Talk:Homeopathy
[edit] Cover story
(Please do not archive this section)
Shouldn't this be one of our randomly featured cover stories? ħuman
15:34, 9 February 2009 (EST)
- So what happened to this? Also, the two templates at the top look bad and move the actual content down way too much. -- Nx/talk 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- No one seems to have commented. I deleted the "bullshit" template, we really don't need that thing all over the place. I'm also going to work on streamlining the cover|approved one if no one has yet. Do you think this is cover-worthy? ħuman
19:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- No one seems to have commented. I deleted the "bullshit" template, we really don't need that thing all over the place. I'm also going to work on streamlining the cover|approved one if no one has yet. Do you think this is cover-worthy? ħuman
I don't know of any criteria, but if we can put something in the article discussing any evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy that has been found, with disclaimers about study rigor when needed, I think it will be a good example of the work we hope to do here. BlueMoon 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I've just finished Bad Science, which has everything this article needs to know on the subject, I'll go through and do some cleaning and then it'll probably be worth of a cover article and I'd say "best of".
sshole 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've done some sprucing, and Trent seems to like it at least. Should we move this to cover story approved?
sshole 19:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've done some sprucing, and Trent seems to like it at least. Should we move this to cover story approved?
[edit] Additional material
As we seem to be having another access issue, I'm going to paste up a few papers I want to go over and do them when we have the site back to normal.
When it comes to extraordinary and implausible claims that continually fail the test of scientific scrutiny, we owe our patients more than the usual noncommittal statements we see at the end of most research reports (e.g., “more research is needed …”). We should plainly state that the treatments simply do not work.
- Hopfenspirger, M. "A more skeptical review of homeopathy" Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
142, 2, 300-300 (2010)
Although homeopathic remedies do not directly harm patients, it is very possible that harm could befall homeopathy patients who refrain from seeking traditional medicine. Patients in the NHS could be indirectly harmed if funds are spent on homeopathy that could have been spent on mainstream care. Patients who are prescribed homeopathic treatments are very possibly being deceived, and thus are being treated unethically.
- Shaw, D.M., J Med Ethics 36, 130-131 (2010)
...it has been shown that physical reality consists of two uniquely different categories of substance, one being electric charge–based while the other appears to be magnetic charge–based.
- Tiller, W.A. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.16, 3, 327-335 (2010)
The Curious Case of Charles Darwin and Homeopathy: Two of Darwin's sons were as incredulous as he was, but their observations confirmed the results of his experiments. Darwin was also known to have read a book on evolution written by a homeopathic physician that Darwin described as similar to his own but ‘goes much deeper.’
- Ullman, D, Evidence-based CAM, 7, 1, 33-39 (2010)
I really should have added that this was me.
sshole 20:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, shoehorned most of that in. Although we do need a hatchet job on Dana Ullman.
sshole 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Cover abstract
Just for reference, the abstract is http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Homeopathy/cover
sshole 10:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The abstracts should be linked from the "cover" template I think? ħuman
06:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point... err, I have no idea how to set that up generically. I assume it's something like making a link to {{displaytitle}}/cover but that would still stay in the talk space...
sshole 08:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- We add it to the template that is on the talk page. A magic link, like $page/cover sort of thing. Not hard to do if we try. Especially if we ask Nx or some other bastid what the code should look like. Add to cover story "here is the abstract that appears on the main page" with link. Ask Pi, he was really into this change too. ħuman
08:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- We add it to the template that is on the talk page. A magic link, like $page/cover sort of thing. Not hard to do if we try. Especially if we ask Nx or some other bastid what the code should look like. Add to cover story "here is the abstract that appears on the main page" with link. Ask Pi, he was really into this change too. ħuman
- Good point... err, I have no idea how to set that up generically. I assume it's something like making a link to {{displaytitle}}/cover but that would still stay in the talk space...
[edit] Somebody sent me a homeopathy joke.
The world has been placed on a heightened security alert following reports that New Age terrorists have harnessed the power of homeopathy for evil. ‘Homeopathic weapons represent a major threat to world peace,’ said President Barack Obama, ‘they might not cause any actual damage but the placebo effect could be quite devastating.’
The H2O-bomb has been developed by the radical New Age group, The Axis of Aquarius. In a taped message to the world, their leader, Professor Hubert Pennington, said: ‘For too long the New Age movement has been dismissed as a bunch of beardy weirdy cranks and charlatans. But now we have weapons-grade homeopathy and we expect to be taken seriously.`
Homeopathic bombs are originally made from of 99.9% water with the merest trace element of explosive. This solution is then repeatedly diluted so as to leave only the "memory" of the explosive in the water molecules. According to the laws of homeopathy, the more that the water is diluted, the more powerful the bomb becomes.
‘It was only a matter of time before these people got hold of the material that they needed to make these bombs,’ said former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, ‘The world is a much more dangerous place with the advent of these Weapons of Mass Dilution.’
‘A homeopathic attack could bring entire cities to a standstill,’ said BBC Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, ‘Large numbers of people could easily become convinced that they have been killed and hospitals would be unable to cope with the massive influx of the ‘walking suggestible’.’
The severity of the situation has already resulted in the New Age terror threat level being raised from ‘lilac’ to the more worrisome ‘purple’ aura. Meanwhile, new security measures at airports require that all water bottles be scanned to ensure that they are not being used to smuggle the memory of an explosion on board a plane.
