From: bgarwood@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Subject: Re: Arnica: Homeopathic
Organization: nrao
	<1992Dec16.171033.23314@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:26:50 GMT

"DK" == Dave Kraus <kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM> writes:

DK> In article <1gljjbINN970@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.161944.7386@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>Arnica Montana is indeed homeopathic and is used externally diluted
>>to an 8% mixture.
>
>Hell, that's not dilute by homeopathic standards.  For homeopathy, a reasonable
>dilution is on the order of .00000000000000008%

DK> The question I am interested in is "how does Arnica work?" If it works
DK> by stimulating the body to heal itself, but doesn't follow homeopathic
DK> dilution guidelines, I'd be willing to call it a homeopathic-like substance.
DK> If it is found not to have any homeopathic-like qualities, I'd be willing
DK> to simply call it a remedy, no problem. But, I do know that it is sold
DK> as a homeopathic substance, so I do know that some consider it
DK> homeopathic.


Clearly, the primary thing that differentiates homeopathic practitioners
from other forms of health care (whether any of them work or not) is
the dilution guidelines.  On Donohue today were assembled a number of,
to be kind, non-mainstream health care practitioners.  Included among
the guests was a MD who was also a homeopathic doctor (he was either
kicked out of North Carolina and voluntarily left, or some combination
of both depending, I'm sure, on which side of that argument you listen
to and now practices in Virginia).  He stated that in certain cases he
WILL prescribe antibiotics.  Does that make the antibiotics a homeopathic
substance simply because this homeopathic doctor uses it? Clearly the
answer is no.  Similarly, the use of substances that have not been
diluted in the traditional homeopathic sense in no way makes them
homeopathic.  Homeopathic health care also certainly doesn't have the
sole rights to using things that stimulate the body to heal itself.
Since modern medicine clearly recognizes that the ability of a persons
body to heal itself is dependant upon the mental state of the
patient in many cases [i.e. a positive attitude helps], otherwise how
do you explain the placebo effect - since the placebo isn't causing
any healing by itself, it MUST therefore be stimulating the body to
heal itself, this is obviously true.  If by stimulate you also include
things that help the body heal itself then there is a rather long list of
non-homeopathic things that would fall in that category.

The dilution factor is what makes homeopathy different from everything
else.

In my opinion, a likely reason why so many feel it works is that, in
addition to the remedies, a typical homeopathy treatment also involves
an EXTREMELY long discussion with the patient (often longer than an hour).
The simple fact that someone is willing to talk to these people in depth
about their health problems and concerns is certainly enough to make
most people feel somewhat better (I know it helps me feel better to talk
about how sick I feel sometimes or to talk about concerns I have about 
my health).  

But when the dilution is SO small that it's extremely likely that not even
one atom of the original substance remains in the solution, then there's
clearly nothing there to stimulate the body to do anything.
[The homeopathic MD on Donohue kept going on about his dilutions not
causing any side effects and I kept wanting to yell out "Thats because
there's nothing there anymore, its just water."  And then they'ld cut to
shots of the audience buying into the whole thing.  Sigh.]

-Bob Garwood
bgarwood@nrao.edu
--
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic