Understanding homeopathy

[geni]

So, citing the fact that an LD50 rating exists to prove that something is poisonous is circular arguing. There is an LD50 for water, if I knew where to find the data. By the same token, it would be possible to derive an LD50 for homoeopathic remedies. Yes, it would be a lot, but it would exist.

Rolfe.

Well here are the figures for glucose

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/GL/alpha-d-glucose.html

There is a case of death from over hydration in humans.

 

[IIRichard]

Well here are the figures for glucose

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/GL/alpha-d-glucose.html

There is a case of death from over hydration in humans.

There are innumerable cases. The medical term is "drowning"

Just kidding but it was too good to pass up. Keep up the good work.

 

[Rolfe]

There are innumerable cases. The medical term is "drowning"

Dragging the subject slightly closer to earth, there was a guy killed himself by drinking too much water - ordinary tap water I believe. He had bad toothache over a bank holiday weekend, and spent several days (and nights) trying to dull the pain by drinking iced water, as he couldn't get a dentist. The comment later was, if only he'd thought to suck on ice cubes, he'd have been OK.

Rolfe.

 

[IIRichard]

Dragging the subject slightly closer to earth, there was a guy killed himself by drinking too much water - ordinary tap water I believe. He had bad toothache over a bank holiday weekend, and spent several days (and nights) trying to dull the pain by drinking iced water, as he couldn't get a dentist. The comment later was, if only he'd thought to suck on ice cubes, he'd have been OK.

Rolfe.

How do I get the grinning thingy in my replies or posts? I think there have been other cases as well but my medical expert is presently not in residence.

IIR

 

[Rolfe]

How do I get the grinning thingy in my replies or posts?

For that one, just type (and don't "disable smilies" in the check box at the bottom).

But you can access lots of fun images just by investigating the smilies list to the left of the form you type your reply in. Click on "get more", and wait for them to load.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

How do I get the grinning thingy in my replies or posts? I think there have been other cases as well but my medical expert is presently not in residence.

IIR

Smilies are over on the left when you're posting: just click on them to insert (if you've got the right thingies enabled...). Welcome to the forum, by the way.

Edited: I see Rolfe beat me to it!

 

[JAK]

By virtue of the LD50 rating, everything is poison. There's absolutely nothing at all that won't kill you if given in sufficient quantities. For example, at one time regulations on cosmetics safety required that mice be force-fed lipstick to find out its LD50. Can't remember the actual figure, but basically it got lethal when the quantity required ruptured the stomachs of the mice.

So, citing the fact that an LD50 rating exists to prove that something is poisonous is circular arguing. There is an LD50 for water, if I knew where to find the data. By the same token, it would be possible to derive an LD50 for homoeopathic remedies. Yes, it would be a lot, but it would exist.

Rolfe.

I am familiar with the danger from drinking too much water. Salt is also fatal if taken in too great a quantity. Nevertheless, it is considered essential for life, too. Ultimately, anything which is systematic has tolerances. If any of the tolerances are exceeded, the system deteriorates. As Aristotle said, "... it is the nature of things for the virtues to be destroyed by excess and deficiency, as we see in the case of health and strength ... ." (Ethics, BookII)

Even so, I believe you are missing the point. The detrimental effects of either homeopathy or pharmaceutical drugs is not important. What is crucial for the homeopaths is to establish the efficacy of any homeopathic remedy.

To which we are still waiting ...

 

[Carn]

So, on balance in terms of number of cases, who knows. How can you compare a system which sometimes did good and sometimes did harm with a system which all the time did (and does) nothing at all?

Rolfe.

Count how many patients get a positive effect and how many get a negative effect from the system with effect. This of course means you have to weight in some way different effects upon the same patient, e.g. unecessary arm amputation + necessary leg amputation and therefore survival would be still positive, but arm amputation, that only causes some pain to diminish, would be negative, gets pretty difficult and philosophical with several things.
.
I remember a number read from a stastican, who worked in evaluating german health system, it was that around 1910 the probability that a random patient was effected positively by treatment from a random doctor passed 50%.
That means that the other 50% either only received a non-treatment or a negative treatment. Likely that means that around 1910 conventional was superior to non-treatment aka homeopathy.
Now i did not read the relevant paper, it was only a citation, but the statistican was rather sceptical about many issues, so i'm good hope, that he did not cite a nonsense paper.(Book was about debunking common myths, e.g. prevention in health care often does not safe money according to the author, it's far cheaper to treat only those, who are certain to be ill.)
Therefore i also do not now, whether realy randomness was assumed or semi clever patients, e.g. not visiting a dentists with a broken leg. Also i do not know what practices were excluded from the survey(did homeopaths count or not?)

Assuming the number is somehow valid, it is not unlikely that somewhere early 19th century the positive effect number was a lot lower, since there had been quite an advancement during 19th century. This could mean that the negative effect chance from all that blood letting and so on, was higher and then going to a homeopath was the better choice. Though even the far better choice would have been staying at home due to no money spent.

Carn

 

[Rolfe]

Even so, I believe you are missing the point. The detrimental effects of either homeopathy or pharmaceutical drugs is not important. What is crucial for the homeopaths is to establish the efficacy of any homeopathic remedy.

To which we are still waiting ...

Excuse me, but is that not the point about which I have been banging ad nauseam ever since I joined this forum? Including in the sum-up paragraph of that very post you quoted?

However, whether mainstream medicine of 200 years ago or real pharmacotherapeutic medicine of the 21st century is good or bad has absolutely zero to do with the question of whether homoeopathic remedies have any physiological effect. The plain fact is that they don't, and saying "but bleeding and purging are bad for you" or "but Vioxx killed 60,000 people" doesn't alter that fact one iota.

Nevertheless, saying that all licensed medicines ae by definition poisonous simply because they have LD50 ratings is a fallacy which needs to be explained as such.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Count how many patients get a positive effect and how many get a negative effect from the system with effect. ....

Assuming the number is somehow valid, it is not unlikely that somewhere early 19th century the positive effect number was a lot lower, since there had been quite an advancement during 19th century. This could mean that the negative effect chance from all that blood letting and so on, was higher and then going to a homeopath was the better choice.

My own feeling is that we don't really have the data to make an informed judgement, at this distance in time. However, that goes both ways. I'm very much opposed to blanket admissions that in the 19th century "homoeopathy was superior to regular medicine", because we just don't know.

And in any case, what that assertion masks is that it's actually just an indictment of regular medicine of the time - it's just saying that doing nothing was better for you than letting the bleeders and purgers have their way with you. Never let a homoeopath use that argument to imply that homoeopathic remedies actually have any effect, because that is a completely false conclusion.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Jak,
"Gavin, Kumar, what proof exists that any homeopathic remedies are successful in restoring health?"

Do survey of homeopathic clinics, read internet links. BSM, provided some links. Above all, I obsewrved & experianced.


__________________

There is an LD50 for water, if I knew where to find the data. By the same token, it would be possible to derive an LD50 for homoeopathic remedies. Yes, it would be a lot, but it would exist.

Rolfe.

IS this LD50 is for ordinary tap filtered water or also for distilled water? Recently, I was thinking to know more about 'people who drink more water AND who drink less water.

 

[PixyMisa]

Doctors into the early 20th century were often frighteningly ignorant. In the 1904 Olympics, one marathon runner was dosed with a cocktail of brandy and strychnine. He won - but nearly died.

So, here's the new slogan:

Homeopathy: Better than poison! (Mostly.)

 

[PixyMisa]

Jak,
"Gavin, Kumar, what proof exists that any homeopathic remedies are successful in restoring health?"

Do survey of homeopathic clinics, read internet links. BSM, provided some links. Above all, I obsewrved & experianced.

Which doesn't answer the question in any way.

IS this LD50 is for ordinary tap filtered water or also for distilled water? Recently, I was thinking to know more about 'people who drink more water AND who drink less water.

Either one will kill you if you drink enough. I doubt the LD50 is significantly different.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jak,
"Gavin, Kumar, what proof exists that any homeopathic remedies are successful in restoring health?"

Do survey of homeopathic clinics, read internet links. BSM, provided some links. Above all, I obsewrved & experianced.

I have done a survey on those case stories that homeopathic clinics and other homeopaths have chosen to publish in support of homeopathy.

They ALL suffer from one or more of the following problems:

1) Lack of a proper diagnosis. The real condition of the patient is unknown and unverifyable.

2) Lack of evidence for causation. The patient improves, but the timescale is not suggestive of any effect from the remedy. See also #3.

3) Strongly biased interpretations. Any positive developements are automatically attributed to the remedy. Any negative developements are either deemed aggravation or is attributed to "allopathic" tratments that the patient had, often many years prior. Likewise, timing for remedies totally lacks consistency: Effects happening any time between seconds after taking the remedy to weeks after is attributed to the remedy, if positive.

In short, the typical case story runs like this.

- Patient presents with complaint.
- Case is taken (no physical examination).
- Remedy is prescribed, sometimes a sequence of remedies.
- Anything positive that happens with the patient while seen by the homopath (and this period can be weeks, even years) is attributed to the remedy. Anything negative is attributed to other causes (or, occasionally, to aggravation, which is then taken as evidence that the remedy works).

