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

[Darwin123]

It's rather amusing to imagine a dystopian world where sick people slink into gloomy shacks, rubbernecking nervously, to get their homeohits.

The dealers will dilute their stash with water, you know, just to stretch it a bit.

'Withdrawal' has to be renamed 'overdose' !-)

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Well, it was invented before anyone really knew what caused disease.

Yes - homoeopathy is older than germ theory.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, it was invented before anyone really knew what caused disease.

Yes - homoeopathy is older than germ theory.

And older than Atomic Theory.

 

[Pixel42]

Well, it was invented before anyone really knew what caused disease.

Yes - homoeopathy is older than germ theory.

I've always suspected that the reason it originally caught on was because the standard medical treatments of the time, bleeding and purging, were not only ineffective but in most cases actually harmful. So going to a homeopath really did cure you faster than going to a doctor.

 

[Hellbound]

That's what homoeopaths often imply, but actually it is sillier than that: it is the diluted remedy that is claimed to cause the symptoms. See the Organon aphorism 128, in which Hahnemann prescribed carrying out "provings" (the process by which homoeopaths identify the symptoms a remedy allegedly causes) using 30C remedies.

Well, yes, but those were an add-on expansion pack; I was trying to keep it simple

 

[steenkh]

So if unpotentiated eucalyptus oil eliminates bad breath, then properly sucussed eucalyptus oil must cause bad breath. Ewwww.

No. Although we often ridicule homoeopathy because of this, it is actually a straw man. It is possible that the homoeopaths originally choose the ingredients on the basis of the symptoms they are known to cause, but it is through the so-called 'provings' that determine what effect the finished remedy is having. In a proving, one or more healthy persons take the remedy to be proved, and then every subjective symptom that these healthy people report (such as 'I feel sleepy', 'I have a red spot on my arm that I did not notice before') is written down and regarded as being symptoms that can be healed when this remedy is taken by sick people.

I thought that the provings were done with pretty strong (i.e. effective) dilutions, but now I see that they are are done with weak (i.e. completely ineffective) dilutions. In this way, the actual symptoms reported by the provers can be wide away from the symptoms that the actual substance could produce.

For a fun description of the proving of the infamous 'Berlin Wall' remedy, see http://www.interhomeopathy.org/berlin_wall. Yes, the Berlin Wall remedy induced a feeling of 'guilt' and 'opression' in the provers, and consequently can be used to heal those people feeling guilty or oppressed!

 

[Dinwar]

I've always suspected that the reason it originally caught on was because the standard medical treatments of the time, bleeding and purging, were not only ineffective but in most cases actually harmful. So going to a homeopath really did cure you faster than going to a doctor.

Add in a healthy dose of spontanious remission and the typical human tendancy to remember hits and ignore misses, and that'd do it. It was demonstrably safer than going to doctors (at the time medicine was treated as a trade, much like carpentry, with no formal training required), and people could honestly point to cases where it seemed to have worked.

 

[pgwenthold]

No. Although we often ridicule homoeopathy because of this, it is actually a straw man. It is possible that the homoeopaths originally choose the ingredients on the basis of the symptoms they are known to cause, but it is through the so-called 'provings' that determine what effect the finished remedy is having.

So much a straw man, in fact, that it is called the Law of Similars, and was Hahneman's entire basis for homeopathy in the first place.

But hey, it's just us silly skeptics that are projecting here....

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have finished my reading assignment of The Organon of the Healing Art and will report back shortly (RealLife^TM does occasionally intrude on my time here .)

 

[steenkh]

So much a straw man, in fact, that it is called the Law of Similars, and was Hahneman's entire basis for homeopathy in the first place.

According to The Free Dictionary the law of similars is defined as

A principle of homeopathic medicine stating that a drug capable of producing morbid symptoms in a healthy person will cure similar symptoms occurring as a manifestation of disease.

This is exactly the way the provings are used: if the provers experience some symptom, the remedy is supposed to cure that symptom for a patient.

The point is that the provers may experience symptoms wildly different from the symptoms caused by the original substance, particularly when they "prove" a remedy that has nothing left of the original substance.

 

[pgwenthold]

This is exactly the way the provings are used: if the provers experience some symptom, the remedy is supposed to cure that symptom for a patient.

This is exactly NOT what your definition said!

"a drug capable of producing morbid symptoms in a healthy person will cure similar symptoms occurring"

Ths Law of Similars says that the DRUG that produces the symptoms will cure them (when successed)

 

[steenkh]

This is exactly NOT what your definition said!

"a drug capable of producing morbid symptoms in a healthy person will cure similar symptoms occurring"

Ths Law of Similars says that the DRUG that produces the symptoms will cure them (when successed)

I am confused: what is the difference from a proving here?

 

[Hellbound]

I am confused: what is the difference from a proving here?

The concept of proving has changed over the years. Originally, one would "prove" the original substance. The dillution would cure the symptoms the full-strength substance caused.

Over time, that shifted to "proving" the dilluted remedy, and any relation between the actual substance and the symptoms recorded in the proving was broken.

IN fact, there are cases of things such as automobile accidents being listed as a symptom of a proving.

You really can't parody it. It's just that stupid.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am confused: what is the difference from a proving here?

Irrelevant. You keep claiming that it is a strawman that homeopathy says that the diluted ingredient causes the symptoms undiluted. The Law of Similars shows that it a fundamental premise.

Thus, back to the original criticism: since diluted eucalyptus is supposed to kill bacteria, then by the Law of Similars, adding eucalyptus oil should promote bacterial growth.

 

[Ladewig]

No one's debating that it's nonsense, but there are people who genuinely believe it, and others - believers or fraudsters - have tried to set down concrete rules by which it operates. They're nonsense as well, of course, but they are there.

I agree with Red Baron Farms.
You can discuss homeopathy's concepts or rules or philosophies, but you most assured cannot talk about homeopathy's principles.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thus, back to the original criticism: since diluted eucalyptus is supposed to kill bacteria, then by the Law of Similars, adding eucalyptus oil should promote bacterial growth.

Except that homoeopathy never has negative effects.

 

[Nonpareil]

I agree with Red Baron Farms.
You can discuss homeopathy's concepts or rules or philosophies, but you most assured cannot talk about homeopathy's principles.

This makes no sense. You most definitely can talk about all of the above, regardless of the uncertain distinction between the two categories.

 

[Darwin123]

Except that homoeopathy never has negative effects.

Negative effects to whom ? Promoting bacterial growth is good for the bacteria !

In my seriously biased opinion, homeopathic remedies have no significant effect on humans or bacteria. The opposite of nothing is nothing !

 

[arthwollipot]

In my seriously biased opinion, homeopathic remedies have no significant effect on humans or bacteria. The opposite of nothing is nothing !

Well obviously. But even in the homoeopathic literature, you never see any preparation with any kind of negative side effect.

 

[Ladewig]

This makes no sense. You most definitely can talk about all of the above, regardless of the uncertain distinction between the two categories.

It is a joke.
While principle can mean a fundamental or primary concept upon which other precepts are built, it can also mean a clear understanding of the obligations of right conduct.

To be profitable at homeopathy, one must be at least somewhat unprincipled. Therefore, homeopaths, and by suit homeopathy, have no principles and thus we cannot discuss such principles.

If you are bothered or vexed at the idea of such a stupid joke appearing in the Science sub-forum, then blame Red Baron Farms.