From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Subject: Re: homeopathy
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:30:06 GMT

In <1hps9bINNdc6@rave.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>First of all is the argument that many of the dilutions used in homeopathic
>medicine would statistically have not a single molecule of the substance
>originally diluted (assuming that one believed in the atomic theory).  Since
>I have seen good evidence for the atomic theory and for matter not being
>completely divisible, I have to agree with this one.

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.

>However, it is only the two smallest dilutions for which this is the
>case.  So, for the majority of homeopathic remedies, this isn't a
>problem.

Actually, there are a large number of dilutions, ranging from 3X (1:9
dilution 3 times) up to 500C (1:99 dilution 500 times), and even higher.

Lower dilutions are said to be faster and more shallow-acting; higher
dilutions are said to be slower and deeper-acting. Common "over-the-counter"
are 3, 6, 12, and 30 X or C.  Higher dilutions are recommended for use by
those with professional level knowledge only.

12C is roughly the point past which there are no molecules of the original
substance left.

[...]
>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.

>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? :)

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.

>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.

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.

Just a gut feeling, though...

Pete
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative