Steven R. Olsen - Lou finally believes me!

` Lou Ryan had said - in the past - that there was all kinds of scientific evidence of homeopathy, but the government was suppressing it.
` Well, today he was highly interested in my quotations from the James Randi interview below, and the videos of him exposing fraudsters below that, so on and so forth. So, at the last moment I read to him the part where James Randi was trying to convince the government (American and the E.U.) that homeopathy was fake, and was subsequently ignored!
` Lou said, "Well, there might be scientific evidence in his favor for all the other stuff he says isn't true, but why isn't there any for homeopathy?" I took that very golden opportunity to read to him the scientific study section of this post, (which had I put up last August!)
` He was very patient and listened to all of it. Then, to my great surprise, he said; "Okay, I'm convinced."
` I just kind of stared, like... 'Whaaaa?'
` He said; "I guess that's enough evidence for me to see that homeopathy apparently helps people with the placebo effect."
` I told him that this was what I had intended for him to read last August, but he apparently had only read the last (most optimistic) article.
` Well, then! I knew he was more reasonable than that!
` And then, he said; "So, do you want to stop going to the homeopath?"
` And I said; "Yes, please!"
` So, yesterday was my last visit, and screw Qr. Olsen!!!

Steven R. Olsen - my fifth visit. Sigh....

` We're up to a grand total of $470, and nothing is happening. I think the next visit will be my last. I don't remember what the vodka was that he gave me this time, but I'll tell you next time.
` Also, in case anyone is interested, I am getting back to finishing my Noci-Notes. After that, I plan to go back to my original Noci-Notes, which were about biology.

` I must go now: I'm going to be having breakfast with one of my subjects in an hour, after a long walk.

Steven R. Olsen - my fouth visit... I'm waiting!

` A photo of my view across the Trestle on my way to Qr. Olsen's:

` So, Lou has spent a grand total of $410 on this homeo-whatsis and it's still not doing any good. Not that it shocks me. I told Qr. Olsen about my susceptability to having things all in my head, and you'll never believe this remedy: Peregrine Falcon!
` How that even fits in with the dogma of homeopathy, beats me. I mean, it's like cures like, right? So... is this supposed to make me less falcon-like?
` I don't get it.
` In any case, he gave me bird extract because the conventional remedies weren't having any effect. That doesn't surprise me.
` Lou is telling me that he hopes I haven't convinced myself it won't work. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on him. And with all the medical studies of the world, it doesn't look too good.
` In fact, he thinks the first remedy for my emotions worked. Well, now that I have thought about it and can word it better: While I was on the Square Patch, it made me suffer starvation of emotions and I became dull. At the same time, I gradually became less timid without any anxiety to get in the way.
` When I got rid of the Square Patch, my emotions came flooding back all at once a couple of days before I saw Qr. Olsen, whereupon I felt gut-wrenching dread. At the same time my tendency to be less timid stayed. I expected that because whenever I become less timid and undergo other temporary changes, I don't revert back to a timid state. It's very plain to me what had happened.
` Well, he's convinced himself that it will work and will continue to spend more money on this treatment. I, on the other hand, will continue to roll my eyes.
` ...By the way, we're going off to see the famous skeptic Michael Shermer tonight: He's going to be talking about Intelligent Design - a subject I already know too much about, but damn I'd really like to see him! Since Lou is highly medicated after slamming a nail into his hand, he figures he can attend without yelling at any ID-ists that may speak out in the audience.
` ...Amusingly, I shall also have to refrain from mentioning to him that Shermer is one of the skeptics whose arguments against homeopathy he thought to be even worse than those for Intelligent Design!

Surrounded by crazy mind-minglers!

` I have a question to ask you. But first, I suggest you read this exhaustively long-yet-possibly-amusing article:

Teaching Pigs to Sing

An Experiment in Bringing Critical Thinking to the Masses

A couple of years ago, I saw an announcement for an astrology presentation to a local discussion group called Mingling of the Minds. My first reaction was, "Surely, nobody really believes in astrology anymore! At least not in my well-educated community." I decided to go "mingle my mind" and find out.

I was appalled. These people had heard some of the arguments against astrology, but they entirely discounted them. Their personal experience was that astrology worked, and that's all they cared about. The speaker had prepared charts for several members of the group, with scientific-looking symbols and calculations, and they seemed very impressed. I tried to introduce a bit of skepticism by asking questions like, "How did the first astrologers learn which human characteristics corresponded to which heavenly signs?" The speaker said that was an interesting question that could never be answered, because we lack any historical records. Of course, he didn't doubt that they had obtained their knowledge by some reliable means.

Sure they had. I heard about a woman who told a group of friends she had identified new constellations for a more up-to-date astrology; instead of names like Sagittarius and Pisces, the new constellations had names like Vacuum Cleaner and Telephone. She explained how those born under the Vacuum Cleaner are perfectionists who like everything to be neat and clean, and how those born under the Telephone sign are verbally oriented, good communicators, and have lots of friends. Her friends didn't get the joke. They asked where they could learn more about this great new system!

In retrospect, I probably should have told the astrologer I wasn't going to believe in astrology because my horoscope said I shouldn't be gullible.

Future "Mingling of the Minds" sessions were planned with psychics and other strange creatures. I decided that these people were in desperate need of a resident skeptic, so I appointed myself. I knew there was no hope of converting any true believers, but I thought there must be at least a few people who had not irrevocably made up their minds and might like to know the facts.

My skeptic friends tried to warn me: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig." I knew this, but I didn't think it applied here. I'm an optimist-these were nice, friendly, reasonable people, and I thought at least some of them would enjoy learning some of the things I had learned. I used to believe a lot of weird things myself, until evidence and reason persuaded me to change my mind. I find it intellectually satisfying to discard an error and learn a truth. I thought others might get the same satisfaction. My friends laughed at my naïveté; but I am a skeptic, so I had to find out for myself.

It was the beginning of an odyssey that introduced me to a strange race of people who believed in angels but not in germs. I can only compare it to visiting a carnival freak show of intellectual, rather than physical, anomalies. I observed how the average nonskeptic member of the public reacts to these anomalies. It almost destroyed my faith in human reason.

We heard from a feng shui practitioner. He explained that feng shui is a science, and he went into details like how you should position the head of your bed to the north. I asked him if he meant geographic north or magnetic north. I'm not sure he even knew the difference, but he guessed that it was probably magnetic north because feng shui has to do with forces that are sort of like magnetic forces. The magnetic north pole is in northeastern Canada; I asked him what he would tell a client who lived in northeastern Canada, directly north of the magnetic north pole-if the client put the head of his bed towards the magnetic north pole, it would be actually be pointing due south. His only answer was, "Gee, that's an interesting question." I thought so too. It's an interesting science if it only applies to certain parts of the globe.

The feng shui guy also sells Chinese medicines. He always checks by opening each bottle and tasting or at least looking to be sure it contains what the label says, because sometimes he finds an entirely different herb in the bottle. That's his idea of quality control. Nevertheless, he is quite confident that these herbal products are safe. One of the safe remedies he showed us was a Chinese pain reliever called Lemonin. I could see from the label that it was an overpriced mixture of paracetamol, caffeine, and vitamin C. He didn't know that paracetamol is the British name for acetaminophen (Tylenol), so of course, he couldn't warn his victims (oops, I mean clients) that taking Tylenol along with Lemonin could result in a fatal overdose.

A chiropractor insisted that newborn babies needed immediate chiropractic adjustment, because their necks are stretched to over twice their normal length during childbirth, even by C-section. I told him that I knew that was not true, because I used to deliver babies. It couldn't be true, because that amount of stretch couldn't happen without killing the baby. He assured us that, yes, it really does a lot of damage.

Another chiropractor explained that he doesn't believe in the germ theory, because if germs caused disease, we'd all be dead. The only reason some people get sick is because their spines are out of alignment. He has never been vaccinated, yet he is confident he could be exposed to any infectious disease without catching it. Next time we need volunteers to treat a case of Ebola, let's call on him!

A third chiropractor told us how he diagnoses allergies. He has the patient hold a closed vial containing an allergen in one hand, and he tests the muscle strength in her or his other arm. If it is weaker than before, they are allergic to what's in the vial. He thought one patient might be allergic to his workplace, and he didn't have a vial of "Boeing," so he had the patient just think about Boeing, and that worked just as well. He found people were allergic to all kinds of things they had never imagined. He had all kinds of testimonials about miraculous cures. I pointed out that this method, called applied kinesiology, had failed all controlled tests and was rejected even by the majority of his own profession. I read him the words of a professor of chiropractic, who essentially said applied kinesiology was about the stupidest quackery any chiropractor had ever fallen for. He was not impressed: his method works.

I took out a small implement and handed it around the group. No one could guess what it was for. I explained that it was a fleam, a lancet used in bloodletting. The ancient Greeks believed there were four humors, and they balanced the humors by bleeding the patient for fevers and other illnesses. George Washington's death was hastened (if not caused) by bloodletting. The treatment was in use for many centuries, until science finally tested it and found out it did more harm than good. I told the chiropractor that I could come up with more testimonials for bloodletting through the centuries than he had for muscle testing. If he rejected the scientific evidence that applied kinesiology didn't work, it would be consistent to reject the scientific evidence that bloodletting didn't work. If he accepted the evidence of testimonials for muscle testing, it would be consistent to accept the evidence of many more testimonials for bloodletting. Would he use a fleam? No, he wouldn't. A lady friend asked, "But what does his method hurt, as long as his patients feel better?" I reminded her that bloodletting also made lots of people feel better, and I offered to use the fleam on her to see if it made her feel better. She declined. I can't imagine why.

A massage therapist specialized in energy medicine. She could feel the energy fields around a patient's body and twiddle them to help patients heal. She knew this was real, because a scientist had actually measured the human aura with some scientific instrument. What kind of instrument? Where were the data published? She didn't have the specifics, but she assured me I could learn about it in a book called The Isaiah Effect. I got that book and read every word of it, but couldn't even find the word aura, much less anything remotely scientific. It is arguably the worst book I have ever read, with an average of one and a half errors of fact or logic per page-I counted. I told her that I found nothing in the book about measuring auras, and her only answer was, "Oh."

A couple of self-styled "intuitives" (i.e., psychics) spoke to us, and did some amateurish cold readings. One explained away apparent failures by saying that she might be seeing something in the future, and that her intuitions could not perceive time; she immediately contradicted herself by saying the next person would have a new job "within the next three years"! She "read" a hypochondriac man and apparently intuited that he wasn't worried enough already, so she told him she could see something terribly wrong in his abdomen that needed urgent care. Another psychic told us she could actually see angels beside each of us. (In psychiatry, this is called a hallucination and is a sign of mental illness.)

Here are just a few of the astounding comments I heard:

"A molecule made in a plant is natural, so it has to be better than the exact same molecule made in a lab."

"I had to stop taking my homeopathic sleep remedy because it caused side effects." (Water causes side effects?)

"I know my headache didn't go away because of any placebo effect, because I would be able to tell if it were just placebo." (So why do you think scientists bother with placebo-controlled double-blind trials?)

"Truth doesn't matter."

"What's true for you may not be true for me; it's okay if we disagree."

"We create our own reality."

I asked one woman what she would think of me if I still truly believed, at my age, that the Tooth Fairy really exists. She said, "I'd think that was really sweet!"

The last meeting I went to was a pro-and-con discussion of dowsing. The "pro" side consisted of "I saw it work; there are lots of dowsers." I gave the scientific "con" side, explaining the ideomotor effect and the consistent failure of dowsers to find water beyond the level of chance when tested objectively. My information did not go over well. They wanted to hear more about how it works and less about how it doesn't work. The "pro" presenter explained to me that science just hasn't learned how to test dowsers to get a positive result; it doesn't know the right questions to ask. He also explained that science is based on assumptions, so he doesn't trust science; he trusts his intuitions more, even though he admits his intuition can be wrong.

The Pig Instructor Reconsiders

At this point, I had to recognize that these people did not inhabit my universe. They rejected the scientific method, they didn't care about objective truth, and they were happy in their superstitions. I tried hard to understand them, but I failed. I find science and reality far more exciting than superstition. I agree with Lily Tomlin that "the best mind-altering drug is the truth." Why were the people at "Mingling of the Minds" so reluctant to give up their unfounded beliefs?

Maybe there was something wrong with me. Whenever I told my father I had changed my mind about something, he used to tell me, "If I had a mind like that, I'd change it too." After being exposed to all these "minglers" who refused to change their minds, I began to wonder if I was the one who was abnormal. Maybe I lacked the gene for certainty. Maybe I am unduly prejudiced in favor of reality testing. Maybe they are right: personal experience and belief are all that matters. I was really beginning to get worried.

Then two things happened to reassure me. First, I read the list of obituaries in the Encyclopedia Britannica yearbook. Among the famous in all walks of life, the important people, the people who mattered, there were plenty of scientists who had contributed to human knowledge and welfare; there wasn't a single homeopath, astrologer, or psychic on the list. Second, I read Saturday, by Ian McEwan. Enough people are reading this novel to put it on the best-seller list, and its main character is a skeptic and critical thinker who says, " . . .[belief in] the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficient imagination, a dereliction of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulty and wonders of the real, of the demanding reenactment of the plausible." Maybe science and reason are slowly winning the war against superstition, even if they are losing some of the smaller skirmishes.

In a sense, the people I met at Mingling of the Minds were the norm and I was the anomaly. Minds are not meant to change easily. Absolute certainty based on authority and eyewitness accounts must have had some evolutionary survival value. Humanity has managed pretty well with instinct, magical thinking, and superstition for a very long time, and it will probably continue to muddle through. The scientific method is a recent innovation; it isn't easy, and it doesn't come naturally.

Time is money, and I finally had to admit that Mingling of the Minds was not a good investment. I cut my losses and resigned. I'm too stubborn to not get the last word in, so I wrote this little fable and sent it to Dan, my opponent in the dowsing debate.

` That's a lot of reading, isn't it? Well, buckle down; more is on the way!

Is the Tooth Fairy Real?: A Fable

Harriet told her little brother Dan that there was no Tooth Fairy; it was their parents who put the money under the pillow.

Dan refused to believe Harriet. He knew there was a Tooth Fairy. Every time he put a tooth under his pillow, there was money there the next morning. And all his friends said the Tooth Fairy brought them money too. And it couldn't be Mom and Dad because he'd wake up if they came in the room and lifted his pillow. Anyway, Mom and Dad said there was a Tooth Fairy, and they wouldn't lie.

Harriet asked him how he thought the Tooth Fairy found out about lost teeth, how she got into the house, where she got the money from, and what she did with the teeth. Dan said he didn't know, but wasn't it a wonderful mystery? Harriet pointed out that older kids all eventually stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dan said that only proved that the Tooth Fairy would only bring money to those who still believed in her.

Harriet got several neighborhood kids to help test whether the Tooth Fairy would appear if the parents didn't know a tooth had been lost. It turned out that every time the parents knew about the tooth, there would be money under the pillow the next morning, and every time the parents didn't know about the tooth, there would be no money. Dan said the Tooth Fairy was just refusing to cooperate in those cases, because she wouldn't bring money if she knew she was being tested.

Harriet got out her Junior Detective kit and dusted Dan's Tooth Fairy money for fingerprints. Sure enough, she found their parents' fingerprints on it. Dan said that didn't prove anything, because there are lots of ways the Tooth Fairy could get hold of money the parents had previously touched. Or she could have magically put the evidence there to confuse us. And of course, the Tooth Fairy wouldn't leave any fingerprints of her own because she was magical.

The next time Dan lost a tooth, Harriet spread flour on the floor, and the next morning, she showed Dan their parents' footprints between the door and the head of his bed. He said that didn't prove anything-his parents had probably just checked on him, and the Tooth Fairy had come later. There were no Tooth Fairy footprints, because fairies don't leave footprints.

The next time Dan lost a tooth, Harriet set up a video camera in Dan's room and caught their parents in the act. (For those readers with dirty minds, I mean the act of removing the tooth and putting money under the pillow.) Dan told her that didn't prove a thing. Maybe the Tooth Fairy wouldn't appear when a camera was present. Maybe she is a shape-shifter who made herself look like their parents on videotape. Maybe she asked Mom and Dad to do the job for her just this once.

Harriet led Dan into their parents' bedroom, opened a dresser drawer, and showed him a box containing all of Harriet's and Dan's baby teeth neatly labeled and dated. She said that was proof their parents were taking the teeth and leaving the money. Dan said it was no such thing; the Tooth Fairy probably passed the teeth on to parents for keepsakes, or maybe she sold teeth to parents to raise the money she put under the pillows. Hey, yeah, that would explain the fingerprints!

Harriet and Dan confronted their parents, who admitted they had been taking the teeth and leaving the money under the pillow. Dan said either they were lying before or they're lying now, and they're probably lying now. Why trust what anyone says? He was just going to ignore everything except what he knew: the tooth-under-the-pillow thing worked. The Tooth Fairy was real.

Harriet screamed in frustration and tore all her hair out. She left it under her pillow. It was still there in the morning.

` So, now, the question: If I told you I wrote this, would you believe me?

` If you said 'yes', I might need to watch myself so that I learn to leave True Believers well enough alone. Also, I might want to work on getting my writing style back together.
` Either that, or you just don't come here often.
` In any case, Harriet Hall of the Skeptical Inquirer is the one responsible for this article, and because of it and the admonition of others, I have learned to be quiet and play along.... Mua ha ha haaa!!
` Really, I hope you enjoyed it, because on some places on the internet, you have to pay to view it! Crazy. Well, I hope all goes well with Michael Shermer, (Master Skeptic) tonight!

Steven R. Olsen - my third visit... still nothing!

` It's been three weeks and $355. I still feel the same. Qr. Olsen was actually quite surprised that the willow remedy he'd given me hadn't had any effect - that was two strikes!
` Lou, however, thinks that the first remedy did have a little bit of effect, though I think it is perfectly explainable by the fact that I've become less nervous and hesitant over the months and getting my emotions back from discontinuing my Square Patch has helped boost my extroversion. Put simply, that is what has happened. However, he doesn't think that can explain it, even though I am used to such incremental and piecemeal changes in emotional development (which sometimes appear more dramatic to other people who cannot keep track of what is going on in my head).
` Seriously, Lou's enthusiasm is somewhat bothersome to me, which makes me feel tense as I show more and more emotional improvements as usual.
` Qr. Olsen, at least, seems perplexed.
` Now, Olsen said that the willow milk-sugar remedy I got last-last Friday was supposed to have cleared up at least most of my numbness. ("It usually has that effect," he said.) I could not perceive any change at all.
` Because of that, when I went to see him last Friday, he switched the numbness remedy to vodka - I mean, quinine. (Also, he was quite surprised by the fact that I'd told him all about quinine and its significance to homeopathy and asked me if I'd read his book - which I haven't yet, and am not particularly looking forward to.)
` Well, it's Monday already and nothing has happened so far. I still feel the same. Lou is still doubtful that I'm totally unresponsive to homeopathy (much less that homeopathy breaks the laws of physics or is just a placebo) and is willing to spend more money on me because he cares about my health so much. Whatever floats his boat.

Looking for a solution, dilution or illusion…

` Anders Bonde (another skeptic with an apparent fondness for writing long articles) has written a museful article about homeopathy and his inquiries of, if anyone should be so inclined to read. Here is most of it:

...This introduction brings me to the subject of homeopathy: A controversial concept of medicine with a large following, widespread popularity, even public and legislative support - and a theoretical foundation which is logically inconsistent and self-contradictory to an extent that borders on (or transgresses) the absurd.

Less than a decade ago I genuinely believed that homeopathy was a genuine, scientifically-proven medical procedure - I had even used Over-The-Counter (OTC) homeopathic remedies against common cold and hayfever, and had believed that "it [homeopathy] worked". But then I had not investigated the facts of the matter at all - I had relied purely on the sales pitches of the manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, and on the anecdotes of friends and family. And on the fallibility of my own senses and reasoning.

More or less by chance - I guess I was just curiously prompted by my then-girlfriend's view on the matter - one fine day I did a Google search on "homeopathy". What I found baffled me: The descriptions of the homeopathic principles could not possibly, from what I had learned about physics and chemistry, be reconciled with modern science. How, then, could it be that homeopathy appeared to work for so many people and how could its application be so widespread - complete with colorful brochures and all? Either it just "worked", or else some other mechanism was at large here. So, I set out to investigate the matter, with the aid of that untiring servant, The Internet.

By coincidence (yes, I do believe in coincidences!), my then-girlfriend, later to become my wife, was, and is, an ardent supporter of homeopathy. This allowed me to observe the phenomenon at rather close quarters, but more on that later. I was, and am, puzzled by the fact that I could not find anywhere on the Internet any properly conducted scientific research that had proven that any homeopathic remedy has any direct physiological effect - at least not any that I've been able to find in hundreds of hits, links and references, and yet people I care for, trust and believe to be genuine will swear that it "works". How could that be? Was I overlooking something?

One thing I did notice, not on the Internet, but right in front of me, though I have so far unfortunately not applied any thorough scientific recording of my observations (Shame on me - I may do so from now on), was that whether my wife, who gets intermittent attacks of a migraine-like condition typically lasting a day or two, takes her homeopathic remedies or not, the course of the migraine attacks are always more or less identical.
` But she remembers when she took the remedy - "the migraine was gone within a day or so" - but she does not recall when she did not take the homeopathic remedy. I can't tell when or whether she does or does not use the homeopathic remedy for her migraine - I only know when she tells me, or if I happen to see her taking it, but she says she only uses it when she happens to have some in her possession when an attack comes along, or after a day or two into an unusually lengthy attack. I admit this is anecdotal evidence, so you can skip it and move on if you are so inclined. I say I am observing confusion of cause and correlation, confirmation bias and wishful thinking, combined with natural remission, at work here - I don't even think placebo is needed to explain my wife's response to the remedy. I also think she is wasting some of our household money on the stuff - and that she may inadvertently overlook a more serious condition and neglect the need for proper treatment.
` As for my own use of OTC homeopathic remedies? Looking back, a cold always lasts from a few days to a week or two, and you can't stem it, whether you take any homeopathic or "traditional" remedy or not. It just doesn't make any difference - the cold always goes away after a few days - untreated or not. As do attacks of hayfever, although antihistamines do work. Even Benveniste knows that - as he has inadvertently proven, I guess, in his "proof" of homeopathy?

Needless to say, my wife and I have had (and have) the odd argument about the issue of homeopathy (and other "alternative"/faith versus science debates). It surprises me, however, that she didn't know who Hahnemann was, or the levels of dilution being used. Methinks that one of the reasons, other than the mental mechanisms mentioned above, that she believes in homeopathy, and why most other people who do so, is that they are simply unfamiliar with the, well, absurd principal claims of homeopathy. I may be naïve (no, I am naïve), but I believe that if people were educated about the absurd claims of homeopathy, then more people would address it critically and discover what I now claim to be its true nature: Homeopathy may rightly be considered to be the greatest scam in medical history.

Back to my investigations: Another thing I did notice was that Internet sites and organizations supportive of homeopathy tend to have very few links to high quality research, unlike sites critical of homeopathy, and they tend to include the research of one J. Benveniste as proof positive of physical evidence supportive of homeopathy. I looked up the references to articles in "Nature" - and found that the sites, that I found, supportive of homeopathy only referred to the first article in Nature (333,816; 1988) - not to the subsequent articles. Were they trying to hide something?

In order to satisfy my curiosity, and perhaps to counter any suspicion of "dirty underwear" being intentionally kept from public scrutiny, I wrote (by email) an enquiry to one of the leading manufacturers and purveyors of homeopathic remedies in Denmark, Bioforce.

My questions were:

1. It is not stated on your website what documentation Danish law requires regarding safety and therapeutic efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Can you assist me on this matter, and ought this not be stated on your website?
2. I cannot see the levels of dilution for the various remedies on your website. Can you inform me about this, or provide me links to where I can find such information?
3. If the levels of dilution should be so great that the presence of the assumed active ingredient in the solution is at or below the threshold levels for what can be physically detected, how can it then be ensured that the active ingredient is indeed present in the solvent, and thereby ensure that it is capable of having a physiological effect when administered to the patient?
4. Can you provide references to a correctly executed scientific investigation (randomized placebo controlled double blind testing, with predetermined levels of statistical significance and predefined success and failure criteria) that can confirm efficacy of homeopathic remedies that cannot be attributed to placebo effects and/or natural progression/remission of the disease and/or the presence of other substances in the homeopathic remedy, and/or the application of other therapeutic modalities in conjunction with the homeopathic treatment?
5. In the event homeopathic remedies do have a physiological effect on the human organism, could you then kindly provide references to descriptions of any documented mechanisms of any such physiological effect?
6. Assuming that the purported principles for homeopathy are valid, would it then not be reasonable to assume that there are lots of pollutants, which have not been or cannot have been accounted for, in both tap water as well as in homeopathic remedies - and would the validity of the homeopathic principles then not imply that lower threshold values for, for instance, pesticide remnants in drinking water are more detrimental to human health than higher threshold values, as the homeopathic principle states that the higher the dilution, the greater the physiological effect?

Kind Regards,
Anders W. Bonde

PS: I am in no way affiliated with the pharmaceutical industry - I am merely an ordinary consumer looking for information.

This is the reply I received:

Thank you for your enquiry to Gerda Sørensen regarding homeopathic products, to which I will try to respond.

1. The legal requirements pertaining to homeopathic remedies may be found atwww.retsinfo.dk. The proclamation is No. 632 dated July 5, 1994, which is the current one that applies.
2. On Tabacum, which is a single substance remedy, the dilution is stated as D6. The others are complex remedies [i.e. containing more than one substance in one dilution], and we have not stated dilutions for those. You are always welcome to contact us with further enquiries about the individual products. You will, of course, also find the dilution stated on the containers of the products.
3. The father of homeopathy was Samuel Hahnemann. He discovered that the smaller doses that are administered of the original substance, the better [sic] the homeopathic remedy works. Manufacturers of homeopathic remedies have to be approved as manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. Our supplier has this approval, and that is that is the guarantee that the remedies meet the principles of Hahnemann [sic]. Our products are produced according to the traditional homeopathic principles.
4. This is not described in the aforementioned proclamation, by which we abide. There are special rules for the approval of naturopathic and homeopathic remedies in this country [Denmark], as the character of these remedies differ from that of traditional pharmaceuticals. Controlled double blind/placebo testing is described in the requirements for traditional pharmaceuticals.[sic] [...Hello?]
5. The principle of homeopathic remedies is that [substance] which induces [certain] symptoms in its neat state is cured by the same substance in dilution. (See the attachment: "What is homeopathy").
6. All this pertains to the requirements of the authorities to the products - if it is considered a problem I am convinced that relevant requirements will be imposed in the future. Work is currently in progress on a "homeopathic directive", which we are eagerly anticipating. Perhaps this new directive will be able to answer some of your questions.