‘Homeopathic weapons are the ultimate Smart Bombs,’ warned President Obama, ‘They are so smart that they only affect the gullible. The only defense is for everyone to remain calm, vigilant and to always wear a magic vibrating crystal.’--BobSpring is sprung! 09:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Goat only knows what could happen if one's water bottle once contained an atom of tritium, and was accidentally "succussed" while being
cleaneddiluted. ħuman
06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that there was no mention of the magic shaking. I wonder how you would detonate a homoeopathic bomb?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- By diluting it more, of course. That way, it will become more and more potent until it eventually explodes on its own. Tetronian you're clueless 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes ... but you'd need some sort of way to trigger it while you weren't around. Leaving it out in the rain?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- You detonate it by whispering "homeopathic bomb" in a crowded theater, with the crowd having been properly prepared by
propagandainformation and consultation with experts about the plot. You might have time to run out, and running out could enhance the effect, perhaps if you were then screaming. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You detonate it by whispering "homeopathic bomb" in a crowded theater, with the crowd having been properly prepared by
- Yes ... but you'd need some sort of way to trigger it while you weren't around. Leaving it out in the rain?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- By diluting it more, of course. That way, it will become more and more potent until it eventually explodes on its own. Tetronian you're clueless 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that there was no mention of the magic shaking. I wonder how you would detonate a homoeopathic bomb?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Quantum Homeopathy
SciBlogs - Respectful Insolence. I couldn't actually get any of the links in the article but it's fun nonetheless. 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Links
Links to comments on a little Australian girl who died because her parents took the woo for truth. Old news but informative. 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Susan! Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 05:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Rebound theory
You can't rebound from pure water Jack Hughes (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be even clearer I checked the first link that BoN posted which talked about the effects of ceasing to take drugs using in measurable quantities. To try and equate this with Homoeopathy is rediculous in that
- Homeopathy is about taking the "medicine" - not stopping the medicine.
- Homeopathy is about taking pure water - there is nothing to rebound from
- This is just another attempt by the woo sellers to try and persuade the gullible that their magic works. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have to admit that there is one condition for which homeopathy is the perfect cure: thirstiness... ħuman
19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have to admit that there is one condition for which homeopathy is the perfect cure: thirstiness... ħuman
- Point of information, the IP is very likely [redacted], well-known to both Wikipedia and [redacted]. The rhetorical style fits and [redacted] of the IP is spot on. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not suppose to to that here. tmtoulouse 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I put this back in for clarity, with certain details removed, of course. ħuman
02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I put this back in for clarity, with certain details removed, of course. ħuman
- Not suppose to to that here. tmtoulouse 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Point of information, the IP is very likely [redacted], well-known to both Wikipedia and [redacted]. The rhetorical style fits and [redacted] of the IP is spot on. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the homeopathic cure for thirstiness be to not drink water? Or should the water be diluted with more water? This is all so confusing. Doctor Dark (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not in the case of the sugar pills.
sshole 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I hear that a lot of the homeopathic cures are including ethyl alcohol as a "preservative". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- So they cure sobriety as well? Cool. ħuman
01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- In fact UK skeptics have produced homoeopathic vodka. Tasty.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- So they cure sobriety as well? Cool. ħuman
[edit] 1 molecule of 30C relative to earth-sun distance
Using WolframAlpha, I calculated how large the volume of a sphere with radius 1AU would be: 1.356×1037 L. Meanwhile, one mole of water is 0.018 L. This is a ratio of 0.75333 × 1039 to one. Thus, a sphere of water with radius 1AU is 7.5333 × 1038 moles of water. And thus 4.536678299286×10^62 molecules to one. (Assuming the "active" ingredient has negligible volume.) 30C is diluted to a range of 10^60. A volume of a sphere with diameter 1AU would be: 1.694×1036 L. This yields a molecule ratio on the order of 10^61. This is still well 10 more times larger than a 30C dilution.
So, really, a sphere of water with diameter half of one AU, is actually 7.08605... × 10^60, which is still yet seven times larger than a 30C dilution containing one molecule. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's only out by an order of magnitude out of 60...
sshole 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Studies that show homeopathy works
There are studies that show homeopathy works:-
- Kleijnen et al., 1991: 105 studies with interpretable results. Meta-analysis based on validated criteria
- Boissel et al., 1996: 15 studies. Inclusion only of highest quality studies
- Linde et al., 1997: 89 studies
- Linde & Melchart, 1998: 32 studies; inclusion only of individualized homeopathy
- Cucherat et al, 2000: 16 trials, representing 17 comparisons to placebo (based on Boissel et al.)
- So can we see a change in this article stating that homeopathy works.-Wth (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps links to the conclusions of these papers might also be a good idea?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to see this matter here:-
- In October 2010 Jayesh Ramesh Bellare, Shantaram Govind Kane, et al., (Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay)
claimed to have found, for the first time, that commercially manufactured metal-derived high-dilution remedies contain nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates.[1][2]
- to show that homeopathic remedies aren't placebos.-Wth (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And may I ask how you are a certified doctor? I don't mean to sound like a Citizendium policeman, but you claim expertise but give no proof to back up your disputes on RW articles.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- More relevantly taking the latest paper (over a decade old) the conclusions are
- And may I ask how you are a certified doctor? I don't mean to sound like a Citizendium policeman, but you claim expertise but give no proof to back up your disputes on RW articles.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
“”There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.
|
- The key phrase is "The strength of this evidence is LOW. In other words fuck off. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Who do I complain to about civility here?-Wth (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- *points to the wall* If you wish to complain about civility, you may repeatedly hit your head upon this, as RW has no civility policy or enforcement. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Most importantly, even if the studies you quote prove that homeopathetic remedies retain potency (and I'm not saying they do), so what? It still does NOT prove that said remedies treat anything they claim to treat. You did not quote a source that, for example, said that these remedies were proven to treat AIDS or cancer. Thus, it's still woo. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And another conclusion - this time Linde & Melchart
- Who do I complain to about civility here?-Wth (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The key phrase is "The strength of this evidence is LOW. In other words fuck off. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
“”The results of the available randomised trials suggest that individualised homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Further research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomised studies should be preceded by pilot studies.
|
- Note the phrase not convincing because of methodological shortcomings. Still not good enough. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it worked, it wouldn't controversial and would be very easily proven. Such studies would be published in Science or Nature. The Cochrane reviews would be all glowing and the treatments would be handed out practically for free worldwide. It's just not the case. Currently any study that shows it does work usually isn't strong enough or with significant effect. It's only because it's quite difficult to outright show "no effect whatsoever" that so many reviews and studies end on fence sitting comments like "inconclusive" or "more research needed". If it worked, it'd would show itself in all studies without a problem.
sshole 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it worked, it wouldn't controversial and would be very easily proven. Such studies would be published in Science or Nature. The Cochrane reviews would be all glowing and the treatments would be handed out practically for free worldwide. It's just not the case. Currently any study that shows it does work usually isn't strong enough or with significant effect. It's only because it's quite difficult to outright show "no effect whatsoever" that so many reviews and studies end on fence sitting comments like "inconclusive" or "more research needed". If it worked, it'd would show itself in all studies without a problem.
