From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:17:16 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec16.170115.22994@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
=In article <1glmamINN970@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>In article <1992Dec14.165647.1043@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
=>>It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
=>>a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
=>>irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
=>>the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
=>>that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
=>>seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.
=>
=>Er, Dave?  If the patient is ALREADY ill, don't you think that the illness
=>itself would have a better chance of "irritat[ing] the body into defending
=>itself" than perhaps a few molecules known to cause "similar" symptoms if
=>ingested in massive doses?
=
=Er, Carl? (just thought I'd go with the flow)
=It might be possible that an irritation of a slightly different nature than
=the disease may produce a different response from the body.

The basis of homeopathy is to find a substance which, in sufficiently large
doses, would produce EXACTLY the same symptoms as the disease being treated.
Now you're saying that the symptoms should be slightly different. You're
stretching the definition of homeopathy far beyond what is reasonable. At this
rate, you'll soon include all of non-surgical medicine under the definition.  
Why don't you just give up and admit that you're not talking about homeopathy?

=This combined
=response produced by the bodies natural defenses and the homeopathic
=substance may be more effective.

I thought you said that it was the body's natural defenses that the homeopathic
remedy activated.  Could you please try for just a little consistency?

=I do however have trouble with the idea that an extremely diluted substance
=could have any effect. My interest lies in substances with dilutions of
=reasonable strengths. I have been trying to determine if the definition
=of homeopathic includes specific numbers on dilution strengths. Also,
=I would be interested to know if modern homeopaths are going with higher
=strength substances these days than what has been used historically.

If they are, it's only because they don't want to overtreat you.  You see,
another principle of homeopathy is that the more dilutions, the stronger the
effect.  According to homeopathy, an 8% solution of anything should have
virtually no effect at all.

=In short, the idea of homeopathic response is an interesting possibility
=to me. Dilution strengths of "a few molecules" do seem absurd, hence my
=interest in higher strength remedies.

Then don't call them "homeopathic."  I believe the term you're groping for is
"hormesis."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21446 alt.folklore.urban:31404 alt.atheism:23826 alt.feminism:6142