Kind Regards,
Bente Holm
BIOFORCE DANMARK AS

[After 'What is Homeopathy?']...I am not going to tire the reader of this article by commenting in detail my every question, every reply (or lack of) and the statement "what is homeopathy" - I'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusions from the communication. However, apart from the plain bullshit (sorry, New Age Techno babble) and the appeals to popularity, the overriding impression I am left with is this:

Either the supporters and purveyors of homeopathy are hapless, naïve amateurs driven by good intent and wishful thinking, or else they are downright frauds. I tend to think they are a mix of both. Unfortunately, legislators appear to have been duped by the homeopathic industry, which is no small fish. And more worrying, perhaps, is the fact that educated medical doctors are also in on the scam. In my humble opinion, the judgment of any medical doctor supportive of homeopathy is questionable - unless, of course, the good doctor knows it is placebo and administers it as such. Yes, as I stated elsewhere, I am naïve.

Still, consider just how much of a remedy would be sold if the label read along the lines of: "The effects or side effects of this remedy have not been physically substantiated or documented in any way. However, we guarantee - on The Bible - that it works. That is assuming you have a positive opinion of the product, or you are not too inquisitive. Otherwise we can't help you, sorry. And you won't get your money back". Well, that was mere speculation.

This, however, is a real beauty from The School of Classical Homeopathy in Kalundborg, Denmark http://www.similia.dk/" (emphasis mine):

Applicants shall be able to persevere with their studies, be able to cultivate an open and tolerant mind, be interested in people and seek to understand the nature of life and the World as it is. Applicants must be free from dogma and fixed opinions, and recognize the necessity of [personal?] development. Prior education is not a guarantee for compliance with these requirements, and absence of prior education is not necessarily a hindrance. What is needed is the faculty for intensive study."

Hand on heart: Who doesn't subscribe to some dogma or fixed opinion? I don't think further comment is required - other than the human mind is indeed a fickle thing…Even in 2003.

Assuming "the truth" is the truth - and considering the potentials of potencies…

Let's think for a minute about the implications of the claims of homeopathy as if they were true facts. The following are questions that should be asked not by a layman such as myself, but by the supporters and purveyors of homeopathy. And by legislators:

• Assuming the dilution "works" long after the original molecules, ions or atoms of the "original" substance are gone, how can it be ensured that no "vibrations" are left over from other, unwanted and unaccounted for substances that the "carrier" substance (typically water or alcohol) was once in contact with while being generally shaken and stirred about?
• Can effects of natural succussion be ruled out, eliminated or counteracted? Most, if not all, water molecules in the natural cycle are vigorously "succussed" by natural means at some time or another; by the breaking surf, by rainfall, by waterfalls, by aeration of drinking water, by stirring during cooking or by other preparation of nutrients, by transportation and by sewage treatment
• How can it be ensured that not a single (or more) "unwelcome" molecule, atom or ion has been introduced into the "carrier" substance - or even into the "active" substance (few substances are 100% pure and 100% consistent in makeup) at some point in the dynamization process or before? Both water and alcohol are powerful solvents and will readily "pick up" a broad scope of molecules, atoms and ions along the way - through piping, containers, valves and their seals. With the high levels of dilution of the most potent remedies, the probability of the sometime presence of unwanted and unaccounted for substances is greatly increased. How is this dealt with?
• Eventually the "carrier" water of the homeopathic remedy leaves the body of the patient and returns to the natural cycle. How do we counter this accumulation of increasingly potent homeopathic remedies in our environment? Should the breath, sweat, urine and feces of homeopathic patients, like that of some "traditional" patients undergoing chemo or radiotherapy, be treated as toxic waste? Any such issues can, btw, readily be tested in closed-circuit environments, for instance aboard the International Space Station.
• How are unwanted homeopathic remedies disposed of? Dilution in vast amounts of water will only increase the potency, and they cannot be incinerated, as the resulting water vapor will pollute the environment; to counter the spreading of potensized water vapor in the environment, it will need to be recondensed during incineration, which brings us back to square one. It seems the only option is in sealed depots, like nuclear waste.
• How is the apparatus of the facilities that manufacture homeopathic remedies cleaned without either introducing "pollutants" into the apparatus, or without having to deal with large amounts of highly potent waste material? See previous question.
• With like curing like, and higher dilution being more potent, will, for instance, a large dose of plutonium cure a slight plutonium poisoning, and a highly diluted dose cure a near fatal case of plutonium poisoning?
• On a brighter note: I know this is a trade secret, but, pray, tell us about the nature of your methods, since they could be so beneficial to society in so many other ways, not least in the areas of "main stream" medicine, toxicology, drinking water treatment, fertilization and sewage processing. Not to mention storage and communication of data: Consider the possibility of the liquid computer - it always fits into your pocket, or glove box or whatever - or transmission of data through water mains and sewers. The mind boggles at the prospects.

Summing up

Just by considering the primary claims of homeopathy, and by studying the response I got from Bioforce, I am sure that any sensible reader with an open, but critical, mind and an average level of education can think of further relevant questions and observations of this nature. But can, or will the supporters and purveyors of homeopathy provide the answers? I doubt it - because they should have done so long ago, but haven't. "So what", it may be argued, "as long as it works, it doesn't matter how it works". Wrong, I say, when one considers the implications of the unanswered questions above. It is time our legislators took a genuine interest in these matters. Society is throwing good money after bad with homeopathy - what does warrant further scientific investigation, however, is the fickle human mind. With increasing scientific knowledge of the workings of the human mind and its interaction with the body, perhaps one day we can crate a placebo so efficient that it works on 100% of the population.

` Actually, I can answer some of those questions with these: Homeopaths say that remedies can only be made by people, not random processes; and that remedies have no effect on anyone unless they have a need for it - and only to the extent that they need it, so there is no such thing as poisoning oneself or overdosing.
` Well, that's a handy loophole. That's probably because no one has ever died of too much remedy. (Consistent with something that is safe and ineffective.)
` Interestingly, I could have participated in a study of Qr. Olsen's about proving eucalyptus or something, but since there was no monetary incentive, I declined. Now I wish I had, though, because I think it would have been somewhat amusing.

Steven R. Olsen - second visit... nothing yet!

` Never, never, never tell me I'm not being objective! I will take that as a challenge, even if it costs me fifty dollars!
` That's the amount I paid today for half an hour of Qr. Olsen's time.

` So, what changes have I noticed over the week? Nothing that I didn't already expect. For example, the cold that Lou gave me around last Wednesday suddenly got worse as soon as I had taken the remedy; my nose got much runnier and I couldn't sleep at night. And I am not surprised at this in the least: I had been taking cold medicine - especially at night - in order to get to sleep. ...That's how runny my nose was! But because I had taken a homeopathic remedy, I was instructed to stop taking it and allow my runny nose to keep me up at night instead.
` Therefore, my nose got runnier because I had to stop taking the stuff that was making it less runny. And even though I explained this to Lou, he still thinks the remedy has had an effect on my sinus congestion!
` Wow.
` Also, my cold symptoms usually last a week and five days (whereas Lou got over his in about four days) and I expect to be over it very soon - my nose is still a bit mucousy. Therefore, the remedy not only had no discernable effect on the level of stuffiness, it also has had no discernible effect on the length of my cold.
` Besides, the remedy (vodka with a probable negative amount of lecithin) wasn't supposed to affect my cold - it was supposed to affect my emotions, and I am utterly baffled by Lou's insistence that such a thing has happened. As far as I have been able to tell, nothing out of the ordinary is happening:

` I have kept meaning to write about my problems from being on the Square Patch (starting in late May), but I haven't had the time. After about a month of constant hormone treatment, I noticed that I was starting to turn into an emotionless, not-very-well-motivated zombie. And it only got worse as the months passed by.
` Recall that I had been getting into a really great mood before my body was swamped with hormones. It even surprised me so much while I was writing my blog entries that I even mentioned it a few times. After about two months of treatment, I became so emotionless and passionless in all respects that the contrast made me realize what I was missing.
` Recognizing what wasn't there allowed me to undergo a lot of emotional growth because I realized that I'd gained those emotions, which I didn't even have years ago. Also, practicing focusing without emotions to distract me as much has caused me to get better at focusing.
` For the most part, though, it had some pretty negative effects, such as difficulty with being in a good mood, laughing, etc. I couldn't even feel very content - though I did my best! - nor even happy or angry. After nearly three weeks of being patchless, three weeks of the extra hormones draining from my body, I pretty much feel like myself again.
` Lou, however, seems to think that some of this cannot be explained by any of this mental and emotional growth, probably because the last time I was in such a good mood, I had yet to move in with him, and I was still somewhat shy around him. When I finally did, I was in a bit of shock at first, then I bucked up, adapted to the new routine and began being more assertive. I continued improving in bounds and leaps, especially during challening times (such as that camping trip which took place a week before I'd seen Olsen)!
` With my emotions back in place, added to 'the new me', of course I would seem even more different than I had before I'd been on the Square Patch. How can you expect me to regress back to myself months ago if I'd improved in so many ways? If anything, strong, clear emotions would be expected to enhance my emotional growth and healing!
` Nothing has happened that has not met my expectations, with or without some witch-doctor remedy!

` It just so happens that I only began feeling my normal emotions again a couple of days before I'd seen Olsen (less than a couple of weeks after I'd pulled the patch off). However, that was the day I'd made my appointment with him and I went from feeling better than I had since I had been on the patch to feeling pretty ashamed of myself. For those two days, I had constant gnawing dread, anxiety and embarrassment until after I'd seen him. (And I hadn't had such dread and anxiety for quite a while!)
` So, yes, I had felt like myself until Lou came home and told me to schedule an appointment, and I continued to feel intense emotions, only in a bad way. After the appointment was over, I felt relieved and so I went back to my bubbly self again.
` I'm always changing and growing and getting better - and have been for many months - it's just that I was in a dull phase for a couple of months along the way - I had never stopped improving at any point! Adding my emotions to that not only compounds the differences, but also makes them more noticeable.
` However, Lou takes my extra enthusiasm, motivation and 'toughening up' as evidence that the remedy worked, because he hasn't been in my head while I've been keeping track, talking myself through things, and he also seems to have forgotten the many improvements he's noticed despite that. Also, I would guess that showing improvements while being in a neutral mood isn't as memorable to others as showing improvements while in an emotionally colorful mood.
` For all my efforts over the past months, developing and growing in a different situation than I'd ever had, I am almost insulted that he seems to have discounted them!

` I explained all of this to Qr. Olsen, and he agreed with me that the lecithin has had no discernable effect. He was also quite puzzled about that fact, so he gave me some milk-sugar remedy, probably with no willow bark, which is supposed to reverse the blocking-out of sensation (i.e. numbness), which has been plaguing me for the past four years.
` So, what have I learned during this experiment so far? Lou insists that the last remedy has worked and that soon I shall be forced to acknowledge this as well. But I haven't learned that homeopathy can work, only that Lou will attribute any changes he can (and ones which I've been expecting since before I got off the patch) to the effects of a homeopathic remedy.

The Master of Trickery challenges homeopathy

"Scientists are human beings. Like anyone else, they can fool themselves"
James Randi

` At the BBC Horizons web page, I've found something which is a lot less clinical than the previous criticisms of homeopathy that I've posted: A famous expert of hoaxes and magic tricks, James Randi, challenges homeopathy in the article, 'Homeopathy: The Test - programme summary'.
` And what's the deal with his challenge? Well, here's the story on that - it's kinda funny:

It started in 1964 when, during a heated radio debate, a parapsychologist challenged Randi to put his money where his mouth is. Randi replied by offering $10,000 of his own money and the Paranormal Challenge was born.
Since then, the prize fund has grown through donations and pledges by fellow sceptics to reach a total of more than $1m. To apply for the prize you just need to fill in a form on Randi's website.
So far, there have been applications from practitioners of therapeutic touch, dowsers and psychic readers. One recent application was from a 10-year-old Russian girl who claimed to be able to see using mental perception. When her mother blindfolded her she went on to successfully read out cards held up in front of her face. But when Randi applied the blindfolding, carefully making sure that there was no gap between the blindfold and her unusually concave nose, her mental perception deserted her. Needless to say, she failed the test.

` No matter what, he's never been able to find anything that didn't already have an easier explanation and/or was blatantly false.

Sceptic James Randi is so convinced that homeopathy will not work, that he has offered $1m to anyone who can provide convincing evidence of its effects. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon conducts its own scientific experiment, to try and win his money. If they succeed, they will not only be $1m richer - they will also force scientists to rethink some of their fundamental beliefs.

` Sounds like a sweet deal. So, has anyone ever succeeded?

In 1988, Jacques Benveniste was studying how allergies affected the body. He focussed on a type of blood cell known as a basophil, which activates when it comes into contact with a substance you're allergic to.
As part of his research, Benveniste experimented with very dilute solutions. To his surprise, his research showed that even when the allergic substance was diluted down to homeopathic quantities, it could still trigger a reaction in the basophils. Was this the scientific proof that homeopathic medicines could have a measurable effect on the body?

In an attempt to explain his results, Benveniste suggested a startling new theory. He proposed that water had the power to 'remember' substances that had been dissolved in it. This startling new idea would force scientists to rethink many fundamental ideas about how liquids behave.
Unsurprisingly, the scientific community greeted this idea with scepticism. The then editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, agreed to publish Benveniste's paper - but on one condition. Benveniste must open his laboratory to a team of independent referees, who would evaluate his techniques.

When Maddox named his team, he took everyone by surprise. Included on the team was a man who was not a professional scientist: magician and paranormal investigator James Randi.
Randi and the team watched Benveniste's team repeat the experiment. They went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that none of the scientists involved knew which samples were the homeopathic solutions, and which ones were the controls - even taping the sample codes to the ceiling for the duration of the experiment. This time, Benveniste's results were inconclusive, and the scientific community remained unconvinced by Benveniste's memory of water theory.

Since the Benveniste case, more scientists have claimed to see measurable effects of homeopathic medicines. In one of the most convincing tests to date, Dr. David Reilly conducted clinical trials on patients suffering from hay fever. Using hundreds of patients, Reilly was able to show a noticeable improvement in patients taking a homeopathic remedy over those in the control group. Tests on different allergies produced similar results. Yet the scientific community called these results into question because they could not explain how the homeopathic medicines could have worked.
Then Professor Madeleine Ennis attended a conference in which a French researcher claimed to be able to show that water had a memory. Ennis was unimpressed - so the researcher challenged her to try the experiment for herself. When she did so, she was astonished to find that her results agreed.

Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for James Randi's million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.
The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.
As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water.
Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.
To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been.

` I'm guessing that Randi was relieved because complete failures are much more definite than inconclusive tests:

Jacques Benveniste claimed he could explain homeopathy in the eighties. What happened to him?
Jacques Benveniste published a controversial paper on homeopathy in Nature in 1988. He implied that water had properties that meant that it 'remembered' what chemicals it had been in contact with. This results of this paper have since been called into question.
Following this incident, Benveniste lost his funding from the French government. However, he has continued his research with a small team and still stands by his original results.
His new research takes the concept of the memory of water a step further. He now claims to be able to record a signal stored in the water and turn it into a computer file, which can be emailed around the world. This emailed file can be played back into a sample of pure water, which then takes on the properties of the original substance.
These claims have met with even greater scepticism than his original results and have earned him an unprecedented second IgNobel prize.

` Indeed, homeopathic research in general - as I've already made clear - isn't the greatest, and saying that it definitely works is what people concerned with the truth consider as jumping to conclusions.

Many people claim that homeopathy works simply because people believe it will. This is known as the placebo effect.
A major part of the placebo effect is the hope and peace-of-mind that you get from doing something you think will be beneficial. This requires the knowledge that the treatment is supposed to help you. Therefore the placebo effect should only work in humans old enough to know what a medicine is.
However, homeopathy is also believed to work on animals and babies. Could the placebo effect also explain this?
The apparent effect of a placebo could also be due to other interventions that occur at the same time - changes in diet for instance, or just increased care and attention. There could also be a degree of wishful thinking on behalf of the human observer - believing an animal or baby that received the treatment has improved more than it has because of unconscious bias. [Just as Lou believes that the remedy I have been given has worked.] There might also be an indirect placebo effect - the treatment makes a carer feel more relaxed and this is picked up by an animal or baby.
Because of these possibilities, research (even on animals and babies) can only be convincing if it is 'double blind' and placebo controlled. This means that the researcher mustn't know which subjects have received the test treatment and which have received the placebo.

There have been over 200 trials published that have examined the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines. The majority of these have found some positive effect of homeopathy. However, in such a comparison you have to take into account publication bias: a positive study is more likely to get published than a negative study. Opinions differ as to whether analysing all these studies together is useful and whether the overall evidence comes out significantly in favour of homeopathy.
The critics point to the lack of strong repetitions of studies. For instance David Reilly's work on allergy is often regarded as the best clinical evidence for homeopathy. However, in a recent attempt to investigate the same condition the results came out negative. Dr Reilly believes this is down to differences in the experimental method. Until a result can be reliably replicated in favour of homeopathy in independent laboratories the scientific community will remain sceptical.

` Indeed. In order for something to 'make it' in the medical world, you need lots of definite positive results. After 200 years, homeopathy has not yet acheived this. Will it ever? That doesn't seem too likely, but I'm sure they won't stop trying.

Steven R. Olsen - my Pseudo-Doctor!

` I have quite a long and amusing story to tell you, so why don't I start with the beginning of the first draft, which had been written back on June 9th:

` Lou Ryan has been taking a vial of more or less plain vodka (known as a 'homeopathic remedy') for his muscular problems - which are rather serious, especially because he has a great deal of muscle mass.
` As for me, when I was an abused and vulnerable teenager, I though that homeopathy was a viable treatment until experience with alternative medicine left me suspicious. That was when I began finding evidence that maybe it doesn't work so well. In fact, I had met someone who said he had been replacing his wife's asthma remedy with plain tap water for six months and she still hadn't noticed - nor had an asthma attack!
` So, since I am now living with Lou and thus have access to his remedy, I was brazen enough to replace it with... plain vodka! I even went to the liquor store in Marysville (to ensure that nobody would recognize me) to buy it! Then at home, in front of my SpyCam, I put the remedy into a Special Purple Jar, rinsed out Lou's jar with water and coffee (he'd said that caffiene nullifies homeopathic remedies, though it turns out that's only when you drink it) and put the vodka in.
` I would have used an entirely different jar, but I didn't have one. Nevertheless, he told me that refilling the vial does not equal new remedy.
` Then, I went to the back alley and left the bottle out for a homeless person - within a few minutes it was gone. Apparently, someone took it!
` The vodka's effect looks to me as if it is as effective as the remedy. [Which resulted in this cryptic post.] He's not waking up in the middle of the night and is better able to move while teaching me karate.
` In fact, he's told me a few times; "I've barely been in any pain since I took that remedy! Like I've said, you're going to have to try homeopathy for your bodily numbness! I'm tellin' ya, they can fix anything!"

