[pgwenthold]

Mmm.... Actually there's some question about how well pharmaceutical companies are held to that standard in practice. This gets a bit off topic, but there's plenty of information out there about abandoned and unpublished clinical trials, because the result was unfavorable... so the company goes back to the drawing board - and instead of changing the drug, they change the structure of the trial.

They only publish the positive results. So if a drug goes to 7 trials, and 6 of them have negative outcomes, but 1 has a positive outcome, guess which one gets submitted to the FDA?

Yeah, but compare that to what homeopaths have to do, which is nothing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even there, I'm hesitant. There's a difference between neglect/negligence and disagreeing with someone. It opens the doors to all sorts of abuse. Don't like that your neighbors let their kids eat bread? Call Child Services and have them taken away from those negligant, evil people! Absurd, yes, but not inconsistent with the precident we're discussing.

I think you've flipped the context here.

Consider cases where the parents refuse to take their child to a doctor because of their religious beliefs. In the cases that have been successfully prosecuted, I believe they've been prosecuted as negligence. There's an expectation that a parent should know enough to able to determine that x is necessary for their child's health... or conversely that y is bad for their child. Failure to abide by those basic standards of parenting - things that every parent is expected to know - is effectively negligence.

 

[blutoski]

Even there, I'm hesitant. There's a difference between neglect/negligence and disagreeing with someone. It opens the doors to all sorts of abuse. Don't like that your neighbors let their kids eat bread? Call Child Services and have them taken away from those negligant, evil people! Absurd, yes, but not inconsistent with the precident we're discussing.

There is a difference, and that's why we have judges and systems for making the distinction.

The precedent is to identify what the experts think, rather than just throw up one's hands and say "there is disagreement, I guess we don't really know what to do."

The example I use is a scene from Blackadder where they've chartered a ship. After a bit of conversation, the captain admits he doesn't have a crew:

Blackadder: "I thought it was common maritime practise to have a crew."
Cpt Rum: "Well, opinion on the matter is divided m'Lord. All the other captains say it is. I say it isn't."

That's not a difference of opinion. That's a crank.

A competent judge will identify the parents who are endangering their child with their crackpottery.

 

[Dinwar]

Consider cases where the parents refuse to take their child to a doctor because of their religious beliefs. In the cases that have been successfully prosecuted, I believe they've been prosecuted as negligence. There's an expectation that a parent should know enough to able to determine that x is necessary for their child's health... or conversely that y is bad for their child. Failure to abide by those basic standards of parenting - things that every parent is expected to know - is effectively negligence.

That still presumes that everyone agrees on what IS helpful or harmful. It treats disagreement as negligence, which is what bothers me. In this case, yeah, the disagreement is between rational and bat-crap crazy folks; however, there's not much preventing this from being applied to situations where rational folks can disagree.

 

[Dinwar]

There is a difference, and that's why we have judges and systems for making the distinction.

The precedent is to identify what the experts think, rather than just throw up one's hands and say "there is disagreement, I guess we don't really know what to do."

The example I use is a scene from Blackadder where they've chartered a ship. After a bit of conversation, the captain admits he doesn't have a crew:

Blackadder: "I thought it was common maritime practise to have a crew."
Cpt Rum: "Well, opinion on the matter is divided m'Lord. All the other captains say it is. I say it isn't."

That's not a difference of opinion. That's a crank.

A competent judge will identify the parents who are endangering their child with their crackpottery.

That sounds all well and good. However, what happens when you get a judge that believes in the healing power of the Bible? I live in the South--this is not outside the realm of possible, or even an unlikely event.

 

[blutoski]

That still presumes that everyone agrees on what IS helpful or harmful. It treats disagreement as negligence, which is what bothers me. In this case, yeah, the disagreement is between rational and bat-crap crazy folks; however, there's not much preventing this from being applied to situations where rational folks can disagree.

And there's nothing to prevent the voters from electing a dictator or to stop the army from taking over the country.

Sometimes you have to do what's right (in this case empower the state to rescue neglected and abused children) and hope reasonableness will prevail.

 

[blutoski]

That sounds all well and good. However, what happens when you get a judge that believes in the healing power of the Bible? I live in the South--this is not outside the realm of possible, or even an unlikely event.

We do get that, but that's not common enough or final enough (there is the appeal process and that would be a clear-cut reason for an appeal to be granted) to say 'scrap judges'.

 

[Dinwar]

We do get that, but that's not common enough or final enough (there is the appeal process and that would be a clear-cut reason for an appeal to be granted) to say 'scrap judges'.

Who's talking about scrapping judges? I'm just saying that this precident is dangerous, is all. We use dangerous things all the time; doesn't mean we do so without precautions. My pocket knife is very dangerous, so I use it carefully.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That still presumes that everyone agrees on what IS helpful or harmful. It treats disagreement as negligence, which is what bothers me. In this case, yeah, the disagreement is between rational and bat-crap crazy folks; however, there's not much preventing this from being applied to situations where rational folks can disagree.

No, I think you are incorrect. It doesn't require that everyone agree. It only requires consensus, not unanimity.

If you have something specific in mind that you think represents a slippery-slope argument for negligence, and doesn't involve clear consensus and "normal" practice, then please share it. Right now I can't think of anything. This may simply be a lack of imagination on my part... but I really don't see where you're going.

 

[blutoski]

Who's talking about scrapping judges?

Yeah, sorry about that, my bad: I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I'm just saying that this precident is dangerous, is all. We use dangerous things all the time; doesn't mean we do so without precautions. My pocket knife is very dangerous, so I use it carefully.

