Believers don't know it's not homeopathic!

[Spoony]

` Yet another experiment more or less proves homeopathy is a placebo.

` In front of a video camera, I poured out my boyfriend's vodka-suspended remedy (for muscle problems), rinsed it with water and coffee (because of the caffeine) and then poured in plain vodka.
` He has taken this vodka since, not realizing that I've switched it, saying; 'See? I wasn't able to do this yesterday! But look how I can move! It barely hurts! It's so great! See? Homeopathy can cure anything! You should try it!'
` He's reacting to the plain vodka exactly like how he reacts to his remedy!! This is good because he's not suffering, he's not waking up in the middle of the night from the pain, and he's better able to move while he's teaching me karate.
` I was laughing at first, but now I realize that I've gotten myself into a serious responsibility, and this is going to be bad for him. I have got to show him the video and explain to him about homeopathy, but I don't know how to.

` What can I do!?!? Does anyone have any ideas for confronting him?

` I'd refine this post more, but my internet's down (AGAIN!!) and I don't have much time left at the library's internet.

[Major Malfunction]

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

[flyer1]

Always wondered how homeopathists can trust sewage treatment. . . .

--J.D.

Treated water cures everything...

[JJM]

Always wondered how homeopathists can trust sewage treatment. . . .

--J.D.

Treated water cures everything...

Actually, ol' Sam Hahneman was either lucky, or clever in anticipating your objections.  At each dilution, a person must succuss the solution.  That means tapping the flask, usually against one's palm, to infuse the water with watever homeopaths infuse the water.  In addition, if you want to do it, you have to be specially trained to succuss with success.  

Although I can't cite proof, I seriously doubt a homeopath can succuss a river or lake.  Jay W. Shelton has written a book Homeopathy: How it Really Works (Prometheus, 2004).  In it, he calculates the succussion slows the pace at which dilutions can be accomplished to about 2 minutes per step.  He figures a 100C dilution takes 5 hours to prepare.  Shelton's book is brimming with information; but, I don't think he writes clearly.

[Major Malfunction]

Anything you invest 5 hours in, you're going to want to work. Even if it is just pouring water into water and "spiritually" tapping the beaker occassionally...

Just make it a double. On the rocks.

When compared to crutches, placebo crutches result in more broken bones.

[Pyrrho]

It isn't necessarily done by hand.

http://www.hahnemannlabs.com/preparation.html

[JJM]

It isn't necessarily done by hand.

http://www.hahnemannlabs.com/preparation.html

It doesn't seem the purveyor here has professional, homeopathic credentials.  I accept no substitutes.

[Major Malfunction]

More than likely, they skip all the "preparation" steps, and just sell small vials of robotically-injected, spiritual-tap water.

I mean, what business is more economically efficient than homeopathy? One tenth of a millilitre drop in the local reservoir, and you can sell gigalitres at a ratio of dollars/millilitre.

Good thing the water companies haven't caught on to homeopathy.... Imagine the cost of a homeopathic coffee? Or a homeopathic shower? Imagine the cost of a homeopathic garden???

[edit] Hehe. A homeopathic toilet flush. [/edit]

[Spoony]

` Hey! My internet's back!

` That's interesting stuff, guys! You mean, they actually have to spiritually tap the beaker? WTF? That's funny. Anyway, I think this is the best practical joke I've ever played, but I don't know how my boyfriend's going to take it when I show him the tape.

` You got any ideas? I'm kind of alone on this. My mom (who laughed her ass off when I told her) says that I should keep letting him believe in whatever he wants to believe because it makes him seem to get so much better, and people have the right to believe in whatever they want.

` Well, that's her ethics. My boyfriend, on the other hand, is a skeptic - more or less - and he thinks that 'true believers' are total dumbasses. What seems to be going on is that he hasn't heard about homeopathy. Also, he swallows all that homeopathic nonsense about the extent of how bad Western medicine is and that microwave ovens have been scientifically proven to ruin food, etc.

