From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Subject: Re: Scientific Basis for Homeopathy?
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:34:33 GMT

In <1993Jan24.154907.17006@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
writes:

[...]

>There is no scientific or economic reason these provings could not be
>done in a more rigorously scientific fashion.  The adequacy of these
>studies is of the utmost importance, as they are the cornerstone upon
>which homeopathic medicine is based.  As they stand currently, these
>provings create even more doubt in my mind as to the validity of
>homeopathy.

Dr. Kaplan, first let me thank you for the great deal of time and
energy you've spent analyzing homeopathy here.

Basically from the get-go, though, I think most of us would agree that
homeopathy is unproven.  The law of similars has some valid examples, but
it's just as easy to come up with counter-examples.  The principle of the
infinitesimal dose is a physical joke -- bioactivity with no molecules?!?

Homeopathy is based on empirical conjectures, and what's worse, those
conjectures have been poorly tested for a long time.

You and I could probably agree about a bunch of things about homeopathy:

+ Homeopathy has not been tested or proven rigorously at any level, from
  its basic principles (law of similars, infinitesimal doses, increasing
  potency with decreasing concentrations, etc.) up to and including
  clinical experience or trials.

+ Homeopathy cannot be represented as medically established-effective.

+ Primary care should not be given by homeopaths unless they are qualified
  as primary caregivers.

+ Homeopathic treatment should not delay timely administration of other
  therapies required for the safety of the patient.

+ Essentially, homeopathy is scientifically unproven, and not medically
  acceptable at this time.

It is interesting to examine *how* unproven it is, and to explore some of
the reasons why this may be so, but ultimately I don't think any of us here
are currently qualified to conclusively answer these questions.

Moreover, I don't think that's the topic that is most interesting to
misc.health.alternative readers.  (I wonder, though, if you would find
Homeonet subscribers more interested.  Certainly they'd be more qualified.)

What might be more interesting to discuss are some of the meta-questions
you've touched only peripherally: Where do unproven therapies fit in health
care?  Are unproven therapies ever acceptable?

Personally, I find homeopathy useful, even though it is unproven and even
dubious in places.

First, I apply it in my life in a safe manner.  My primary caregiver is
qualified as a primary caregiver.  My homeopath (outside of the fact that
he *is* a homeopath :) is not a quack.  Homeopathic treatments are only
used as appropriate, and won't delay other appropriate therapies.
Even the homeopathic remedies themselves are pretty clearly non-toxic.

Of course, my homeopath and I can only say that remedies I take *may*
have an effect, since they are not scientifically proven, and I accept
that.  In each case, I weigh the costs and potential benefits, and
make the choice I feel is appropriate.

In contrast to allopathic treatments, I note that as long as I'm not
delaying other appropriate treatment, the "cost" column of that equation
for homeopathy is entirely financial (the cost of office visits and the
remedies themselves).  For this reason, I find careful studies of safety
and efficacy more important for allopathic treatments than for homeopathic
treatments when I'm evaluating therapies for my personal use.

Are unproven therapies acceptable if they are administered safely and
if the patient is aware how unproven they are?

Pete