domokato - 16 November 2011 12:18 PM

Scientifically, how’s that supposed to work?

Ask a homeopath.

At least evidence-based medicine is based on evidence. Compare with alt-med, where health claims are often made without supporting evidence. Fewer people use alt-med so fewer people die from it. So it’s not really a fair comparison you’re making. Instead, you should compare how health is affected by alt-med treatments vs mainstream treatments, per patient.

Not fair?  Tell that to all the many many more people who are harmed by conventional medicine vs. Alt med.

Skepchick’s video is full of errors and faulty logic.  Are you guys going to “Stand for Science” and correct her?

Homeopathy is not scientific.

That didn’t answer my question.  My question requires a simple yes/no answer.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 16 November 2011 07:49 PM

So many logical fallacies in a single statement and so little time.
Suffice to say that an appeal to antiquity and and appeal to popularity doesn’t make it right.
Just because it’s been around a long time doesn’t mean a thing. Bloodletting was around for a long time and that doesn’t work either.
Just becuase it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s right. