Physics of Homeopathy

[Squawk]

Evidence that homeopathy doesn't work? Pretty simple, every single experiment under controlled conditions that was started in an attempt to show that it does work.

When something is indistinguishable from a placebo the only conclusion can be that it is exactly as effective as the placebo. Since the placebo is known not to provide a benefit, the conclusion is that homeopathy provides no benefit.

If I were to rely on personal testimony I would have to accept all kinds of things that have never happened. Further, if I have to provide evidence that things don't happen despite a complete lack of evidence that they do the default position on all postulates would be acceptance.

This flies straight in the face of reason, science, and any other empirical process for establishing the truth value of a given claim.

The null hypothesis for any postulate is negative. For an existence postulate (god) the null hypothesis is lack of existence. For a postulate such as the effectiveness of homeopathy the null hypothesis is that it doesn't work.

You cannot hope to make headway in this discussion until you recognise that science, and the scientific method, are nothing more than a means of establishing the validity of hypothesis. The default position is always the negative, the lack of effect.

 

[scalyblue]

I mean, really. All we need to do to find a remedy for any ailment is to find some natural substance that causes a similar symptom and dilute it a hundred million to one with water, so that there are statistically 0 molecules of the original substance in the mixture, and it's method of working is due to some unmeasurable supernatural energy phenomenon that has gone out of balance to make us sick in the first place? Why not a bullet, obviously he's not sick because he got shot, but because his energies are out of balance.

Hm, and botox is a toxin that cuases death as a symptom, so using small amounts of it should prevent death by that logic, right? Wow, and there are no side effects if you get it wrong? That's really convenient, not only is the medicine selectively active based on the patient's belief that the symptom will be healed and not through elimination of the cause of the ailment, but it's completely harmless if administered without skill.

You fail quantum physics forever.

You fail physics forever.

You fail chemistry forever.

You fail medicine forever.

You fail logic forever.

You fail science forever.

Leave, Mr Shaw.

 

[borrofburi]

In general, these people aren't dishonest, just confused and ignorant, it seems we may have indeed found one that really is dishonest, but I reserve judgment pending further evidence.

Fair enough, but from what I've seen of him so far, including his refusal to answer my posts anymore, he certainly seems to be the sort scaly and joe think he is.

Actually, I take that back, I am convinced he's a troll, this is not at all "Karma Singh", just someone who thought it'd be fun to troll us, and so he is.

 

[Karma Singh]

Re: Physics of Homeopathy - last post

Ok folks,
I've gone to a great deal of trouble and spent a great deal of time trying to resolve your confusion around homeopathy.

All that I have received in return is wild, nonsensical postulates with not the slightest shred of evidence to support them or even a coherent theory, lots of complete irrelvancies desgned to avoid the issue plus masses of verbal abuse.

Well, as we say, one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink.

There needs to be a great deal more maturity evidenced here before the claimed title of "League of REASON" can be deemed an appropriate appelation.

It's time to grow up.

Blessed be

Karma singh

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Evidence that homeopathy doesn't work? Pretty simple, every single experiment under controlled conditions that was started in an attempt to show that it does work.

When something is indistinguishable from a placebo the only conclusion can be that it is exactly as effective as the placebo. Since the placebo is known not to provide a benefit, the conclusion is that homeopathy provides no benefit.

If I were to rely on personal testimony I would have to accept all kinds of things that have never happened. Further, if I have to provide evidence that things don't happen despite a complete lack of evidence that they do the default position on all postulates would be acceptance.

This flies straight in the face of reason, science, and any other empirical process for establishing the truth value of a given claim.

The null hypothesis for any postulate is negative. For an existence postulate (god) the null hypothesis is lack of existence. For a postulate such as the effectiveness of homeopathy the null hypothesis is that it doesn't work.

You cannot hope to make headway in this discussion until you recognise that science, and the scientific method, are nothing more than a means of establishing the validity of hypothesis. The default position is always the negative, the lack of effect.