- Note the phrase not convincing because of methodological shortcomings. Still not good enough. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)The problem is individualized homeopathic treatment, which is a must - 2 people with the same problem/disease may need different remedies.-Wth (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure we'll have beter 'studies/clinical trials', in course of time (maybe there already is, but we don't know), but let's not kill homeopathy due to ignorance/prejudice.-Wth (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's not problem t all. In medicine, everyone needs different treatments at time. For example, I need a larger dose of ibuprofin because I am a larger person. A smaller person requires a smaller dose for the same effect. But, in a peer reviewed study, it should be possible to make to appropriate treatments for ailments accordingly. So you'd give me 200 mg of ibuprofin and a smaller person 100 mg, and it should work similarly. Thus, this argument is weak at best and complete nonsense at most. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. But if there was a genuine medical effect, it wouldn't matter. All that homeopaths are doing by ththis is showing that the treatment is more psychosomatic than purely medicinal.
sshole 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It ain't just the dosage, it's the remedy also, e.g. Belladonna can't cure a headache that needs Arsenic. Alb.-Wth (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of diseases are psychosomatic today, but it doesn't mean Homeopathy works due to a placebo effect.-Wth (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you can't treat a cancer with surgery that needs chemotherapy. Both treatments should be able to treat headaches that they are intended to cure multiple times over. Otherwise, based on the scientific method, it's garbage. So the headache needs arsenic (why would you treat a headache with a lethal poison?), then use arsenic and it should treat it and any other headache requiring an arsenic treatment. Again, this argument is incredibly weak at best. Punky Your mental puke relief 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many patients of homeopathy have shown remarkable improvements, with even Laboratory investigations showing the improvement. U must C how the clinics of many homeopaths R full of patients (because they've seen results).-Wth (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Punky, the indications for Bell. and Ars.Alb. R different. Pls C http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Ars/head & http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Bell -Wth (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unlike Citizendium we have no rules here that say we have to give obvious bullshit a "sympathetic" hearing. Now shoo. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Telling people to "shoo" and that bullshit is "obvious" is far from rational, it's as knee jerk as people who claim homeopathy works because it worked for their friend of a friend of a friend.
sshole 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- wth =/=Ramadamadingdong just look at the language used! Him (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- @ Armondikov, a rational evaluation of the evidence for and against homeopathy shows that "obvious bullshit" is an accurate characterization. And "shoo" is a constructive response to persistent aggression, rather than encouraging and tolerating disruption. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's hardly disruption. Telling people to "fuck off" for being woo-pushers is just censoring dissent and counterproductive.
sshole 21:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, our main page states: We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. We deal in evidence not abuse. It is possible - though highly unlikely - that water cures diseases (cancer AIDS or whatever). If our editor wishes to present evidence for the effectiveness of water he is free to do so.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The editor has supplied us with his purposed evidence. An evaluation of that evidence is that it is weak evidence, and has no substantial merit. If the editor wishes to continue discussion he is free to bring up more scientific studies, however saying that a homeopath's waiting room is full of believing users is anecdotal and worthless evidence. All sorts of woo has strong adherents and can fill a waiting room with people. In all, his evidence is weak... so, to wth, if you have more rigorous scientific studies available, please share them, otherwise your pet woo has no place here. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's hardly disruption. Telling people to "fuck off" for being woo-pushers is just censoring dissent and counterproductive.
- @ Armondikov, a rational evaluation of the evidence for and against homeopathy shows that "obvious bullshit" is an accurate characterization. And "shoo" is a constructive response to persistent aggression, rather than encouraging and tolerating disruption. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- wth =/=Ramadamadingdong just look at the language used! Him (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Telling people to "shoo" and that bullshit is "obvious" is far from rational, it's as knee jerk as people who claim homeopathy works because it worked for their friend of a friend of a friend.
- Unlike Citizendium we have no rules here that say we have to give obvious bullshit a "sympathetic" hearing. Now shoo. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Punky, the indications for Bell. and Ars.Alb. R different. Pls C http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Ars/head & http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Bell -Wth (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. But if there was a genuine medical effect, it wouldn't matter. All that homeopaths are doing by ththis is showing that the treatment is more psychosomatic than purely medicinal.
- That's not problem t all. In medicine, everyone needs different treatments at time. For example, I need a larger dose of ibuprofin because I am a larger person. A smaller person requires a smaller dose for the same effect. But, in a peer reviewed study, it should be possible to make to appropriate treatments for ailments accordingly. So you'd give me 200 mg of ibuprofin and a smaller person 100 mg, and it should work similarly. Thus, this argument is weak at best and complete nonsense at most. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a point of information, we have evidence for homeopathy as a separate article. Discussing these papers there would be better.
sshole 00:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Homeopaths continue to argue that clinical trials can't apply to them because "individualized treatment", rather than the standardized treatment and control arms, of typical trials, is needed. Some newer areas of medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics) are also individualized, based on genetics -- but they are also testable in a way I've never seen homeopathic remedies tested.
- In such double-blinded tests, the treating clinician determines the individualized treatment that would be appropriate, and sends an order to the pharmacy. The pharmacy then breaks the randomization code for that new patient, and dispenses either the specialized treatment or control.
- With a sufficient population, it is the diagnostic/treatment method that is tested. The group receiving the specialized treatment should, if the method is valid, show statistically significant benefit over the control arm. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely, it's testable. But that sort of test would cost; and I doubt the multi-million dollar alt medicine companies (in many places owned by the multi-billion dollar real medicine companies) would put their money where their mouths are and do that sort of test. If it has a real effect, it can be tested for. If it can't be tested for, it doesn't have an effect. No exceptions.
sshole 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, it said "nanoparticles". Nice misunderstanding of the prefix "nano-" in this context. ħuman
02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, nanoparticle is a term of art in materials science, for atomic clusters 100nm or smaller. [3] Nevertheless, if nanoparticles are present, it tends to throw out the whole "memory of water" concept. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not that there's anything particularly magical about nanoparticles, either.
sshole 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, agreed. If homeopathy does do anything, though, finding out that the technique of dilution and succession is woo, because there are measurable quantities of substances that don't break the Avogadro limit throws a lot back to the homeopaths. I'm not saying that it does do anything, but that their dilution methods are demonstrably flawed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not that there's anything particularly magical about nanoparticles, either.