` I think he would be grateful if I showed him what the homeopaths are up to... he already over-accuses physicians of doing the same things (being in it for the money, etc). Wouldn't it be scandalous if he knew that homeopaths were the real scandlers?

` I'm just not sure how to tell him. Does anyone have any ideas about what to say?

[Pyrrho]

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

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

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

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

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

Example:

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

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

Inactive Ingredients: 15% Ethanol, 15% Glycerine

ZAPNEA: 60 mL for $29.95

Vodka: 750 mL for $19.95

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

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

[JJM]

Pyrrho makes good points.

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

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

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

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

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

Doctor X has another, excellent idea.

[Spoony]

` Thanks, guys... unfortunately, nothing I could say convinced him. I showed him the tape, and he believed the tape, but he said he was thinking to himself; "But only one symptom has gone away and not others", though he didn't mention this because he's so optimistic.

` And so... now that I've given him his remedy back, if his knee goes back into position, I have agreed to see his homeopathist for $200 about my conversion disorder. What he doesn't know is that what he thinks is the remedy is more vodka.

` Should go now. I'm actually talking to him right now and I don't want him to see what I'm writing.

[Lance Kennedy]

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

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

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

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

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

[Major Malfunction]

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

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

[brainfart]

Didn't you further dilute the original  concentration, by rinsing out the container, and adding more liquid ?
Did you therefore possibly "strengthen the power" according to theory?
A new bottle would have been better.
: )

[Lord of the Left Hand]

Also, he swallows all that homeopathic nonsense about the extent of how bad Western medicine is and that microwave ovens have been scientifically proven to ruin food, etc.

Well I would agree that a microwave will ruin the taste of some foods.  Try cooking a pizza in the microwave... Yuck!

But I know this is not what you mean

LLH

[Spoony]

` Yes, he takes the fact that microwaved food is icky as evidence that it affects it badly. He also doesn't accept the fact that microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, etc. He says that's all 'microwave advocate propaganda'.

` Good point, brainfart. I only rinsed out the bottle, didn't replace it. That didn't trouble me much because he said he had once put some water into the bottle after it had run out, but this wasn't nearly as effective as the remedy itself, and Dr. Olsen laughed and said that it takes a specific process.

` Basicaly, I don't think he will accept any studies that were funded by the government and people who are against homeopathy, because obviously, the government wants people to be ill so that they can be treated by Western medicine. And the reason insurance doesn't pay for alternative medicine in different countries and whatnot is because they want to make sure only rich people can afford it, etc.

` Also, he says, his famous homeopathic doctor (Steven R. Olsen) has saved people's lives with his treatments. For example, one patient was told by a Western doctor that he was about to die of liver failure. After being treated with some kind of remedy, he says, the guy started... excreting all this stuff, and he stayed alive and quickly became healthy.
` This reminded him of the fact that he says, when he first takes his remedy when he's really screwed up, he pees a whole lot. Once, he said, he went thirteen times in one night and each time it was a different color.
` Then, he says, his whole life he's had to eat constantly or he gets nauseous. Unless he's taking the remedy, of course. And stuff about his body temperature changes.
` The way he discovered homeopathy, he said, he'd tried everything - chiropractic, accupuncture, physical therapy, deep tissue massage... homeopathy is the only thing that really, really worked to get his lower leg (which had been rotated about ninety degrees) to really start moving toward the correct orientation. Without the remedy, he said, he would hardly be able to walk.
` He said that he didn't get better all at once. I suggested that it was a placebo effect that worked incrementally. He said that placebo effects only work at about 20% and they don't get better.
` Perhaps, as he recovered by other means, the placebo effect stayed at 20%? I don't know....