Yes, but in the mind of our professional con artist, we (and decades of scientific research) are complete wrong and immature to boot. We're supposed to accept things without evidence, while he rejects the idea of evidence.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Oh no sunshine, the burden of proof lies always with the proponent, never with the defendent.
"no baseline" really, you need much better evidence than obvious bullshit to get anywhere.

I have made no claims whatsoever. I have merely stated that my own experience is that homeopathy is very effective

Karma Singh

Alright, I've had enough of this fucking bullshit. Since you seem to like being an asshole, I will too. And just for spite, since you don't care for cursing, some GREAT cussing coming your way.
Burden of proof. YOU, read it, YOU are the proponent, since you claim this shit works. YOU, then, have to prove it works. Stop trolling and provide evidence or get the fuck out of our community.

No "baseline". What...The...Fuck?! No minimal results? What the hell does that mean? If you take this stupid ass card thing and anything ever happens to you while you have it, it's because of the damn card. That is what you are saying. How fucking retarded. You are an embarrassment to humans.

You have made no claims, yet, two seconds later, you have another stupid ass claim. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

So, to summarize, you suck. You have, so far, lied, shifted blame, tried to decieve people, and promoted bullshit. And, you have made this gathering of intelligence stoop to having to answer you. This is unforgivable! :evil:

ps $197?! What are you, a scam artist?

 

[scalyblue]

Don't worry, I reported him to the UK Office of Fair Trading for making unsubstantiated claims on high-priced items.

Blessed Be ^.^

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Re: Physics of Homeopathy - last post

Ok folks,
I've gone to a great deal of trouble and spent a great deal of time trying to resolve your confusion around homeopathy.

All that I have received in return is wild, nonsensical postulates with not the slightest shred of evidence to support them or even a coherent theory, lots of complete irrelvancies desgned to avoid the issue plus masses of verbal abuse.

Well, as we say, one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink.

There needs to be a great deal more maturity evidenced here before the claimed title of "League of REASON" can be deemed an appropriate appelation.

It's time to grow up.

Blessed be

Karma singh

Emphasis mine.

Sounds quite a lot like what I've been telling you the whole time, doesn't it?

 

[TheFearmonger]

Don't worry, I reported him to the UK Office of Fair Trading for making unsubstantiated claims on high-priced items.

Blessed Be ^.^

No, I mean I sell the same thing, but it's only ten bucks. Damn price gougers! :lol:

 

[scalyblue]

I expect the speed of light to be exceeded with the takedown of the site, or the addition of a poorly thought out disclaimer.

 

[Baranduin]

Sorry, I'm late and it's a long post. But they're small sentences, you don't get tired. And I provide some links!

It seems, however, that your university neglected to inform you about the meaning of the word "science". It means an impartial observation of events (facts), the formulation of a theory as to how these events occur, the testing of the theory to see a) whether the event can be repeated by following the promulgated theory and b) to test for exceptions which require a refinement of the theory and then further testing. The starting point for any such study can only be the events themselves. Many have difficulty grasping this and believe, as you seem to do, that applying a theory which relates to something completely different is scientific.

You've forgot that the theory has to be falsifiable. All the double blind tests made with patients shows that homeopathy doesn't work. So your theory is falsified.

Of course, the foundations of homeopathy have been disproven too, but that's not as interesting as the fact that homeopathy doesn't improve the condition of the patients.

Well, no, it isn't my Dear; it's mumbo jumbo. "Testing" an informational system with criteria developed for chemical reactions is not going to render any meaningful results. [ . . . ]Similarly, "testing" homeopathy with theories developed for pharmaceutical chemicals is also unscientific because it ignores what homeopathy states that it does.

But testing if the patients are really healing does. Testing if their life-expectance is longer does. Comparing how frecuently they survive or die with different methods does. And homeopathy shows no improvement, in any case, over placeboes.

Contrary to the pharmaceutical dogma taught in all pharma controlled medical schools, the human body is not a collection of chemicals reacting with each other but an informational system controlling those chemical reactions.

And that information is codified... exactly, as a collection of chemicals reacting with each other.

