From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: homeopathy
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:22:49 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec29.183006.1832@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>
>Homeopathists know Avogadro's number, too, and will cheerfully tell you
>there are (statistically speaking) no molecules left at higher dilutions.
>
>The presumption is not that molecules are divided, but that the dilution
>and succussion leaves an "energy" imprint of the original substance behind
>in the diluent.

Yes, this is something that I have some difficulty with.  Being empirical
in nature, I tend to have a great deal of difficulty with things that can't 
be measured, and this not only can't be measured but doesn't seem to make
any sense with the way I see the world.  That's not to say that it's not
possible, but I'm not willing to place any money on it taking place.

>>When you have no valid theory to stand behind, you have to stand behind
>>empirical results (which are just as solid, just not as easily generalized).
>
>Just so.  Homeopathy has a great deal of empirical evidence behind it,
>actually, just not a lot of double-blind tests.  Nevertheless, there are
>double-blind clinical trials which show good results with remedies of
>dilution greater than 12C.  As you say, without solid theory, results
>from one trial can't be generalized easily.

That's true, and without accurate double-blind testing, you don't really
have much empirical evidence.  This is a real problem with human beings,
since we are such complex organisms and there are so many possible
influences.  After looking at how much testing the FDA does, how extensive
it is, and how lousy a job they do, it's obvious that testing anything on
humans with any amount of rigor is not an easy task.

>>Now, personally I don't use homeopathic medicine, because I have a great
>>problem with using anything whose mode of action is completely unknown.
>>Obviously, since I don't buy into the theory behind it, using the substances
>>which were developed with the theory is something that I would only do if
>>given good empirical proof that they work.
>
>One of the really nice things about homeopathic remedies are that they're
>essentially guaranteed to be safe, especially as potencies increase (after
>all, they're just sugar pills, right? :)

I'll definitely buy that, and that's why I wouldn't ever attempt to
dissuade anyone from using them.  They certainly won't harm you (other
than your pocketbook), and who knows?  They might even do some good.

>As long as it doesn't delay other appropriate medical treatment, and it
>doesn't cost more than is reasonable (what is reasonable is a personal
>decision, of course -- homeopathy is generally reasonably priced as
>compared to other therapies, though), trying homeopathy can't hurt.

True enough.

>>So I don't mind your using the substances (so long as you don't use the two
>>lowest dilutions which I can assure you are worthless), so long as you don't
>>mind my not using them.  And, as long as you accept the lack of reality
>>behind the usual explanations given.
>
>I don't mind your not using them, as long as you don't mind me using them. :)
>And I accept the lack of current physical understanding as to how they could
>work.

Someone else pointed out that a lot of medications used by allopathic
physicians also had no known mode of action.  Those make me nervous also.
A lot of the more important ones, though (like asprin and most of the
antibiotics) do have known modes of action, which makes me feel relatively 
secure.

>My gut feeling is that homeopathists have empirically found an actual effect,
>and that some of the theories and explanations are correct, and that others
>will be found incorrect when physics figures out what's really going on.

I don't know.  I doubt most of the theories, but I wouldn't be surprised
if some of the effects actually do work.  I'm not placing hard currency
on it, though.
--scott
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative