What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[Dr. MAS]

Dear Members,

It’s a great pleasure to be with Randiland’s intellectual personalities. I am really grateful to MRC_Hans for helping me in registering my account. Basically I am against in creating Homeopathic Skeptic Rooms at homeopathic sites because I believe that many people are already against homeopathy and this type of skeptic discussion at pure homeopathic forums will definitely discourage common people’ interest in wonderful homeopathic healing system of the world (who will visit the forum). But NCH has its own thinking and I have no influence over them.

This is my first post, hence I need little introduction. I have many professions but doing practice of homeopathic science is also my job. I have been in this field for more then 20 years. I am not coming here to protect homeopathy, you can do GOOGLE search on my name and see, I never protected homeopathy on its off beam unrealistic claims, rather I mainly behaved as skeptic in those forums. I got registration at this forum to find out what is skeptic stand on homeopathic medical system, so that we could all find the answer of the mystery involve in homeopathy.

My first question would be

“What exactly is the paranormal in homeopathy and why homeopathy is not acceptable as pure scientific medical healing system?”


My students and me want to find the answer of those issues, which are in your mind.

I thank you to all of you of taking time and pain in reading my post.

Thanks again

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let me be the first to welcome you (unless somebody else cross-posts )!

Although this in not generally considered good debating practice, I would like to respond with another question. The reason for this is that we see so many different claims from different homeopaths. So before we start talking about some part of homeopathy that YOU might not endorse, perhaps you could make a short statement:

What do you claim that homeopathy can do?

Hans

 

[Zep]

Welcome, Doctor! Your input is very welcome, but please be prepared for some spirited discussion though! Many of the posters here will have significant skills in physics, medicine, chemistry, mathematics and many other sciences and professions that are pertinent to homeopathy's claims. You will need to be on your toes!

Dive right in...

 

[Stitch]

Firstly welcome.

Homeopathy has made a lot of claims over the past so as Hans has said it would be useful if you could outline what you belive homeopathy can do.

The challenge that Randi usually puts down is "if there is something special about a homepathic preparation, identify a vile of it from a number of viles of "ordinary water" in a double blind test, using whatever means you like"

Randi's belief (I hope I am not posting out of turn) is that there is no difference between ordinary water and a homepathic preparation and as such there is no way it can provide a healing benefit beyond that of placebo, hence the test, show a difference between the 2 as a starting point, never mind that it actually does something or not.

 

[Zep]

That would be "vials", not "viles". Sorry to be a pedant...

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I'm sure that others are going to go into what makes homeopathy paranormal, but I'd like to answer the second part of your question:

why homeopathy is not acceptable as pure scientific medical healing system?

Because it has never passed a properly controlled, double blind trial. We normally don't accept things as "pure scientific" without tests.

 

[tmackean]

A recent radio programme on BBC Radio 4 contained an interview with a well-known homeopathic practitioner who claimed that there were hundreds of controlled, double-blind studies which conclusively pointed to the existence of homeopathic phenomena.

That said, claiming that these exist is not the same as producing them.

As always, the onus to prove the existence of an extraordinary effect should be that of the claimant and not that of the skeptic.

I'd like to ask Dr. Mas if he can point us the way of reputable, published, verifiable, unbiased, controlled, double-blind studies which demonstrate the existence of homeopathic effects.

This would be a good start, I think.

 

[Ashles]

A recent radio programme on BBC Radio 4 contained an interview with a well-known homeopathic practitioner who claimed that there were hundreds of controlled, double-blind studies which conclusively pointed to the existence of homeopathic phenomena.

There actually really are. Absolutely hundreds of them.
There are definitely a great many well conducted, conclusive double-blind trials that replicably display a statistically significant positive effect for homeopathy.

That said, claiming that these exist is not the same as producing them.

Absolutely. See how easy it was for me to do it just then?

 

[Rolfe]

It's a pity this thread wasn't started in the "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology" forum area, simply because the people interested in homoeopathy tend mostly to hang around there. I hope Dr. Mas will also go there and contribute to some of the threads.

As far as the question goes, it's a wide-ranging subject.

First, what is paranormal about homoeopathy is that there is absolutely nothing in the remedies (at least at the "potencies" most often used by professional homoeopaths). No remedy substance and no measurable or theoretical "energies" and no altered structure of the carrier substances. So if there is an effect there, then it's by some means quite unknown to science.

Second, the reason it is not accepted as scientific medicine (which doesn't actually have a huge problem with things it doesn't entirely understand, consider gaseous anaesthetics) is that nobody has ever been able to prove conclusively that there's any effect there at all. Combine that with the absence of anything in the remedies, and you can maybe see the problem.

It really is remarkably easy for any physician to convince themselves that a useless intervention is having a beneficial effect. The body is so good at healing itself, and the suggestibility of both patients and physicians is so high that all sorts of subsequently-disproved things have in their time been hailed as great cures. This is why evidence-based medicine was developed. Objective testing of treatments to see whether the effect is real or coincidental/illusory have punctured more than a few complacent bubbles and led to many cherished but useless therapies being withdrawn.

The odd thing about homoeopathy is the remarkable tenacity of its adherents in clinging to the belief that there's a real effect going on, in the teeth of all the evidence that there isn't. Consider, the claim is that the effect is so striking that it is obvious even at the level of the clinical anecdote, and indeed many positively miraculous cures are reported. Any effect this strong should be very simple to demonstrate by a controlled trial. After all, controlled trials have shown up very small effects which hadn't even been suspected at clinic level - often adverse effects, as it happens, but the principle is the same. However, this does not happen with homoeopathy. Instead, the allegedly miraculous and striking results retreat to the borders of statistical noise, leaving the best anyone can say of the science, there might be an effect there, but then again there might not. Does that sound like a good basis to be claiming to heal people?