Pharmaceuticals merely intrude into the system in an attempt to bring about changes in those chemical reactions. That pharmaceutical medicine completely ignores the causational, co-ordinating, balancing and controlling systems of the human body is the reason why it is so ineffective, so expensive and so dangerous (visiting an allopathic doctor is, statistically, the most dangerous human activity of all!).

Uh, no, letting a cancer grow with no treatment is faar more dangerous.

Instead of attacking the body with poisonous chemicals, homeopathy seeks to help the body regain the natural balance in which it can easily throw off the malady being experienced.

Ever heard about how dangerous is the dihydrogen monoxide?

Were primary health care to be based upon science rather than profit, bribery and extortion (please check the number of criminal prosecutions in progress against Merck, Pfister, Baxter and other pharmaceuticals for fraud extortion and blackmail before you leap to your keyboard to protest this), then homeopathy would be the front runner on all three counts of cost effectiveness, patient well-being and health and safety.

Therefore, all of you who accept Gravity are clearly untrustworthy - just take a look how evil where Stalin and Hitler and... well, all the serial killers in modern times.

Finally, when considering this matter, you may well ask yourself this question, "If homeopathy and other non-pharmaceutical procedures are ineffective, just why does the pharmaceutical conglomerate need an annual budget of $20 billion for propaganda to "educate" people away from them and to purchase special legislation banning access to knowledge about them?"

Because homeopathy is dangerous and is killing people who is stupid enough to use homeopathy instead of modern, real medicine. Here some cases.

If you want detailed studies of the effectiveness of homeopathy then I suggest that you write to the Homeopathic Hospital in London (that will get there). I'm not a homeopath and have never studied it. My knowledge is purely empirical - It works!!!

Even better, take a single look at wikipedia. See how many studies in peer-reviewed papers supporting homeopathy. See how many showing that homeopathy is only another form of woo woo.

please do allow me to point out that it is your postulate that homeopathy does not work. You are one of the proponents of this theory and it, therefore, behoves you to present evidence in support of your case.

No. He isn't. You - wait, You - are one of the proponents of the hypothesis about homeopathy. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours, not ours. We skeptics would be the ones trying to falsify your statement. And that battle was fought a long time ago. Can you imagine who won?

To date all that I have seen is prejudice, ignorance and "I don't understand it, therefore it's not real".
This is not evidence!

http://archderm.ama-assn.org...
Is the very first one I've found in google. Let me remark the last sentence on homeopathy, just before going with the stuff of the lunar phases: Obviously, there was no significant difference in efficacy between pure placebo and the homeopathic remedy in the context of this study.
You can look for more by yourself. That's the better you're going to find.

Experience has taught me that it not only works but that it is much more effective (as well as vastly cheaper) than the pharmaceutical medicine which you favour. How about some evidence showing that this works?

It's called confirmational bias. That's why double blind tests are used in medicine. And that's the reason of testimonies not being accepted in medical trials.

Before you take up this challenge I should, in fairness, point out that, unlike with homeopathy, I am an expert in the field and the author of many books on the topic.

Erich von Däniken is an expert in his field, and author of many books on the topic. And he has no credibility at all altogether.

I perceive that your university didn't teach you logic either.
Just what DID you learn there?

I learnt that you can't prove a negative. But that inductive reasonment let us say that if something does not work in the lab, it doesn't work at all. Again, homeopathy has been tested and rejected.

If you want to understand it, however, you will HAVE to study quantum physics, informational resonance and Quantum Field Theory.

Uh... No, you have to study bogodynamics.

Dependent upon your dilligence, it may be possible to converse upon it within three to five years.

I'd guess you've studied medicine, to dismiss it that quickly. If not, it may be possible to converse upon it within eight or nine years.

That's too long? Well, that's because in medicine, you have to study. In Bogodynamics, you just has to make unsupported claims.

You will not, however, have any experience with the technology. Just like television, you can either spend years studying electronic engineering or press the button and experience it. Which is more useful to you? Just like homeopathy, you can either study it or experience it or both.