- Well, nanoparticle is a term of art in materials science, for atomic clusters 100nm or smaller. [3] Nevertheless, if nanoparticles are present, it tends to throw out the whole "memory of water" concept. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, it said "nanoparticles". Nice misunderstanding of the prefix "nano-" in this context. ħuman
- Precisely, it's testable. But that sort of test would cost; and I doubt the multi-million dollar alt medicine companies (in many places owned by the multi-billion dollar real medicine companies) would put their money where their mouths are and do that sort of test. If it has a real effect, it can be tested for. If it can't be tested for, it doesn't have an effect. No exceptions.
[edit] Footnotes sub-section
- ↑ Malathy Iyer, IIT-B team shows how homeopathy works The Times of India (Dec 16, 2010)
- ↑ Prashant Satish Chikramane, Akkihebbal K. Suresh, Jayesh Ramesh Bellare, and Shantaram Govind Kane Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective Homeopathy 99/4, 231-242 (October 2010).
- ↑ http://nanoparticles.org/pdf/960-3.pdf The Use of Nomenclature in Dispersion Science and Technology
[edit] homeopathy and aids
Inspired by this page I went looking in google for homeopathy and aids. There are a distressing number of hits, though quite a few seen critical.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] An apology
I was going to apologise for letting my hangover get the better of my manners and then... and then I looked at the contributions that Wth has made to the Ramanand Jhingade talk page and he can fuck right off. He's not here for a rational debate, he's here to promote hope where there is none and sell snake oil to the gullible. His sort are as evil as white supremacists. No apology required. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Ramanand Jhingadé
How come when I link to "Ramanand Jhingadé" it shows red? I must be doing something wrong - but what?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The character é is handled in some strange way. You may have to link to Ramanand Jhingade Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Bob, I'm half asleep. What happened is that the Ramanand Jhingadé article was created as Ramanand Jhingade, but the author manually set the title to "Ramanand Jhingadé". If you see the source of the Ramanand Jhingadé article you'll see the title thing at the top. If it's correct to spell his name with the accented e then we probably should relocate the Ramanand Jhingade article to Ramanand Jhingadé - leaving behind a redirect. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know if you know but we've been messing around with the name of that article a lot. It's a question of the diacritic marks. I'd be inclined to leave it alone for the moment. I was thinking of creating a redirect but I'm not sure if that would also end up confusing things or not. --BobSpring is sprung! 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The name in the lede was messed around with quite a bit but the article title is unchanged to the best of my knowledge. It shouldn't really be using DISPLAYTITLE if it's mainspace.
sshole 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The name in the lede was messed around with quite a bit but the article title is unchanged to the best of my knowledge. It shouldn't really be using DISPLAYTITLE if it's mainspace.
- Don't know if you know but we've been messing around with the name of that article a lot. It's a question of the diacritic marks. I'd be inclined to leave it alone for the moment. I was thinking of creating a redirect but I'm not sure if that would also end up confusing things or not. --BobSpring is sprung! 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Bob, I'm half asleep. What happened is that the Ramanand Jhingadé article was created as Ramanand Jhingade, but the author manually set the title to "Ramanand Jhingadé". If you see the source of the Ramanand Jhingadé article you'll see the title thing at the top. If it's correct to spell his name with the accented e then we probably should relocate the Ramanand Jhingade article to Ramanand Jhingadé - leaving behind a redirect. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will note that WTH started the DISPLAYTITLE, claiming diacritic usage that does not conform to any known displays of his name, or any proper transliteration scheme for any known language spoken in Bangalore. We're compromising currently to display the "é", as some displays of his name are of this form. However, the transliteration schemes also do not allow for this. As such, we have no good and proper solution but to leave the article in the name without diacritics. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just moved it. Hope that doesn't break anything... ħuman
02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Zomg, you broke it! Hey, happy new year Huw. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 03:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just moved it. Hope that doesn't break anything... ħuman
[edit] Enamored
Please can Ro Thorpe and Eira read this before continuing this little edit war? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you believe I've never heard "enamored of"? But then out here we call all Soda "coke". 7up? That's a coke. Pepsi? That's a coke. Kool-aid? Not a coke. Carbonated water in a can? That's a coke. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should just rewrite it to remove either possibility.
sshole 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- *shrug* probably the best option since the neologism of "enamored with" seems to be overtaking "enamored of". Last thing we need is a grammar war... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say that I'd never heard "enamored with" before today. Google has 558,000 results for "enamored with", and only 366,000 for "enamored of", but the British spelling has 221,000 for "enamoured of" and only 133,000 for "enamoured with". Looks like it might be yet another US/UK difference. Agree that it's probably best to rewrite in any case. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting, I believe preposition use is one of the first linguistic features to drift apart. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that it's absolutely a US/UK difference. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Different to" still grates, even after all these years of working with Australian and UK colleagues. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting, I believe preposition use is one of the first linguistic features to drift apart. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that it's absolutely a US/UK difference. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say that I'd never heard "enamored with" before today. Google has 558,000 results for "enamored with", and only 366,000 for "enamored of", but the British spelling has 221,000 for "enamoured of" and only 133,000 for "enamoured with". Looks like it might be yet another US/UK difference. Agree that it's probably best to rewrite in any case. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- *shrug* probably the best option since the neologism of "enamored with" seems to be overtaking "enamored of". Last thing we need is a grammar war... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should just rewrite it to remove either possibility.
[edit] I have to admit...