Another thing to consider, as regards homoeopathy and science, is the lack of serious interest by physicists and chemists. If there is a real effect present in homoeopathic remedies then this must be due to a completely unknown aspect of the material world, and it means that a great deal of what we think we know about how the physical universe works is likely to be wrong or at the very least woefully incomplete. Physicists and chemists would be all over this if it really happened. There would be innumerable PhDs to be had, and probably even a Nobel Prize for whoever was able to rewrite the whole of science to explain this effect. But nobody is interested.

Why? Because the evidence to the impartial observer is that homoeopathy depends entirely on coincidental recovery and wishful thinking for its effects (with a dash of observer bias), and those who believe that the remedies are actually doing something are simply mistaken. While there is a Nobel Prize for solving a real mystery, it is professional suicide to spend one's career trying to prove there is science behind a delusion. See the history of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment in cold fusion as an example.

I think Dr. Mas is of the school which believes that the effects are so self-evident as to be inarguable. We may in that case simply have to agree to disagree. However, I would ask him to consider, is it possible he might be mistaken?

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
why homeopathy is not acceptable as pure scientific medical healing system?
*snip*

Sorry, forgot that one. As already said, the effect of homeopathic treatment has not been shown, scientifically. Not only that, but the theory behind homeopathy is not supported by our present knowledge of physical laws.

To accept something as science, we would expect at least one of these to be fulfilled:

1) It has been shown to work.

2) We can explain how it can work.

Homeoapthy fails both.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: What is paranormal in Homeopathy

To accept something as science, we would expect at least one of these to be fulfilled:

1) It has been shown to work.

2) We can explain how it can work.

Homeopathy fails both.

Succinctly put, Hans. Encapsulates the situation perfectly.

Rolfe.

 

[Vikram]

“What exactly is the paranormal in homeopathy and why homeopathy is not acceptable as pure scientific medical healing system?”

Dr. Mas,

Welcome to this forum. I hope you have a good time here.

A scientific test of a claim is fundamentally a means of observing, documenting and measuring the claimed phenomenon while eliminating all other explanations (or at least as many as possible) for it.

While homeopathy has a lot of anecdotal evidence supporting it, it does not pass rigorous replicable scientific tests. That basically means that as long as there are a number of interfering factors (placebo effect, experimenter bias, etc.), homeopathy "works", but the moment these other explanations are eliminated (double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials), the effect disappears.

That's why homeopathy is not acceptable as a science.

 

[Stitch]

That would be "vials", not "viles". Sorry to be a pedant...

Depends which side of the fence you sit

 

[John the Skeptic]

I would class Homeopathy as a pseudoscience rather than something paranormal. The bottom line is: it's fake medicine masquerading as real medicine.

 

[delphi_ote]

I would class Homeopathy as a pseudoscience rather than something paranormal.

pseu·do·sci·ence (n.) A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.

par·a·nor·mal (adj.) Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.

If a theory without scientific foundation were correct, it would certainly be beyond the range of scientific explanation. Pseudoscience accepted as fact = paranormal belief.

 

[Rolfe]

I would class Homeopathy as a pseudoscience rather than something paranormal. The bottom line is: it's fake medicine masquerading as real medicine.

Actually, the other reason it's paranormal is that it's pure, unadulterated Sympathetic Magic.

Rolfe.

 

[Dr. MAS]

Dear Members

Thank You!

Let's start to comment one by one

 

[Dr. MAS]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Let me be the first to welcome you (unless somebody else cross-posts )!

Dr. MAS: Thank you

What do you claim that homeopathy can do?

Dr. MAS: Yes, a very simple and good question.

We may start from this point. I claim we can treat an incureable case of any disease entirely with the help of homeopathic medicines.

If you detail us (homeopaths) to treat 10 AIDS / Hepatitis etc confirmed patients and if we succeed in curing 8 out 10 then you might confirm that "Homeopathic medicines have good healing effects / property against human diseases".

On the first stage, we would like to verify the above statement. if we succeed, then could we come in the row of winning the prize? or your demand is something else

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gr8wight]

If you detail us (homeopaths) to treat 10 AIDS / Hepatitis etc confirmed patients and if we succeed in curing 8 out 10 then you might confirm that "Homeopathic medicines have good healing effects / property against human diseases".

On the first stage, we would like to verify the above statement. if we succeed, then could we come in the row of winning the prize? or your demand is something else

Define curing.

 

[Dr. MAS]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zep

Welcome, Doctor! Your input is very welcome, but please be prepared for some spirited discussion though! Many of the posters here will have significant skills in physics, medicine, chemistry, mathematics and many other sciences and professions that are pertinent to homeopathy's claims. You will need to be on your toes!

Dr. MAS: I am coming here to share thoughts with you and not to check anyone qualification or credibility or status. Sir, that's true I am a poor homeopath who uses TANGA (Horse Carriage) for traveling from village to City but God (Allah) blessed me the most higher qualification one can dream about. I have four bachelors and three master degrees with one Ph. D and still student. In this way, I have done graduations in all relevant subjects of medical sciences, hence education or understanding is not problem. I am already on my footing but will take help from you when I need it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------