It's distilled water. Thats the technology. I had experiences with that. In highschool.

Refusing to do either is just silly.

You can study shit or eat it. Refusing to do either is just silly.

Well, of course, if you don't take the trouble to find them then you won't see them. There's no-one out there looking for uninformed people to whom they can hand the results of proper studies.

Sadly, that's false. I receive too much nonsense in my mail about homeopathy and spiritual therapies.

However, as can you see, I'm posting the studies supporting the things I say. Don't worry, we don't give you the excuse of having to take all that trouble to ignore the FACTS.

Hmm. Interesting statement. Would be classed as paranoid actually if you tootled along to a psychiatrist.

"My refusal to look for evidence is proof that it does not exist."

Sounds quite paranoid to me.

That's the spirit! Now, I'm sure you're going to look carefully for the evidence AGAINST homeopathy.

Well, you can try the zombie drugs from your pharmaceutical heroes but avaialble evidence shows that they only make things very much worse. Try homeopathy; it can't do any harm and is very likely to greatly improve your life.

As I said, homeopathy can kill. It's not harmless.

where on Earth did you get the peculiar idea that homeopathy doesn't work in laboratory situation?????

Homeopaths don't use toxic substances.

They use water. It's toxic. And no, homeopahty doesn't work in lab. Check the link I posted.

Homeopathy is not a suitable treatment for gunshot wounds. Allopathic medicine, i.e. first aid, is much more appropriate.

Uh, you said that "visiting an allopathic doctor is, statistically, the most dangerous human activity of all!"

Oh no sunshine, the burden of proof lies always with the proponent, never with the defendent.

Correct, and you're the proponent of homeopathy, not us.
Ah, it's finished.

 

[TheFearmonger]

This is from the troll's website. Anyone want to order it? It's free!!
http://www.cancer-so-what.com

 

[scalyblue]

Encyclopedia Dramatica[/url]"]
Homeopathy (moar like homo-pathy, amirite?) was discovered over 200 years ago, before anyone knew anything about anything. Its success was related to the fact that a medicine that did nothing was better for you than the other medicines you got in those days, like mercury and lead, or even bleeding.

The only intelligent thing about homeopathy is how it is spelled. It works under the principle of "like cures like", where chemicals that cause the symptoms you're suffering from are the cure to your ailment. Therefore, if you're suffering from insomnia, caffeine is the answer, and if you're a narcoleptic, then sleeping pills should sort you out.

Because this is so laughable, homeopaths have invented a new piece of stupid to go alongside it. Allegedly, these cures become more effective the more diluted they are. They believe this so much, they often dilute things past Avagadro's constant - 1 part in every 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - by which point there are likely zero molecules of the active substance still present; indeed there are more molecules of your family's urine in the water by this point.

Therefore, homeopathy is the practice of taking none of the thing that made you sick. Some countries, like the UK, provide this on their national health system, and thousands of hours of research have gone in to showing that this stupid idea is stupid.

Whenever you encounter someone who buys into Homeopathic cures, you should give them the Homeopathic Challenge. Tell them to induce severe Alcohol Poisoning by chugging an entire bottle of Everclear (a 190 proof grain spirit) in one go. They should then place 1 drop of Everclear in a liter of distilled water, mix it up, and dilute it down further as necessary. If Homeopathy really works, this solution should cure the Alcohol Poisoning and save the guys life. Obviously drinking an entire liter of such potent liquor will mean death without medical treatment, so you can use this to entice the retard to prove once and for all Homeopathy works. At this point, they could come to their senses. If not, there is a chance they will actually try and do this, causing them to become an hero.

Either way, you win.



People tend to prefer going to alternative medicine practitioners than regular doctors. Apparently, being given diluted water by an idiot, having sexy women put crystals on your forehead, or getting a foot massage is nicer than sitting in a waiting room before being given some antibiotics and getting told you're going to die.