I'm not sure it's a precedent per se. There's a process that sort of filters these complaints. The ones with more merit go further in the system. If the person thinks they got shafted by an individual's bias, they can usually appeal to somebody else in the system.

In fact, the precedents tend to suggest reasonableness prevails. eg: Dover.

It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

 

[Dinwar]

If you have something specific in mind that you think represents a slippery-slope argument for negligence, and doesn't involve clear consensus and "normal" practice, then please share it.

Spanking comes to mind--where you are determines whether it's abuse or a requirement. Punishments in general fit this category.

Allowing children to play outside unattended is another. I've heard of people getting arrested for it, where as in other areas it's considered perfectly normal to allow 5-year-olds to play outside without any adult supervision all afternoon. I know there was a case (on a somewhat related note) of a woman being arrested for leaving her child in a car while she did some shopping. The child was not in any distress, or even discomfort, and was perfectly content to remain in the car. It wasn't abnormally hot in the car, and in fact nothing I read from the prosecuting side presented any evidence of any dangerous condition--but the mother was still arrested. I'd say that has slipped the bounds of rationality, consensus and "normal" practice be damned.

I can see food becoming an issue, too, but I doubt you'd accept any of my examples there, as they're still somewhat hypothetical.

 

[blutoski]

Spanking comes to mind--where you are determines whether it's abuse or a requirement. Punishments in general fit this category.

Allowing children to play outside unattended is another. I've heard of people getting arrested for it, where as in other areas it's considered perfectly normal to allow 5-year-olds to play outside without any adult supervision all afternoon. I know there was a case (on a somewhat related note) of a woman being arrested for leaving her child in a car while she did some shopping. The child was not in any distress, or even discomfort, and was perfectly content to remain in the car. It wasn't abnormally hot in the car, and in fact nothing I read from the prosecuting side presented any evidence of any dangerous condition--but the mother was still arrested. I'd say that has slipped the bounds of rationality, consensus and "normal" practice be damned.

I can see food becoming an issue, too, but I doubt you'd accept any of my examples there, as they're still somewhat hypothetical.

I think this is similar to the concern in another thread that I identified as continuum fallacy^WP. Obsession with the edge cases misses the point that there are generally pretty good distinctions on both sides of the edge, which is a sufficient justification to continue to empower the state to intervene.

This is a pragmatic normative rationale.

 

[Dinwar]

This is a pragmatic normative rationale.

I've never been a fan of pragmatism, so we're going to run into issues right there I think.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Spanking comes to mind--where you are determines whether it's abuse or a requirement. Punishments in general fit this category.

Allowing children to play outside unattended is another. I've heard of people getting arrested for it, where as in other areas it's considered perfectly normal to allow 5-year-olds to play outside without any adult supervision all afternoon. I know there was a case (on a somewhat related note) of a woman being arrested for leaving her child in a car while she did some shopping. The child was not in any distress, or even discomfort, and was perfectly content to remain in the car. It wasn't abnormally hot in the car, and in fact nothing I read from the prosecuting side presented any evidence of any dangerous condition--but the mother was still arrested. I'd say that has slipped the bounds of rationality, consensus and "normal" practice be damned.

I can see food becoming an issue, too, but I doubt you'd accept any of my examples there, as they're still somewhat hypothetical.

Okay, that helps.

Hmm. I suppose it does bear some consideration. I'm looking at it from the perspective of my own experiences, and assuming that as normality... and falsely assuming that what I consider "normal" would be obviously normal for everyone. But you bring up a good counterpoint with respect to other issues where perspective shifted inconsistently.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Absolutely go for it, but cross your fingers and hope the Toronto Star editorial staff aren't huge fans of deregulation and homeopathy. They may write an editorial in response to your letter about how wrong you are! This was the Vancouver media's response to Paul's plight. The worst was the Georgia Straight, whose editor's kids were all naturopaths and homeopaths and they made Paul and BCSkeptics' 'health fascism' a story. "Health Freedom"

This is the state of quackbusting in Canada, unfortunately. I've worked with Dr. Terry Polevoy on and off on projects for about 25 years. The media is not usually our friend. The Calgary Herald is completely sympathetic to TrueHope, for example. "Health Freedom"

More recently, CFI has recruited medical experts in a subcommittee [The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS)]. I would contact them to get a status report on how their active campaigning against the legislation you describe is going - they've been writing letters to the editors and press releases for 4 years. They also do an annual 10.23 campaign. They have had one media success with the CBC, being invited to participate in a MarketWatch episode dedicated to homeopathy, which was not a hatchet job: [Cure or Con?]

I do keep fairly well up on this. My most recent was a go around was with Health Canada over Saffron 2020 which claimed on its website that it is "backed by Health Canada claims, to reduce the risks of developing cataracts, and support and maintain eye health in age-related macular degeneration (AMD)." My satisfaction in getting a rational response -- ZERO.

I have had a very tiny interaction with Polevoy and found that he is difficult to communicate with. YMMY, of course.

I'm afraid that I've let my membership in CFI Canada lapse. I should check in with them.

My memory of the Market Watch episode is that it was not exactly supportive of Homeopathy. I can't check right now as I'm still reading Organon and have only reached Aphorism § 69 as yet.

 

[blutoski]

Okay, that helps.

Hmm. I suppose it does bear some consideration. I'm looking at it from the perspective of my own experiences, and assuming that as normality... and falsely assuming that what I consider "normal" would be obviously normal for everyone. But you bring up a good counterpoint with respect to other issues where perspective shifted inconsistently.

It's important to note that in most countries these issues have come up generations ago and there are pretty good processes in place to reduce the influence of individuals on judgement.

For example, the [Lemon Test] for judgements about whether religion is infiltrating a public service.