The "scientific" formulation of "life helps like," as I've heard it, is simply "symptoms to diseases are actually signs of the immune system attempting to work. Rather than stifle them, one should encourage them." So, for example, when you have a cold, rather than take medicines to force your runny nose to stop running, one should take things which encourage the nose to run more: the running is a sign of the nose trying to purge out whatever you caught, and blocking it up only prolongs the disease period itself.
Now I'm not saying that's correct at all as a medical model but formulated *as such* you can see why it was not dismissed as total quackery by my professors. Of course the diluted aspect is clearly pure unscientific nonsense.
Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like this:
http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Homeopathy...
"Homoeopathic medicine deliberately mimics or provokes the symptoms of a patient's disease to strengthen the body's ability to heal itself."
Sounds plausible but read a bit further down and see the actual basis of the method:
"Modern homoeopathy was founded in the 18th Century by a German physician, Dr Samuel Hahnemann. He believed that:
* Disease stemmed from a disturbance to the energy field of the body, which he called the 'vital force'.
* The best cure could be achieved by using 'energised' medicine.
* As the size of the dose decreased, the potency of the substance increased."
Anyone familiar with science or medicine should be raising eyebrows at this point - but the best is yet to come.
"These medicines then undergo a progressive series of dilutions, which includes shaking the bottle between each dilution. ... After the twelfth dilution, the homoeopathic medicine goes beyond what is called 'Avogadro's limit' and there is no discernible trace of the original substance left in the medicine."
Note that this is from a *pro-homeopathy* article. They freely admit that the purported medicine is completely diluted out of the solution. They claim that it works anyway:
"Although conventional scientific methods cannot explain how they work, many clinical trials have found homoeopathic medicines to be effective in treating a range of disorders."
Science can indeed not explain how something like that would work. If someone did prove it to work it would be a huge development in physics, chemistry and medicine. A Nobel prize would be guaranteed.
But it hasn't been proven to work, despite their claim to the contrary. In *properly conducted* clinical trials it fails every time. But in studies conducted by homeopaths it always seems to work - and how could it fail to work with these kinds of criteria:
"Sometimes, symptoms get worse before they get better. This may be a sign that the medicine is working, and that the body is strengthening its efforts to fight the disease..."
So, if you get better it's working and if you get worse, well, it's probably working anyhow.
And look at these homeopaths' attitude to boring old conventional medicine:
"According to the homoeopathic philosophy, conventional drugs that suppress symptoms are only driving the disease deeper into the body."
Of course they have the requisite disclaimers about consulting with your regular doctor but they're still giving out harmful medical advice.
- - -
But don't take my word for it. Read this homeopathy page for yourself (it's short) and then tell me if there's still doubt in your mind as to the pseudoscientific nature of the discipline and whether you think it is reasonable for an encyclopædia to entertain such doubts in its category system.
Regards, Haukur
P.S. Full disclosure, I came upon this article from http://www.randi.org/jr/070105quality.html#1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like this:
http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Homeopathy...
"Homoeopathic medicine deliberately mimics or provokes the symptoms of a patient's disease to strengthen the body's ability to heal itself."
Ah! So by setting fire to myself, I can heal my burns? Or by amputing a limb, it will cause another one to grow back? Wonderful!
Sounds plausible but read a bit further down and see the actual basis of the method:
"Modern homoeopathy was founded in the 18th Century by a German physician, Dr Samuel Hahnemann. He believed that:
- Disease stemmed from a disturbance to the energy field of the body,
which he called the 'vital force'.
The best cure could be achieved by using 'energised' medicine.
As the size of the dose decreased, the potency of the substance increased."
Wow... so taking no cocaine at all should get me infinitely high! I don't want some!
Anyone familiar with science or medicine should be raising eyebrows at this point - but the best is yet to come.
Science? We have no need of science when not taking drugs and self-mutilating will cure all our ills!
"These medicines then undergo a progressive series of dilutions, which includes shaking the bottle between each dilution. ... After the twelfth dilution, the homoeopathic medicine goes beyond what is called 'Avogadro's limit' and there is no discernible trace of the original substance left in the medicine."
Um, no, that depends how much you are diluting it. Of course, leaving the lid off while shaking will greatly speed up the process of dilution...
Note that this is from a *pro-homeopathy* article. They freely admit that the purported medicine is completely diluted out of the solution. They claim that it works anyway:
"Although conventional scientific methods cannot explain how they work, many clinical trials have found homoeopathic medicines to be effective in treating a range of disorders."
Like [[Hyperchondria]]? Um... I think that's how it's spelt... hmm...
Science can indeed not explain how something like that would work. If someone did prove it to work it would be a huge development in physics, chemistry and medicine. A Nobel prize would be guaranteed.
Yes, the pharmicutical companies are so horrified by the fact that people won't ever need to take drugs again...
But it hasn't been proven to work, despite their claim to the contrary. In *properly conducted* clinical trials it fails every time. But in studies conducted by homeopaths it always seems to work
- and how could it fail to work with these kinds
of criteria:
"Sometimes, symptoms get worse before they get better. This may be a sign that the medicine is working, and that the body is strengthening its efforts to fight the disease..."
They have learnt the fine game of Calvinball, eh? So have we :)
So, if you get better it's working and if you get worse, well, it's probably working anyhow.
In other news, hell has frozen over.
And look at these homeopaths' attitude to boring old conventional medicine:
"According to the homoeopathic philosophy, conventional drugs that suppress symptoms are only driving the disease deeper into the body."
Really? I'd like to see them find where it has gone.
Of course they have the requisite disclaimers about consulting with your regular doctor but they're still giving out harmful medical advice.
"Yes, the multinational pharmicutical companies will definately stop price gouging once a few thousand children die because the medicines are too expensive..."
But don't take my word for it. Read this homeopathy page for yourself (it's short) and then tell me if there's still doubt in your mind as to the pseudoscientific nature of the discipline and whether you think it is reasonable for an encyclopædia to entertain such doubts in its category system.
Argh my eyes...
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On 03/07/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
"Homoeopathic medicine deliberately mimics or provokes the symptoms of a patient's disease to strengthen the body's ability to heal itself."
Ah! So by setting fire to myself, I can heal my burns? Or by amputing a limb, it will cause another one to grow back? Wonderful!
Whilst I do agree it's a bit odd, you're attacking the wrong problem there - the discussion is the response to diseases, not to physical trauma. Physical trauma may often lead to infection and thence diseases, but it's very much a different context.
(not that I believe in homeopathy, but still)
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:15:26 +0930 Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ah! So by setting fire to myself, I can heal my burns? Or by amputing a limb, it will cause another one to grow back? Wonderful!
I don't think that burns, or the loss of a limb are normally considered diseases, but perhaps they are by some.
James
As I said, I'm perfectly happy with saying that most -- the vast majority, perhaps, but I don't know -- of homeopathic practices and beliefs are considered pseudoscientific. I'd add a little nuance that some of the medical community have found some inspiration in its model of symptoms, but that generally this is still incorporated into the standard medical model (that is, just taking the "like helps like" approach doesn't mean they are abandoning any other medical methods or understandings). Which seems to be the state of things, as I understand them.
Putting something like that in the homeopathy article -- or even the pseudoscience article -- would be great and from a NPOV. But that sort of nuance can't be accomodated through our categorization technology, which is why I don't think we should be using categories for something like this.
FF
On 7/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like this:
[snip]