Apparently doctors can learn from alternative medicine. If they spend about half an hour talking to their patients, don't examine their bodies, don't perform tests, and pull bullshit cures out of their asses, then people would enjoy the experience a lot more and would have a more effective placebo effect. And that's what we want out of medical science - some good fucking placebos. Fuck off, doctors, you useless cunts.

One of the advantages that alternative medicines have over conventional drugs is that there are no side effects. This of course is because they have no effects whatsoever.

Nuff said

 

[DTBeast]

I like the books that he's selling on that books website, including "Cancer? So What?" first line on the website

Cancer is a completely natural and harmless phenomenon

which, for me, moves him from your average huckster to actually dangerous. I really can't stand this kind of snake oil salesman, I can't put into words how horrified I am that people listen to folks like this. It just comes out as kind of a gibberish and swearing.

 

[scalyblue]

I like the books that he's selling on that books website, including "Cancer? So What?" first line on the website

Cancer is a completely natural and harmless phenomenon

which, for me, moves him from your average huckster to actually dangerous. I really can't stand this kind of snake oil salesman, I can't put into words how horrified I am that people listen to folks like this. It just comes out as kind of a gibberish and swearing.

 

[borrofburi]

Alright, I've had enough of this

If you indulge the troll, the terrorists win.

 

[Baranduin]

Cancer is a completely natural and harmless phenomenon

I half-agree. Cancer is a completely natural phenomenon. That's the reason homeopathy and supernatural remedies doesn't work.

Don't click those links... one of them says that inquisition was the foundation of modern medicine. *sigh*

 

[borrofburi]

I perceive that your university didn't teach you logic either.
Just what DID you learn there?

I learnt that you can't prove a negative. But that inductive reasonment let us say that if something does not work in the lab, it doesn't work at all. Again, homeopathy has been tested and rejected.

As iJoe correctly pointed out, in logic you can prove negatives; however, this only works in pure logic, when you start dealing with reality, you can't prove a negative with posteriori knowledge, which is basically *all* knowledge about reality and all knowledge based on evidence.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Alright, I've had enough of this

If you indulge the troll, the terrorists win.

Perhaps, my good man, but I had to vent before killing my computer in the face until it died. Listening to this made me very mad, seeing as how his inane ramblings ignored all evidence.

 

[scalyblue]

More info!

http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html[/url]"]"Homeopathy was devised by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) as a reaction to practices based upon the ancient humoral theory which he labeled 'allopathy.' This term has been misapplied to regular medicine ever since. The cardinal principles of homeopathy include that: (1) most diseases are caused by an infectious disorder called the psora (itch), (2) life is a spiritual force (vitalism) which directs the body's healing, (3) remedies can be discerned by noting the symptoms that substances produce in overdose (proving), and applying them to conditions with similar symptoms in highly diluted doses (Law of Similia), (4) remedies become more effective with greater dilution (Law of Infinitesimals) and become more diluted when containers are tapped on the heel of the hand or a leather pad (potentizing).

"Homeopathy's principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult , the characteristics of which prevent advances that would change Hahnemann's original principles.

Most homeopathic studies are of poor methodological quality, and are subject to bias. Homeopathic product labels do not provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be non-toxic due to their high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful.

The ostensible value of homeopathic products can be more than a placebo effect because some products have contained effective amounts of standard medications or have been adulterated. The marketing of homeopathic products and services fits the definition of quackery established by a United States House of Representatives committee which investigated the problem (i.e., the promotion of 'medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which are unproven, for a profit').

The United States Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act lists the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States as a recognized compendium, but this status was due to political influence, not scientific merit. The FDA has not required homeopathic products to meet the efficacy requirements applied to all other drugs, creating an unacceptable double standard for drug marketing. The Federal Trade Commission has not taken action against homeopathic product advertising, although it clearly does not meet the standards of truthful advertising generally applied to drugs. Postal authorities have not prosecuted mail-order product promoters that make unproven claims for mail fraud. Three states have established homeopathic licensing boards. Some of these have been administered by medical mavericks with a history of difficulties with former medical licensing boards."

The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of our solar system. Those figures are correct, startling as they are!