I am out of coffee. And one of my thoughts was that perhaps, just perhaps I could take those last few bits of it remaining and dilute them and dilute them again... :( Sen (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] LC-MS
I wonder if homeopaths characterize their dilutions by LC-MS. I can just see them answering that question now: "uhh well you can't use analytical techniques to characterize our remedies"
Anyway, I made this so they wouldn't go through the trouble of running their compounds on a LC.
http://twitpic.com/5tm0u9 — Unsigned, by: 64.201.221.115 / talk / contribs
- For those of us who haven't been in a chem lab for a while, that's... wavelength absorption? ThunderkatzHo! 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this particular instrument is coupled to a mass spectrometer. But it also has a UV detector (chromatogram not shown). This picture I made is actually just a joke... I don't really have time to inject "homeopathic medicine" on the instrument. But I bet it's accurate because there's nothing in "homeopathic medicine". Swood4 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes there may be alcohol or sugar in the solution, it wouldn't necessarily be completely blank on a GC/LC trace. ADK...I'll incarcerate your banana! 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Narcotics
Hey, has anybody asked a homeopath about diluting narcotics? 'Cause right now I could go for some 1/10^28 LSD and Water. That sounds like it would get you so high that your mind would blow chunks to outer space into the Milky Way Perceptron (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Homeopathic beer
While sat in't pub with a friend, I managed to get an invite to a beer festival. Of course, he also mentioned an uncle who likes his beer so may also be coming... and is also a registered homeopath. I will probably need to start reading up on this stuff again just in case. ADK...I'll browbeat your sacrifice! 10:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Homeopathic beer? There's already Coors Lite. Doctor Dark (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] sugar pill
Reading Ben Goldacre's book the other day he made a point I hadn't really thought about a lot before. I see that it does get a short reference in the article but we don't make a lot of it I think - unless I missed it.
ALL the waffle about water memory stuff is really utterly irrelevant if you give the patient a sugar pill from which your well-prepared solution has been evaporated. You've really gone from utterly undetectable agent to no possibility of agent at any concentration at that point. Your special water with its "water memory" or whatever is ... well floating around in the air somewhere.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- The idea is that because potentisation transfers memory from substance to water you can transfer it from water to water by further succussion; hence the recommendation that old remedies be "refreshed" by occasional shaking. From this idea, the imprint of the water memory transfers to the sugar in the solid pills which then are properly set as the remedy. So it doesn't matter (from the POV of the belief) that your solvent has evaporated away any more than it matters that the last molecule of your active ingredient in your 200C dilution disappeared on the 20th step. I agree it needs to be a bigger point, though. ADK...I'll vocalise your steak dinner! 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- One presumes this water vapour loses the memory, as I can't recall any homoepathic remedies being issued in the gas phase. ADK...I'll cruise your clock! 12:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Much homeopathy is issued as gas. Oh, you said remedies.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can I hear two drums and a cymbal? ADK...I'll bake your shark! 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Much homeopathy is issued as gas. Oh, you said remedies.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- One presumes this water vapour loses the memory, as I can't recall any homoepathic remedies being issued in the gas phase. ADK...I'll cruise your clock! 12:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes
Is having two Tim Minchin quotes (thankfully from different songs, well, erm, "pieces") overkill or just enough?
d hominem 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Modern notable homeopaths?
There seem to be two articles on modern homeopaths:
And on companies selling homeopathic products, listed in the article here:
I'm suspecting that the coverage of the two individuals is due to (1) vulnerability of the target and the appearance of the target in internet discussions. Both of these characteristics would select for cranks, and cranks are particularly sensitive to opposing cranks. Cranks are highly motivated to turn an issue to their liking, and which way they turn it may not be important. The articles here will increase the exposure of these individuals. Jeremy Sherr is interesting, all right, I'll comment on the Talk page for that article. Jhingade isn't, he's just a run-of-the-mill "alternative medicine" practitioner.
So, are there any notable modern homeopaths? Sherr may be one. Jhingade is not. Wikipedia has no article on Sherr, but he's listed as a proponent in a sidebar of the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy, along with others who do have wikipedia articles:
Jhingade has no mention in article or article talk space on Wikipedia. There are accounts there which are purportedly him, and two accounts which, by the account name, purported to be him. It's basically meaningless, this was in a day when any account appearing to promote homeopathy on Wikipedia, unless well-established as a general editor, would quickly be blocked, I know many of the involved editors, and there was a long series of inconclusive or "unrelated" suspected sock puppet reports, a sure sign of harassment. (Basically, if two accounts have the same point of view, and that's considered a fringe point of view, many editors will assume they are the same.)
Bottom line, Jhingade isn't notable for Wikipedia, and I don't see a sign that he's notable in the field of homeopathy, either. He's just a crank on the internet, attracting other cranks who prefer a different direction of rotation.
RationalWiki did much better, I'd say, with Dr. Jhingade. At least this community let him say his piece, clueless as he was.
Purity Products isn't notable enough, as well, to have a Wikipedia article. There was a user, "Purity products," blocked, probably for having a promotional username. No edits from that user are visible. However, we can infer that the user created a promotional user page, because it was deleted. There does not appear to have ever been an article on the company, which probably indicates very low notability, I was expecting to see, at least, a deleted article.
On the other hand, Wikipedia has articles on
- Boiron [1]
- Heel [2] Bingo. It wasn't listed, but RW does have a page on Heel.
- Miralus Healthcare [3] (Miralus actually has no current connection with homeopathy, and merely sold one notable product at one time, HeadOn, which ended in 2008.)
- Nelsons [4]
- Zicam [5]
Just sayin'. I've found a few oddities here and there that I'll fix, such as adding the Heel page as a link to the Homeopathy page. --Abd (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Jhingade only got the attention because he threatened to bite much in the same way Mensur Omerbashich did.
d hominem 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, the article here existed first, or is there something else, off-wiki, to which you refer? Or are you letting me know that RationalWiki is really EmotionalResponseWiki? DontMessWithUsWiki? Inquiring minds, at least this one, would like to know which way the wind blows here. Is this about reason? Science? Or is this just a another collection of cranks? --Abd (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Error about an error.
Homeopaths usually state that 30C is the equivalent of "1 part per million";[13] however, this is clearly incorrect as the effect of each dilution compounds the effect of previous dilutions.