` In essence, he says, Western doctors are nothing but drug-pushers. He says that vaccinations are unneccesary and sometimes give people the diseases they're supposed to prevent. He says that homeopathy can cure anything, including cancer, but doctors would rather have people get sick and have their hair fall out just so they can make money.
` In top of that, he says that homeopathic remedies have saved people's lives when they go into anaphylactic shock from allergies. Of course, no one would do a study on that, so it's not like you can prove it....

` Oh yeah... he says I have some subluxations. Is it true that you can see them? I heard that chiropractors can't tell even on CAT scans! Maybe we're talking about two different kinds of subluxation?

` Anyway... he really actually does listen to me. The problem is, any study I cite, he says; "But that was probably funded by the government or something." So it does no good unless I can tell him who funds these things. (Plus, I'm not so good at remembeing such information very well.)
` Also, he says I might even have such a bias to not get better from my conversion disorder that I don't want to go to Dr. Olsen because he's the only one who can help me.

` I'm sure he helps a lot of people with conversion disorder, because it's the mental blocking-out of senses. If you believe you were being cured, then that would probably be enough to break you out of it.

` And by the way, does anyone know any dirt about Dr. Olsen?

[Bunk]

That's interesting stuff, guys! You mean, they actually have to spiritually tap the beaker? WTF? That's funny. Anyway, I think this is the best practical joke I've ever played, but I don't know how my boyfriend's going to take it when I show him the tape.

\

I thought everyone knew about the tapping when it comes to vodka preparations.  Remember, "Shaken, not stirred."

Sorry, there's a James Bond marathon on one of my cable channels.

You better get him some homeopathic valium, then tell him.

[Thylacine]

Also, he swallows all that homeopathic nonsense about the extent of how bad Western medicine is...

Where did this all-too-frequently used term "western medicine" come from? It implies that the differences between modern medicine and everything else are mostly matters of geography.

Science, research and controlled testing aren't western-only things, and neither is the medicine that comes from them. I'd prefer, instead, that the distinction be made between modern medicine and treatments that stem from folklore, superstition and quackery (which are, unfortunately, endemic to both the west and the east).

[Lord of the Left Hand]

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

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

LLH

[Spoony]

Science, research and controlled testing aren't western-only things, and neither is the medicine that comes from them. I'd prefer, instead, that the distinction be made between modern medicine and treatments that stem from folklore, superstition and quackery (which are, unfortunately, endemic to both the west and the east).

` I know... sorry. I was just repeating the way he said it.

` ...And I'm not going to dump him over this stupid thing. He's actually really cool about it and loves open debates, though he doesn't go on about them, either.
` Really, if I hadn't suddenly abandoned my normal ways to be 'underhanded remedy-switcher', this would never have come up. I'm just so eager and willing to be a 'mad scientist' that I've jumped the gun.
` Hmpf.

` Hopefully I will get the last laugh. And hopefully, it will sound like MUA HA HA HA HAAA!

[Wayward_Son]

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

[brainfart]

Lance, seems there could be a connection between homeopathic principles  and the hormesis principle. Maybe just  stop the dilutions at  the right concentration ?   Give homeopathic meds as vaccines.

[flyer1]

I'm just wondering.....

Won't a shot of vodka make you feel better most of the time anyway, no matter what's dissolved in it? I used to like screwdrivers for my back pain....

[Lance Kennedy]

Brainfart.
Please don't compare homeopathy and hormesis, even in jest.  I have had that thrown at me before and my sense of humour is wearing thin.

A typical hormesis dose may be 1% of a harmful dose.
A typical homeopathic dose is perhaps one over infinity.
I am sure you can tell the difference.

[JJM]

A typical hormesis dose may be 1% of a harmful dose.
A typical homeopathic dose is perhaps one over infinity.
I am sure you can tell the difference.

In addition, the fact of a homeopathic cure would need to be demonstrated before any explanation can be entertained.  So far, there is no factual basis for homeopathy.  Bear in mind that each homeopathic claim requires proof.  Even if a homeopathic claim were supported, one cannot immediately tag it with a term like "hormesis," the explanation needs to be verified.