` Yes, vodka has many uses.

` Sigh....

` I just called my mom and told her what I'd done. She laughed her ass off and told me never to tell him what I'd done because people have a right to believe in whatever they want as long as it makes them feel better.
` Frankly, I think that Lou's belief is an insult to his super-skeptical ways, and so it would be something he'd notlike to believe in if only he knew.


` June 20th:

` ...I was going to post this entry in hopes that someone could give me some advice on how to tell him, but a measley week later I wound up telling him when he had said (during a debate over its effectiveness); "I don't think I'd believe you unless you'd replaced my remedy with vodka and it had the same effect."

*Blink.*

` I was so surprised I just had to tell him, and he didn't even believe me until I showed him the video! After a while, he said; "I knew something wasn't right... only one symptom has improved.... I thought it tasted funny.... Well, I don't feel any different now that you've told me, so what do you have to say for yourself?"
` Not much. I'm not good with confrontations.
` Still unable to convince me, he went on the internet and started reading all this stuff to me about how the reason why homeopathy works, even though there's virtually nothing in it, is because of the 'spirit-like energy', etc, etc.

` Goodness!

` So, later on, I found a bunch of scientific papers about homeopathy, published online for all to see. Here is a good representation of what I've found....
` A recent article in The Lancet was the first one that had been pointed out to me. Here is the abstract:

Background
Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias. [The PDF illustrates exactly what is meant by ‘bias’ and I see no trickery here!]

Methods
Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models.

Findings
110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0•88 (95% CI 0•65–1•19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0•58 (0•39–0•85) for conventional medicine (six trials).

Interpretation
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

` On my own, I've found an article at Veterinary Sciences Tomorrow if you'd like to read it. The conclusion:

The test of science is hard and merciless. Many conditions must be satisfied in order to demonstrate therapeutic effectiveness. The golden standard is the prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. For medicine this is a formidable enough challenge; for homeopathy it appears to be insurmountable. After seven years of investigation costing more than $100 million per year [7. National Council for Alternative and Complementary Medicine (USA). ], there is still no evidence whatever that extremely diluted solutions of homeopathic substances have any effect. The actual existence of drug pictures has not been confirmed and the application of homeopathic therapy has no more effect than a placebo. With regard to the title of this article, there is but one possible conclusion: homeopathy has not withstood the test of science.

` I also found an article about such analyses worldwide in The American Council on Science and Health (January 1, 2000) called Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy by David W. Ramey:

The scientific investigations of homeopathy [see PfH, Vol. 11, No. 4, Homeopathy and Its Founder: Views of a British Researcher] that have been completed and published are sufficient for drawing reliable conclusions about this counterscientific approach to medicine. These studies have generated widely assorted positive, negative, and neutral conclusions. Therefore, it is not difficult, especially if one does not consider the quality of the evidence, to find published conclusions compatible with, or pervertible to, a particular bias. But parading pieces of evidence thus culled does the public little or no good.
Homeopathy has been the subject of at least 12 scientific reviews, including meta-analytic studies, published since the mid-1980s.
A sensible short-cut to taking on the question of whether homeopathy is effective is to examine all relevant published reports of meta-analytic studies (statistical studies of studies) and of other scientific reviews. This approach is not without drawbacks, however. In a meta-analytic study, for example, an explicit and straightforward conclusion may be based on the findings of weak (e.g., poorly designed) studies.
Homeopathy has been the subject of at least 12 scientific reviews, including meta-analytic studies, published since the mid-1980s. From reading the literature that proponents of homeopathy disseminate, one might well get the impression that the findings of these studies are somewhat open to interpretation, and that the basic question regarding the evidence amounts to: "Is the glass half empty, or half full?" But the findings are remarkably consistent:

* In a 1990 French review of 40 published randomized clinical trials of homeopathy, researchers found that most of the studies had had major methodological flaws and concluded: ". . . the results do not provide acceptable evidence that homeopathic treatments are effective."

* In a meta-analytic study of homeopathy in human medicine published in The British Medical Journal in 1991, investigators concluded: "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well-performed trials."

* In a 1992 German review of homeopathy in human medicine, researchers concluded: ". . . The review of studies carried out according to current scientific criteria re-vealed—at best—a placebo effect of homeopathy. Until now there is no proven mechanism for the mode of action of homeopathy. Some-times so-called alternative medicine prevents effective curative measures. . . ."

* In a 1993 German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine, researchers came to several conclusions: (a) "Doctor and veterinarian are similarly obligated to apply the therapeutic measure that prevailing opinions deem most effective. Where there is for particular definite illnesses a particularly effective and generally recognized treatment, in such cases the supporters of homeopathy may not disregard the better successes from their own differing direction." (b) "It is undisputed that homeopathy in the area of stronger potency can achieve effects pharmacologically and toxicologically; the superiority of homeopathy as a therapeutic measure in comparison with conventional therapy methods is at this point not verified. Moreover, the harmlessness of homeopathy in stronger potency is for the most part not verified." (c) "The effectiveness of homeopathy in middle and high potencies is up to now not verified. It is undisputed that with the help of homeopathy, not insignificant placebo effects can be achieved. In veterinary medicine, giving an animal an 'active' placebo and another a 'passive' can play a significant role and influence the owner."

* Every standard homeopathic preparation is a serial agitated dilution (SAD)—that is, a result of the successive ad-mixture and agitation of a substance. In a 1994 review and meta-analytic study of SADs in experimental toxicology, investigators stated: "As with clinical studies, the overall quality of toxicology research using SAD preparations is low. The majority of studies either could not be reevaluated by the reviewers or were of such low quality that their likelihood of validity is doubtful. The number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology."

* In a 1996 French review of homeopathy, researchers made the following statements. (a) "No one should ignore the role of nonspecific factors in therapeutic efficacy, such as the natural history of a given disease and the placebo effect. Indeed, these factors can be used to therapeutic advantage." (b) "As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo responsiveness), these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients." (c) "How-ever, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy given in identical conditions." (d) "We believe that homeopathic preparations should not be used to treat serious diseases when other drugs are known to be both effective and safe." (e) "Pending further evidence, homeopathy remains a form of placebo therapy."

* Of their study published in The Lancet in 1997, investigators said: "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." They further stated: "Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach on any single clinical condition." In conclusion the researchers stated that more research on homeopathy was in order "providing it is rigorous and systematic."
(In a later issue, a critic of the study noted that the best of the trials in question had been distinctly less likely to generate a positive finding than had the trials as a whole, and another critic indicated that preferential nonpublication of relevant studies that had generated negative findings may have skewed the findings of the meta-analytic study.)

* In another meta-analytic study conducted in 1997, researchers examined the use of homeopathy for postoperative ileus, a condition characterized principally by surgical lack of peristalsis and measured by the delay between the close of a surgical procedure and the first post-op expulsion of flatus. The investigators concluded: "[Our analyses] do not provide evidence for the use of a particular homeopathic remedy or for a combination of remedies for postoperative ileus. Several drawbacks inherent in the original studies and in the methodology of meta-analysis preclude a firm conclusion." They also noted that the effect of homeopathic preparations of not more than 12c—i.e., preparations that might contain some of the basic substance—was significant, whereas that of homeopathic preparations of more than 12c was not.

* In a review of homeopathic treatment of animals published in 1998, S. G. Wynn recommended approaching homeopathy with an "open mind." As evidence of efficacy, she cited three studies in which some improvement had been directly observed, seven studies whose data were ambiguous, and six studies in which the animals' condition had worsened or had not changed. In several of these 16 studies, the subjects had been healthy to start with. Wynn even described a study in which the condition of sick animals had worsened as possible evidence of effectiveness through induction of a "healing crisis."

* In a 1998 review of the effects of homeopathic preparations based on the herb arnica, which are typically used to treat conditions due to physical trauma, researchers concluded: "The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials."

* In a review published in November 1999 of the use of homeopathic "remedies" to prevent headaches, E. Ernst concluded that available trial data do not suggest that homeopathy is more effective than a placebo in the prevention of migraines or other headaches.

* In a meta-analytic study published in January 2000, it was found that a homeopathic preparation for preventing colds and the flu was ineffective.

Several rigorous trials of homeopathy in human medicine have been performed in recent years. According to these randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials, homeopathic "remedies" are not effective:

* in the treatment of adenoid vegetations (abnormal glandular growths) in children,
* for controlling pain and infection after a total abdominal hysterectomy, and
* for preventing migraines.