Using such an approach, it is possible to support practically anything.

Edited to add: And on top of it, this is based on the stories they opted to PUBLISH. All those cases where nothing happened are probably omitted.

As for your own experieces, Kumar, you will have to excuse me, but having considerable exposure to your ability to apply logic and critical thinking, I frankly don't value them high.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Which doesn't answer the question in any way.

I am trying but science couldn't yet made awnser as you desire.

Either one will kill you if you drink enough. I doubt the LD50 is significantly different.

Should we not consider LD50?LD on taking normal/prescribed quantities?

Btw, whether CMs/CS has progressed, grown or changed during last 200 years AND if is progressing, growing or changing??

 

[Kumar]

I have done a survey on those case stories that homeopathic clinics and other homeopaths have chosen to publish in support of homeopathy.

But do patients tells that they get effects?

]b]They ALL suffer from one or more of the following problems:

1) Lack of a proper diagnosis. The real condition of the patient is unknown and unverifyable.[/b]

Every system can have its own type of diagnosis. If these do not matches with your system/requirement--it will be immateral.

2) Lack of evidence for causation. The patient improves, but the timescale is not suggestive of any effect from the remedy. See also #3.

It can happens with any system. God may be knowing better about this. Moreover more harsh effects can be better predicted.

3) Strongly biased interpretations. Any positive developements are automatically attributed to the remedy. Any negative developements are either deemed aggravation or is attributed to "allopathic" tratments that the patient had, often many years prior. Likewise, timing for remedies totally lacks consistency: Effects happening any time between seconds after taking the remedy to weeks after is attributed to the remedy, if positive.

It is biased & non-biased dependent--or how you see it? It can also happen in all systems.

In short, the typical case story runs like this.

- Patient presents with complaint.
- Case is taken (no physical examination).
- Remedy is prescribed, sometimes a sequence of remedies.
- Anything positive that happens with the patient while seen by the homopath (and this period can be weeks, even years) is attributed to the remedy. Anything negative is attributed to other causes (or, occasionally, to aggravation, which is then taken as evidence that the remedy works).

Case story can be peculier to any system. Any techniqe can fail inspite how advanced it may be.

Using such an approach, it is possible to support practically anything.

Using such an approach, it is also possible to disprove practically anything. It is just 'half filled glass' story.

Edited to add: And on top of it, this is based on the stories they opted to PUBLISH. All those cases where nothing happened are probably omitted.

It is better to keep goods. It can be common--humans/commercial tendencies. We don't show 'considered bad body parts' in open

As for your own experieces, Kumar, you will have to excuse me, but having considerable exposure to your ability to apply logic and critical thinking, I frankly don't value them high.

It is how you see a thing & talk. Personal/practical experiances & observations have 'much values.

 

[Zep]

It is how you see a thing & talk. Personal/practical experiances & observations have 'much values.

Interesting that you should say that...

Kumar, you have much "experience and observations" from lots and lots and LOTS of people here on this forum and from around the world that homeopathy does not and never did work. Ever. Under any circumstances. In fact, there are millions of cases available that prove this is so.

So here's a thing: How many of THESE "mass observings" do you think you will need before YOU accept that as the truth?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Every system can have its own type of diagnosis. If these do not matches with your system/requirement--it will be immateral.

Nonsense. What matters is if the patient is ill or not. It matters if a cough is due to a slight cold or lung cancer.

It can happens with any system. God may be knowing better about this.

Shurely, but God doesn't tell us, now, does he?

It is biased & non-biased dependent--or how you see it? It can also happen in all systems.

This is the reason science uses objective methods.


Using such an approach, it is also possible to disprove practically anything.

Exactly! So the approach is worthless. I am so glad you finally agree.

Hans

 

[Donks]

It is just 'half filled glass' story.

some folks would look at the glass and say it's half full.
some folks would look at the glass and say it's half empty.

i'm just wondering who pissed in the glass.

 

[Rolfe]

I have done a survey on those case stories that homeopathic clinics and other homeopaths have chosen to publish in support of homeopathy.....

Can I again bring up the case of Richard Edwards' experience?

Mr. Edwards listened sympathetically to the case stories of the homoeopaths. He was persuaded to the point of buying into their practice. However, once he had done that, he had access to the complete, unselected, uncensored case records of all the patients. What he found was that the "successful" ones he'd been told about were the tip of an iceberg of cases which weren't getting better, though in some cases he realised that the owners of the animals concerned had been "brainwashed" into thinking that their pets were better when they weren't.

This is what we find when we look at the complete case records of homoeopaths. No evidence that the remedies have any effect at all. Just selective showcasing of the ones that happened to get better at a convenient time, and pure deception.

Rolfe.