The note refers to this web site of a minor manufacturer or seller. Which doesn't say what the text says, it actually says, The 30c potency means that it contains less than 1 part per million of the original substance. That's not "incorrect," since by design, there would be, indeed, less than 1 part per million. However, it could be considered misleading, perhaps. The claim is made, however, in addition, that "homeopaths usually state" this. A single page isn't evidence for that claim, and, in fact, many pages wouldn't suffice. Is there any real evidence for this?
Trying to track this down, I found some sources that repeat a "less than 1 part per million" claim about a page on the Society of Homeopaths, which might refer to [6]. However, that page doesn't have the statement. Has it been changed? I was unable to find any other page where homeopaths state what the article claims. Trillin isn't a "homeopath," and probably just picked up that text from the SoH page. I did, however, find a pile of pages by skeptics referring to this. It looks like they are copying from each other.
Okay, so I looked in the Wayback Machine. The problem text appeared on that page in the snapshot of October 26, 2006.
- Dilutions are made up to either 1 part tincture to 10 parts water (1x) or 1 part tincture to 100 parts water (1c). Repeated dilution results in the familiar 6x, 6c or 30c potencies that can be bought over the counter: the 30c contains less than 1 part per million of the original substance.
It was still there a year later.
It was gone by the snapshot of January 18, 2008, the last phrase was replaced with:
- the 30c represents an infinitessimal [sic] part of the original substance.
However, the page, all along, also contained this text:
- They are diluted to such a degree that not one molecule of the original substance can be detected (after the 6c potency).
In other words, the "less than 1 part per million" was correct but misleading, and the real information, "not one molecule can be detected" was there all along.
What this boils down to is that a critic picked up on an "error" on a page, that wasn't technically an error, and pulled it out of context, and this was then repeated as if it proved something about homeopaths in general. The page is woo, I've no problem with that, there is plenty of real stuff to criticize there, that is standard homeopathic theory, though I have no idea how many homeopaths believe it. Official organizations do not necessarily represent the real beliefs of members.
The spelling error in the correction demonstrates a general lack of attention to the page from anyone. The spelling error remained until February 12, 2010, when all the information about dilution was removed. My guess is that someone realized it had been written by a writer who was his or her own editor. Bad idea.
The page still defends homeopathy, of course. It is, after all, a page of the Society of Homeopaths, which advocates for the profession. The real defense is on this page which purports to give evidence for the existence of effects from "ultrahigh dilutions."
In my view, inadequate attention is paid to this. It's been (correctly) pointed out that those claimed effects would be revolutionary, in terms of our understanding of physics and chemistry. Now, if this were just some isolated crank, so what? But it's not an isolated crank, it is an entire licensed profession, with high commercial activity involved. Public funding is involved in some cases. The money would be there, or should be there, for conclusive research.
What I've seen, so far, isn't conclusive (in spite of the claims on the SoH page, that's fluff, woo, i.e., what may be "evidence" -- perhaps -- is presented as if it were proof. But I haven't reviewed that evidence in detail, and the examinations I've seen so far have been heavily contaminated by a-priori assumptions (in either direction, and the truth might be in some third direction!) --Abd (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] On those sugar remedies.
There were some 'homeopathic' remedies in Soviet Union, those basically had low doses (but not insanely diluted) of various stuff, in sugar pellet form just like that picture. I know because my mom were getting some sleep and heart ones. They just had regular herbal stuff, at low concentrations but not insanely diluted. I.e. not below 10^-7. Other thing about homeopathy, is that you are supposed to take it very regularly by clock, which is incredibly annoying, and reminds me of the acne remedy by annoying the hell out of person with the treatment, so that person stops caring about acne so much, and then the acne goes away. Some disorders do seem to result from a sort of reverse placebo effect. Of course that ain't going to work for anything serious though. Still, with the heart issues like rhythm and such, there's certain degree of voluntary control, and a possibility of real disorders stemming from purely psychosomatic stuff; for those the annoying-to-comply-with near-placebo could be quite effective. When someone is prone to hypochondria, they may seek confirmation of illness, and if you are listening to your heart rate trying to catch some signs of disease it is not too impossible for the brain to produce those. It's easy to speed up your heart rate voluntarily. Dmytry (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Soooo - it's all placebo then?--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- not sure actually, they weren't super diluted, and mostly contained various active herbal stuff. I guess soviet union took utilitarian approach to the problem - some people are into crank, and the placebo effect works very well for stuff like insomnia and somewhat okay for some of the heart conditions, so, let's give 'em the crank, with a bit of actual meds in it. I'll update when i find any old bag with them. For the psychological stuff like depression, there's very little difference between placebos and active drugs, possibly explainable by un-blinding alone. Dmytry (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] On mass-produced homeopathic remedies
- Even if this is the case then mass produced cures will not work. This is the absolute basic rule of homeopathy.
There are multiple schools of thought among homeopaths, and the above is only true of "classical" homeopaths (or whatever you want to call them).
- The reason that proponents say that you can not use double blind test is because each and every single cure must be tailor made to the specific person it is to be used on.
Oh, but the non-classical homeopaths have an answer for that. You see, it's only most conditions which need individualized remedies; some of them don't. So you get a "heads I win, tails it's a tie" situation where any study of mass-produced remedies which comes up negative can be dismissed while any which come up positive are evidence for homeopathy. -- Matthew Cline (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Those homeopaths are tricksy ones.
pathetic 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Add section about 'Big-Homeo"?