Furthermore, none of the studies that have generated positive findings has been replicated with such findings, the methodological quality of these studies has been questionable, and the better studies of homeopathy have tended not to generate positive findings.
David W. Ramey, D.V.M., has been practicing equine medicine and surgery since 1983. He is the author of nine books on equine health, including A Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse (Howell Bookhouse, 1999).

` Even a lot of the optimists are not convinced, as I've seen in articles such as this one in the Annals of Internal Medicine:

Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based on the "Principle of Similars" and the use of "minimum" doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th-century health care and recently has undergone a revival in the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine (61). More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. As in all of medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value.

` Well, Lou said he'd read that collection, and none of that affected him one iota. He said that the reason you can't find very many articles in 'Western' medical journals that support homeopathy is because 'Western' doctors are paid to suppress 'the facts'.
` There are, he says, thousands of studies in favor of homeopathy, even though there aren't that many that are good. And the fact that I can't find them is further proof of this.
` Also, he says that the last one definitely shows some promise for homeopathy in general cases, but not specific ones. (I don't know... both tables seem almost equally dubious to me!) Therefore, that should count as some kind of evidence.
` Not really....
` But we did agree upon something; if I didn't see his homeopath, then I could not be 100% confident that it would not have an effect on me. So, he struck a deal with me; if his screwed-up leg untwisted, I would go to see his homeopath, Steven R. Olsen, ND.


` August 18th:

` Well, that is what I did, because Lou's leg did straighten out... and then promptly went crooked again. This is because the 'remedy' I gave him had been working at the same strength as it had worked the first time, causing the usual intense flush of the system, increase in symptoms, then reversal of almost all of his symptoms, including his nausea from not eating all the time, his sensitivity to temperatures, adult ADD, etc.
` After about a week, it completely wore off and he had to get a new remedy. However, none of this makes any sense because I simply gave him a different purple jar of another brand of vodka rather than his remedy: It shouldn't have had as much effect, or for that matter, any effect at all!
` However, I don't want to tell him that because, just after I gave it to him, I promised I wouldn't do it again - I don't want it to appear that I've broken my promise! Besides, the effects I've observed from this definite placebo have been quite striking and, um, too interesting to interfere with.

` So, I went to see Steve Olsen this afternoon. As expected, he was very nice, though quiet. Basically, I unloaded my entire life story on him and he used his computer database to find several different treatment options. He barely said anything, much less did tell me what to expect from the remedy he'd given me.

` Well, I'll tell you if I feel any different. And I'll tell him, too, next week. (For another $50....) Oy vey is mir!

Comments on my Homeopathy Prank - er, Experiment

` Yes, there are a few somewhat amusing things that people have said over all this time (via the internet) if you are interested....
` You might be interested to know that I subscribed to Skeptic magazine just after I told Lou about his homeopathy substitution. And so, I got the standard letter from Barry Karr:

Thank you for your interest in and support of the efforts of CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer. We are pleased to welcome you aboard as a new subscriber of the Skeptical Inquirer. It would help us to know how you heard about us. If you could let me know I'll send you off one of our CSICOP "I Doubt It" decals as a little thank you from us.

Barry Karr
CSICOP

... [I] subscribed to Skeptic because the store I used to buy them from stopped carrying them! When I asked why, the manager of magazines told me that they only sold one copy of each issue! In other words, I was the only customer of Skeptic at that store!! (It is our New-Age-Hippie Co-op and Skeptic is like the anti-Hippie-New-Age magazine.)
` Ha ha!

` Ever since then, I've been attempting to 'skeptify' everything around me, which generally results in debunking. In fact, it's even gotten me into some trouble:

` About the most extreme thing I ever did was replace my boyfriend's homeopathic remedy with vodka. The next time he took it he said his muscle pain was almost gone and that I should really try homeopathy because it worked so well for him. He kept saying stuff like that, and I said it was all in his head. Then one time he said; "Well, maybe I'd believe you if all I was taking was plain vodka!"
` My eyes got really wide and then I told him what I'd done. He didn't believe me AT ALL until I showed him the videotape of what I'd done. Then, suddenly, he backpedaled and started saying his remedy wasn't as effective as usual and that his feeling better was a coincidence, etc, etc, etc!
` I should have kept my mouth shut! Now I have to go to his homeopath, Steve Olsen, because saying something won't help my reverse tactile hallucinations (a.k.a. psychological numbness... long, unpleasant story) but not trying homeopathy isn't being objective, and therefore I'm not really being a skeptic if I just say it doesn't work!!
` No, I have to test it out! Of course... he says it SHOULD work because there's all kinds of scientific evidence for diluted remedies and whatnot, and no research that says otherwise unless the government's behind it and bla bla bla.... and he told me all this crap about 'spirit-like energy' and also how great Kevin Trudeau is because he's a rebel, etc, etc.

` Sigh... so I'm really in for it. I feel so stupid. Maybe some decals would make me feel better ;)

Wow, that is quite an answer. Thanks for the info. I will check out your blogs as well.

...Great story on homeopathy - we've had events here at the Center where we've had people take a whole bottle of a homeopathic remedy - trying to overdose. So far no problems.

The decals are on the way soon. The issue will likely take 4-6 weeks. be sure to send us a photo of the decal wherever you place it. See: http://www.csicop.org/decal/photos.html

` Oh, and Barry....

` I'm also surprised at the fact that you 'professional skeptics' have overlooked the fact that 'overdosing' yourself on a dilution is utterly meaningless:
` They say it's impossible to overdose on remedy - no effect is totally expected - so taking a whole bottle does nothing but make the homeopaths pissed off and say "ignorant skeptics!! It doesn't work like that!".
` In fact... [my boyfriend] said; "Once your body gets enough, it stops using it - you can't use remedy if you don't need it. So, if you take the wrong remedy, your body doesn't react to it because it doesn't need it."
` He finds that to be logical. I find that to be a perfect excuse for the homeopath to give any of his patients whose condition is not improving.

` (Unless, of course, if you've heard differently, I'd really like to know!!)

so what is wrong with pissing off the homeopaths :)

Barry

...Well, it just doesn't 'prove' anything (pardon the pun).

Sara

` Ghenggg. I don't think I'd go as far as gathering a bunch of people together to piss off homeopaths... not that there is anything else to do!
` Also, my Skeptic forum friends have had some things to say about my announcement of my 'experiment'!

Doctor X: Teach him BJJ for t3h w1n!!!!!!111

--J.D.

Major Malfunction: The dilution factor for homeopathic remedies is about the equivalent of a single drop in all the oceans of Earth. So, a glass of plain rainwater probably contains the equivalent remedy for every disease under the sun.

Doctor X: Always wondered how homeopathists can trust sewage treatment. . . .

--J.D.

` In response to my wondering how to 'break it to him'....

Pyrrho: I usually discuss homeopathic remedies in terms of the active ingredients.

I explain how the dilutions mean that there is virtually nothing left of the allegedly diluted "active" substance.

I explain how much glycerine, water, and alcohol are in the product.

I explain the pricing and how much the customer pays for a small amount.

I then compare that to how much of the same substances you can get for the same money.

Example:

http://www.buttitout.com/ZAPNEA.htm

Quote:

Active Ingredients: Cinchona 30c, Chamomilla 30c, Cuprum Metallicum 30c, Laurocerasus 30c, Nux Vomica 30c, Phosphorus Acid 30c, Lac Caninum 30c, Silicea 30c, Zincum Metallicum 30c, CarboVegetabilis 30c, Calcarea Carbonica 30c, Antimonium Tartaricum 30c, Hydrastis 30c, Kalium Bichromicum 30c, Teucrium 30c, Histaminum 30c and Lycopodium 30c. Inactive Ingredients: 15% Ethanol, 15% Glycerine

ZAPNEA: 60 mL for $29.95

Vodka: 750 mL for $19.95

Medicinal value: the ZAPNEA probably won't affect you but the vodka could kill you.

People just have to decide if $29.95 is too much money for 2 ounces of booze...which is essentially what the homeopathic preparation above, and many like it, really boil down to.

Doctor X: See if you can get the BBC/Horizons episode.

Sit down and watch it with him.

--J.D.

JJM: Pyrrho makes good points.

It is so hard to dissuade believers in alternative medicine. Many claim that the scientific method is not suitable to study their remedies, because their remedies always fail rigorous studies (bassackwards thinking). [And Lou is actually sympathetic with such bassackwards reasoning...] That is the case for homeopathy, they make thousands of claims and each requires rigorous study. I have read what passes for "research" in homeopathic journals, it is as sophisticated as a sixth-grade science project. They don't have any rigorous evidence for any of their claims.

So another thing to say is that evidence for homeopathy is feeble to non-existent. On top of that, it violates established physical chemistry, as well as understanding of pharmacology. [No, sorry, he prefers the 'spirit-like energy' explanation....] One can say there are surely things we don't know about those subjects. However, if we have no reliable evidence for any of the thousands of homeopathic claims (after it has existed more than 200 years) and it is implausible, it is certainly wrong.

What makes homeopathy implausible? We know of no way to leave a chemical imprint in water after the chemical is diluted out of solution (as described by Pyrrho). Water may be the best studied molecule we know (only hydrogen may beat it), and if nobody has stumbled across "water memory," it really, really is unlikely to exist. [Meh. He would just say that the government is suppressing such knowledge.]