[Spoony]

` It's just odd... I can coexist with someone who thinks mostly the same things as I do... except he's apparently into that criminal infomercial two-time scamming weasel Kevin Trudeau.
` ARRRRGH!
` He read to me a couple of articles on a homeopathy website shortly after the 'finding out' incident. One of these articles was about the 'spirit-like energy' and how it's 'scientifically proven' and all that. The other was a critical article, which I'm not sure how it got onto the website. Perhaps it was on there because it looks retarded to the casual homeopathy believer. (I can't access it again for some reason.)
` It was called something like 'The reason why homeopathy isn't taken seriously in the scientific community.'

` He said; "Look at this article! It's saying; "Homeopathy works, but since most laymen don't think so, it doesn't. Where's their scientific evidence? This is as bad as Intelligent Design arguments!"
` I said; "I didn't hear that at all. All I heard was quote from doctors saying the reasons why they think it works and how it makes sense in light of the placebo effect and how all scientific evidence supports that."
` He says that the government is covering up the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies so that they can make money and this and that and the other thing.

` Sigh... why do my evil experiments always backfire like this? Maybe because they're stupid? And, as he told me, just as unscientific as the other experiments that prove homeopathy is a sham, all of which are apparently anecdotal.

` Well, anyway, I have been told by two nurse practicioners to go to the homeopath if it isn't my money that's being spent. Obviously, they say, it won't work on me if I don't believe it, but it will give him peace of mind.
` Assuming I do go, at least I'll have an excuse to get a closer look at this famous Dr. Olsen guy.

[Lance Kennedy]

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

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

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

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

Finally, post results on this forum.

[brainfart]

Brainfart.
Please don't compare homeopathy and hormesis, even in jest.  I have had that thrown at me before and my sense of humour is wearing thin.

A typical hormesis dose may be 1% of a harmful dose.
A typical homeopathic dose is perhaps one over infinity.
I am sure you can tell the difference.

Lance, the thing I can tell about your hormesis "pet theory " is that you have the  theory so very well misunderstood, as to the end effects on the biological system vs. the end effects on the organism,  general population group it belongs to, or on the species...

If you didn't have such a biased presentation of hormesis to offer, perhaps others would take you more seriously.

I am not responsible for the derisive responses you get elsewhere. Hormy pushers have been laughed at since the start, likely for this reason...supporters with a gross misunderstanding of what they present.

[Lance Kennedy]

Brainfart said "

If you didn't have such a biased presentation of hormesis to offer, perhaps others would take you more seriously.

Brainfart,
Hormesis is not some wacko theory.  It is now accepted by a very large number of scientists.

Scientific American, September 2003; Page 15
New Scientist, 3 June 2006: page 36

http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1004_Commentary.pdf

plus numerous other references.

Hormesis appears to be a universal biological phenomenon of acclimation.  It an organism is exposed to a stressor (eg. toxin) at a level low enough to comfortably survive, then it acclimates by increasing whatever mechanism copes with that class of stressor.   This may well increase the overall survival of that organism.

So, for example, if said organism (could be a human) is exposed to radioactivity at a level well below that which causes illness, the DNA repair mechanisms will be stimulated into greater activity, thereby conferring greater protection in the future.  This appears to increase resistance to cancer.

It's a bit like a vaccine.  What it is NOT like, is homeopathy.  For hormesis to work, the dose must be high enough to elicit a biological response.  Not the ridiculously low doses given in homeopathy.

Brainfart.
I suggest you educate yourself by actually checking my references.

[Major Malfunction]

Well, I can confirm it works with substances like ethanol, caffine and nicotine... But those are easily metabolised. What about bioaccumulative substances like mercury, for example? Take small, non-leathal doses over a long period of time without apparent effect, then one day you eat an oyster which pushes you over the threshold and bang!, mercury poisoning...