I was looking around for information on how much money is made by homeopaths and corporations producing homeopathic medicine sugar pills. I want to use it for combating the 'Big-Pharma' vs the little guy mindset and show that it is really 'Big-Homeo' vs reason. I figured if we can get some of those numbers it might be worth it to put in a section about it in this article. I still have not found concrete numbers on the subject though. Any ideas? Colincbn (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- IIRC the alt med industry isn't even 10% of "Big Pharma" when it comes to turnover. Bad Science has some numbers in it, but it's hard to compare as there's a difference between cost, total turnover, profit, R&D expense...
moral 10:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- R&D? Homeopathy? Not a big cost I'd guess.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely. You can easily spend $150 million bringing a drug to market and you have 5 years (or 7? I can't quite remember sans Google) to recoup that before the patent wears off and other people can sell that structure. By comparison, homeopathy just requires some people to write some shite in a diary for a couple of days while drinking water. So the cash that's churned through "Big Pharma" cannot easily be compared to alternative medicine.
theist 13:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The $150 million is just the average clinical trial through Phase III. And remember, about ¼ of the drugs that get to Phase III fail, and never make it to market. And the failures of drugs in Pre-clinical, Phase I and Phase II are much higher. Amortize all those costs over all marketed drugs…well you see what happens. Moreover, pharmaceutical manufacturers cannot make broad claims, only what is shown in the randomized clinical trials. The oft-told story about Viagra is famous in the pharmaceutical industry. Though it works to raise blood pressure (yes, there are times when you need it ), during Phase II and III, the researchers noticed a 100% side effect of the drug. But they couldn't then launch it for ED, they had to go back and start the trial all over again (though some of us in the know, were able to obtain it for "research purposes only").
- Big Herbal (that's what I've always called it) has NO R&D costs. They don't have to do dose-response studies. They don't have to do randomized clinical trials. They don't have to stick with one claim, they can say whatever they want. And they don't have to prove that anything does anything. Everyone complains that drugs have a huge gross margin (probably around 80-90%), but that's before the cost of R&D, marketing, sales, and investment costs (in manufacturing). That drops the net margin down to 30-40%, much of which has to be invested into the next round of R&D. And an important item to note is that a "placebo" is considered a miserable failure in drug research. Most of us on the drug side know that the placebo effect is nonsense, except for a small number of situations, and the effect is probably a result of confirmation bias or randomness rather than a clinical effect. Placebos don't cure cancer, for example.
- Somewhere I have exact numbers on this, and I'll try to find it for you guys. But the numbers are much more ridiculous than than a comparison of direct sales of drugs vs. Big Herbal. By the way, a few medical skeptics call homeopathy "Big Water." My favorite, personally. SkepticalRaptor®™ 18:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have the experience with the material required to write something up, but I would totally mention this ^ on the page. 'Big Pharma' is often associated with the poor sick people money going to line a rich man's wallet at their expense... when in reality practices like alt-med (including homeopathy) have few additional costs aside from manufacturing, distribution, marketing, etc; their oft-decried images of illness profiteering fit them to a T more than they fit evidence-based medicine. ±
KnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 19:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yet, according to the chiropractors and osteopaths at SitP a few months ago, they're all skint and can't afford to do those trials - hence why they're not done. This is another apples and oranges thing; a major component of the alt med industry is individual practitioners working on their own privately. They do enough work to pay their own wage (though the economic downturn apparently suggests people aren't wasting as much money on altie stuff now), but not really enough to run an RCT of their wares, even if they really wanted to. Now, those aren't "Big Herbal" or whatever, but you don't get those people in actual medicine. No one sets up their own little home-office shop to sell a proper drug and run trials of it. Hence direct comparisons, pound-for-pound and dollar-for-dollar, are possibly not as enlightening as you might think. They'd either not be comparing like with like, or they'd be comparing with only a small sub set of alt med.
pathetic 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm getting your point, but it seems like you're excusing Big Herbal for not doing clinical trials because they're too small? Sorry, but I don't buy that. A lot of startup medical device and pharmaceutical companies go through the trouble to bring products to market with massive clinical trials. If it works, they make money. If it doesn't, too bad. I guess chiro people don't want to take the risk that their nonsense will be shown as nonsense. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. SkepticalRaptor®™ 00:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Big Quacka???? LOL SkepticalRaptor®™ 00:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm getting your point, but it seems like you're excusing Big Herbal for not doing clinical trials because they're too small? Sorry, but I don't buy that. A lot of startup medical device and pharmaceutical companies go through the trouble to bring products to market with massive clinical trials. If it works, they make money. If it doesn't, too bad. I guess chiro people don't want to take the risk that their nonsense will be shown as nonsense. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. SkepticalRaptor®™ 00:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yet, according to the chiropractors and osteopaths at SitP a few months ago, they're all skint and can't afford to do those trials - hence why they're not done. This is another apples and oranges thing; a major component of the alt med industry is individual practitioners working on their own privately. They do enough work to pay their own wage (though the economic downturn apparently suggests people aren't wasting as much money on altie stuff now), but not really enough to run an RCT of their wares, even if they really wanted to. Now, those aren't "Big Herbal" or whatever, but you don't get those people in actual medicine. No one sets up their own little home-office shop to sell a proper drug and run trials of it. Hence direct comparisons, pound-for-pound and dollar-for-dollar, are possibly not as enlightening as you might think. They'd either not be comparing like with like, or they'd be comparing with only a small sub set of alt med.
- I don't have the experience with the material required to write something up, but I would totally mention this ^ on the page. 'Big Pharma' is often associated with the poor sick people money going to line a rich man's wallet at their expense... when in reality practices like alt-med (including homeopathy) have few additional costs aside from manufacturing, distribution, marketing, etc; their oft-decried images of illness profiteering fit them to a T more than they fit evidence-based medicine. ±
- Precisely. You can easily spend $150 million bringing a drug to market and you have 5 years (or 7? I can't quite remember sans Google) to recoup that before the patent wears off and other people can sell that structure. By comparison, homeopathy just requires some people to write some shite in a diary for a couple of days while drinking water. So the cash that's churned through "Big Pharma" cannot easily be compared to alternative medicine.