Equally implausible is the homeopathic contradiction of 100 years of experience in pharmacology. The universal, pharmacological observation is that a medicine has greater effect when more is taken, and we know why. Homeopathy claims that activity increases as concentration decreases. As a practical example, surely you know that the more alcohol you drink, the more it affects you; conversely, homeopathy claims the more you dilute your alcohol (and the lower total amount you take), the more drunk you should become. The homeopath says a shot of beer is more potent than a shot of vodka!!??

Articles at www.quackwatch.org and the chapter on homeopathy in The Health Robbers (Prometheus, 1993), Barrett and Jarvis eds., may help you.

Doctor X has another, excellent idea.

Lance Kennedy: Spoony.
A wee bit of history, which may interest your guy.
Homeopathy was a bright idea by an 18th century physician, Dr. Hahneman.
He came up with the inspiration that disease symptoms were the body's way of effecting a cure. Not a bad idea, when you consider the times. Other physicians were 'curing' loss of blood by bleeding the patient!

At the time, the study of natural poisons was well established, and the good doctor knew lots of ways of inducing symptoms with suitable poisons. So, to 'cure' typhoid, he would administer a poison that had the effect of increasing fever. etc.

Sad thing was that his success rate was less than when no poison was administered. Funny that! He tried reducing the dose of poison, and found that fewer of his patients died. Anyone surprised at that?

From this he came up with his great 'break-through'. The more he diluted the remedy, the better it was. Today, homeopaths use ridiculous dilution levels, to the point where no molecule of the active ingredient is left. To get around the obvious theoretical problem, they came up with their own ludicrous idea. Water has a memory!

Recently, the Lancet medical journal, which is one of the most reputable medical journals on Earth, published a survey of 111 studies. These were proper, randomised, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trials. The result of 111 studies? Homeopathic remedy = placebo.

Major Malfunction: 19C Doctors knew more about miasma than 20C doctors. So, obviously, a 19C cure is better than a 20C treatment.

To cure his knee pain with superior 19C knowledge, I would recommend amputation above the knee, with septic technique and without anaesthetics... Well, maybe a bottle of gin, but it's not covered by insurance.

Doctor X: Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science has a wonderful chapter taking homeopathy to pieces, among other things.

--J.D.

Lord of the Left Hand: Have your boyfriend write down his claims or have him give you a website that he supports. Then apply the "The Quakery Index" (http://psorsite.com/docs/quackery.html).

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't.....

LLH

Wayward Son: I'm mostly curious about how good his karate is when he's drunk on vodka. Does he fall over when peforming ushiro-yoko geri?

Lance Kennedy: Spoony.
Why don't you do a double blind trial on your boyfriend?

Discuss it with him and explain what you are doing. Get four bottles of medication, each worth one week. Give them to a friend. Said friend has to re-label them with a code not known to you or boyfriend. Similarly with four bottles of a placebo (distilled water? As long as the taste or appearance cannot reveal the difference).

Give a bottle to boyfriend. End of week, get him to rate its effectiveness on a scale of, say, 1 to 10.
Second week, give second bottle etc. Find some way to choose which bottle at random.

End of 8 weeks, give results to someone neutral (say a University Professor, or whoever you know who is respected by boyfriend). Don't tell which is which. Just treatment A and B. Get result analysed.
Is A better?
is B better?
Are they the same?
Then, after this result is given to boyfriend, find out what A and B are.

Finally, post results on this forum.

Spoony: ` Hmmm! That sounds interesting! I'd have thought of continuing my vodka studies, but unfortunately my boyfriend has some homeopathic powder he's graduating to when he's done with this bottle, so I can't use vodka anymore.

` Later on, I posted Lou's response to the scientific papers I'd found, including the one from the Lancet (in the above post)....

Major Malfunction: I've developed a homeopathic remedy for unfounded belief in homeopathy. $30 per 30 mL vial. Guarenteed to save you money in the long run.

xouper: Maybe I missed it, but how does your (otherwise) skeptical boyfriend come to terms with the fact that there is absolutely NO amount of active ingredient in homeopathic remedies of, say, 30C or higher? In other words, how does he propose to explain, contrary to all known evidence, how water molecules manage to "remember" the shape of the molecules of active ingredient that are no longer there? Furthermore how does he propose to explain, contrary to all known evidence, how this alleged water "memory" causes any effect at all on the cells it comes in contact with?

I'm just thinking out loud here, don't mind me.

[For some reason, spirit-like energy is good enough for him.]

Lance Kennedy: Spoony.
I can explain your boy-friend's response to the Lancet paper. He did not read this paper, or did not read it only. I have seen on Google several responses to the Lancet paper, written by homeopaths seeking to justify their witch doctory. They come up with all sorts of spurious arguments.

It reminds me of a similar search I did a while back on astrology. A study had just been published based on a good scientific study of astrology which showed it did not work. However the astrologers came up with lots of very shaky arguments against the study. So too with the Lancet study on homeopathy.

Your boyfriend probably read about the Lancet study, from the pen of a homeopath who was not the least interested in correct science. Frankly, he sounds like a lost cause to me.

Doctor X: Someone asked me about constructing a logical argument. Learn by example:

chris59 wrote:

Spoon's experiment with vodka and his pseudo-homeopathic-dilutions etc is simply sad. . . .

Ipse dixit but incorrect.

Quote:

. . . and proves his laymenship not only in the area of homeopathy, but of performing experiments per se.

Poisoning the Well as well as incorrect.

Quote:

Then she "received" effect in several seconds - homeopathy NEVER works that quick.

Others claim that speed for some homeopathic preparations. Curious. . . .

Quote:

Also excessive amount of alcohol can dramatically change not only the "remedy's" actions . . .et cetera . . . et cetera. . . .

Fails to address the basic fact that Spoon's Main Squeeze failed to descern a difference between the preparations.

Quote:

So lets leave the idiots' sphere now. . . .

Argumentum ad hominem et Poisoning the Well. If an unkind man, I would recognize that all the individual would have to do to leave his sphere is to walk outside, preferably in the direction of a library with a decent science section.

Quote:

. . . and have a brief look at some sound reasoning.

If an unkind man, I might recognize that as "Poisoning the Well," as well . . . fortunately, "measur'd in manner and speech."

Quote:

IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE (objective experience is VERY important) :

Obviously, "opinion" is not "objective," nor is personal experience objective experience.

Quote:

. . . homeopathy is one of the easiest things to verify, yet one of the hardest to prove scientifically:

Methinks that rather speaks for itself.

Quote:

. . . it is very effective in acute cases but less effective for chronic disorders.

Yet he rather discounted acute cases above. Be that as it may, homeopathic preparations were intended for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid and osteoarthritis.

Quote:

*** Proven cure of baby's illnesses that were deemed to be incurable by other means (orthodox medicine, herbs etc). NOBODY in the sound mind can say that the exmaple quoted by me below was simply a PLACEBO effect:

Waits for documented evidence. . . .

Quote:

. . . my daughter, who had few cases of abscesses on eye lid while being so yound that she did not even realize what was going on:

Eyelid abcesses are not incurrable.

Next. . . .

Description fails to realize child has already been treated with proper medications.

Quote:

2. Scientific prove :

Here he appeals to wonder, history, among other things which, for space, I will not parse further. Absent remains evidence. Thus:

Quote:

3. My overall personal / family experience:

remains merely subjective experience and useless without evidence.

In the rain.

--J.D.

Major Malfunction: If the first treatment doesn't work, your belief must be deeply rooted. Therefore, you must continue the treatment until it is effective. Recommended dosage is 1 mL of preparation to 1 litre white spirit of your choice (vodka, gin, rum), taken daily. For convenience, I accept automatic direct debit and payment in advance up to 10 years, or sign up for my special lifetime treatment plan and save 50%!

Doctor X: DTMFA [Dump the Motherfucking Asshole.]

--J.D.

brainfart: a family friend was completely relieved of a huge goiter that was not effectively treated by mainstream docs, and was becoming quite threatening.
I don't know what the Homey remedy was, though.
So fairly useless to go further than to note this. Not a good proof, as you admit, but interesting to me...

Also, I always wonder why my Ganesh wouldn't drink the milk.

Lance Kennedy: chris and brainfart:

Medical researchers discovered, the hard way, over 100 years ago that case histories mean absolutely nothing! That is why they now test things properly, using randomised, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trials. When you quote the wonderful things that happened to Great Aunt Nelly when she used quack medicine X, then please do not expect to be taken seriously.

Let me tell you my own case history story.
There's me, sprained ankle big as a football. Sent to physiotherapy.
Lovely young female physiotherapist says :" Oh how terribly swollen! You need acupuncture. I have seen it do wonders for sprains."
Me : "No way, Jose!"
Two days later (return visit)
Physiotherapist : "Oh, how the swelling has gone down."
Me : "Yes, and had I let you give acupuncture, you would now be telling me what a great job it had done."

This illustrates a simple point. Individual case histories have no merit in this type of discussion. There is no sure way of knowing what actually caused something to get better.

` Well, that's what happens when I throw some bait out to some hungry Skeptics. Thought I'd post all that for the hell of it. Well, now it's time to forage....