[Spoony]

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

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

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

` Hmmm! That sounds interesting! I'd have thought of continuing my vodka studies, but unfortunately my boyfriend has some homeopathic powder he's graduating to when he's done with this bottle, so I can't use vodka anymore.
` Really, the only thing I can do is switch the rest of his remedy with some of whatever I get to make sure he doesn't realize it tastes any different. He wouldn't expect my remedy to work on him at all... unless he has conversion disorder.

[brainfart]

Brainfart said "

If you didn't have such a biased presentation of hormesis to offer, perhaps others would take you more seriously.

Brainfart,
Hormesis is not some wacko theory.  It is now accepted by a very large number of scientists...
...Brainfart.
I suggest you educate yourself by actually checking my references.

Lance, I suggest you read your own reference, plus visit the Hormesis Society for Calabrese's paper " Defining Hormesis".
Both show you to be in error.


http://www.hormesissociety.org/pdf/HETD ... RMESIS.pdf

[Spoony]

` Oh... my... God. I told my boyfriend to read the Lancet article pointed out my Lance Kennedy. I put the abstract on a Word document and left it open with a link going to the PDF of the actual article. (http://www.farmaciasfrancesco.it/Lancet_Omeopatia.pdf )

` The abstract goes like this:

Background

Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias.

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

` Also in the Word document was something from Veterinary Sciences Tomorrow, (http://www.vetscite.org/publish/article ... index.html) which concludes:

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

` I also pasted on the Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy by David W Ramey (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID ... detail.asp) goes on and on, ending with:

Several rigorous trials of homeopathy in human medicine have been performed in recent years. According to these randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials, homeopathic "remedies" are not effective:
*  in the treatment of adenoid vegetations (abnormal glandular growths) in children,
*  for controlling pain and infection after a total abdominal hysterectomy, and
*  for preventing migraines.  

Furthermore, none of the studies that have generated positive findings has been replicated with such findings, the methodological quality of these studies has been questionable, and the better studies of homeopathy have tended not to generate positive findings.


` And what does my boyfriend say? He calls me up to make plans and by the way, what he read was that homeopathy is proven to work in some conditions and not in others. So there, some evidence exists. When I sounded confused, he told me that I must not have read this myself.
` What's even weirder is that the way he talked about it, it sounded like he was only reading one article by one M.D.... so maybe he was actually reading something else?

[Major Malfunction]

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

[brainfart]

That remedy would  fall under "Hormetic" remedies, not "Homeopathic". The $30 is definitely not infinitesimal. It is just below toxic.

And of course, a more vigourous and strong species is the result ( Hormesis at work, to be sure ) , even though the weaker-minded  individual organism was left intact and able to contribute it's reduced-intellectual-capacity offspring to the population.

Hormetic principles are at work - not in that the simple ability to resist Homeopathic remedies confers any great advantage to the individual or the species - rather it is shown by the fact that the individual organism has been Hormetically Altered to produce the more robust individual, hence the species as a whole is conferred an advantage.

We call this " The Hormeopathic Principle". Even behaviours or physiological characteristics not intrinsically of benefit or harm to the individual can be the basis for the species gaining some advantage, merely as a result of the characterisitic biological system being  Hormetically dosed against some harmful agent.

[xouper]

` Oh... my... God. I told my boyfriend to read the Lancet article pointed out my Lance Kennedy. ...

` And what does my boyfriend say? He calls me up to make plans and by the way, what he read was that homeopathy is proven to work in some conditions and not in others. So there, some evidence exists.

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

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

[Lance Kennedy]

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

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

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

[Major Malfunction]

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

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

[Lord of the Left Hand]

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

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

I'm a bit skeptical of your boyfriend’s skepticism.

Well I suppose we are all skeptical of some things.  Christians are skeptical of Islam, and astrologists might be skeptical of acupuncture.  I'm just saying your boyfriend sounds kind of "New Age" to me...

LLH