- R&D? Homeopathy? Not a big cost I'd guess.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
According to IMS Health (which is the largest, and really only, market research company for healthcare products), the ]US Market for pharmaceuticals is around $320 billion-ish. Now remember that includes everything from $50,000 drugs for certain cancers to $5 for a 30 day supply of warfarin. Of that $320 billion, total net after tax profits are around 32-50 billion. Alt med is around a $650 MILLION industry. These are the rough estimates, and there's a lot of oranges to apples comparisons. SkepticalRaptor®™ 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- They're small as in one person working in their room doing massage and reflexology. You cannot meaningfully compare the flux of money in that sort of system to one in proper medicine. You simply can't. No, it's not an excuse, they simply shouldn't be peddling it without proof, but a significant proportion of what goes on in the alt med world can't be sloppily prefixed with "Big". Therefore direct comparison of the money being churned through the respective industries isn't a useful measure of, well, anything.
gnostic 01:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think the original suggestion was just to describe the money made in the "alt med" industry, rather than compare it to the "medicine that works" one. It'd help point out that "Big Herbal-Water-Homo" exists as well, rather than the market consisting solely of Mom 'n' Pop remedies. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly doesn't entirely consist of lone practitioners - not least you can buy the mass produced stuff in Boots. Mostly, though, this "Big" prefix is getting immensely out of hand and is getting applied to everything these days. It's losing its ability to mean anything.
d hominem 01:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd agree it's kind of a silly way to put it. The message that big companies exploit this market (just like all the other ones) is something that some homeo-advocates seem to deny or ignore, though, so it might bear more mention (or just more oh-so-fun statistics and citations). 99.50.98.145 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- All-natural diet supplements! (Brought to you by Big Pharma!) All-natural organic food! (Brought to you by Cargill!) Have I ever told you I love the anti-corporate alties and New Agers? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I spent my whole working life in Big Pharma. I hate alties, not because they'd reduce our corporate income by 0.0000001%. I hate alties because people who need real treatments for real diseases think that a bottle of water will cure them. Too many stories about people who delayed treatment for a week or six months, and then it's too late. Because, actually most people in Big Pharma are obsessed with giving people better lives. I did not sit around in my office with mahogany and 10 secretaries thinking of ways to make more money. I thought of ways to help people that also made boatloads of money. I only had 2 secretaries. SkepticalRaptor®™ 03:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- All-natural diet supplements! (Brought to you by Big Pharma!) All-natural organic food! (Brought to you by Cargill!) Have I ever told you I love the anti-corporate alties and New Agers? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd agree it's kind of a silly way to put it. The message that big companies exploit this market (just like all the other ones) is something that some homeo-advocates seem to deny or ignore, though, so it might bear more mention (or just more oh-so-fun statistics and citations). 99.50.98.145 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly doesn't entirely consist of lone practitioners - not least you can buy the mass produced stuff in Boots. Mostly, though, this "Big" prefix is getting immensely out of hand and is getting applied to everything these days. It's losing its ability to mean anything.
- Well, I think the original suggestion was just to describe the money made in the "alt med" industry, rather than compare it to the "medicine that works" one. It'd help point out that "Big Herbal-Water-Homo" exists as well, rather than the market consisting solely of Mom 'n' Pop remedies. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Rogue's gallery
Add Heather Mills to the list of homeopathy advocates. Source: BBC Breakfast interview, this day. 84.203.35.146 (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] What is the Placebo effect?
Um... What is it? If you believe it, you will get better? Um... What force drives that then? What actually causes the placebo to work? 2.101.140.64 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The placebo effect is not "You will GET better", it is "You will FEEL better," through a combination of endorphin release and anxiety reduction (which reduces the release of stress hormones). The placebo effect can be completely blocked by administering drugs that block the action of opiods, showing that the placebo effect is an endorphin effect, since endorphins are more or less endogenous opiods. Taking a placebo might, for example, make your cancer pain less terrible, but it won't do anything to stop the cancer; you might feel less pain from arthritis, but the inflammation and joint damage would continue. Similarly, the "nocebo" effect makes you FEEL worse, but doesn't actually do any damage, unless you get so scared and upset that you stress yourself into a coronary or stroke.
So taking sugar pills -- or homeopathic potions -- might help your body by tricking it into releasing its own painkillers, but neither will do anything to treat any underlying condition. Of course, for conditions like fibromyalgia where the only recognizable symptom is "Ow it HURTS!", a placebo IS a cure if it removes the pain. — Unsigned, by: Maytree / talk / contribs
- Doesn't sugar make you feel good though? So is it a purely psychological effect? Forces (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Succussion
"The container is then shaken 10 times or whacked against a piece of wood 10 times, a procedure homeopaths call succussion."
I seem to remember once hearing that Hahnemann specified that you had to whack it 10 times against a Bible for a really good result. (The container, that is. Wash your brain out with soap.) Any evidence, or is that just an urban legend? ProblemChimp (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] CCRH
CCRH is a research council under the AYUSH. See [7]. --Homeopath (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're not lying. This pseudoscience is given official recognition in India. Their "research" appears to only document what disease they intend to test with no hint of actual results. The is a top-tier waste of resources, but it's real, and needs to be documented as such. Section needs more snark though. Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I know the medicine is given official recognition, but theirs is not a government site and it would have been good to have the governmental Indian Medicine site as a reference. The CCRH site does look like a 12 year old created it with an old version of Dreamweaver, only in badly spelled English, and the other references asking them for studies are about trying to find a less costly alternative to actual medicine (Zee News reference in the page). The Telegraph has also published some pretty harsh criticisms of the CCRH's "trials" as a horrible waste of resources and failure to even reach the level of clinical trials they claim. The statements in the subsection just seem too positive compared to the reality of the failures of homeopathy, and it is sickening they waste money on this crap while at the same time moaning about how people cannot afford real treatments. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"The organisation had moved the apex court following the doctor’s failure to convince the Union ministry of health and family welfare’s department `Ayush` and the Council to hold clinical trial of the drug for cancer treatment." [8] --Homeopath (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch legislation
Since 2012, Homeopathy gets treated as more of a medicine in Dutch law. This means that, among other things, specific indications must be backed up by evidence as approved by the Dutch FDA. The homeopaths of course cried foul because since they were no longer able put any specific indications on the packaging or in the leaflet (it often reads like so-and-so is a homeopathic medicine without any specific therapeutic indication). Some licences have even been withdrawn... I think this would be a good addition to the page, but I'm not sure which section? I'm a but hesitant to just edit the page since it's gold status :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Australian government statement thing
Can someone who can write sentences add to the article that the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has concluded "there is no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions."? - π 05:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)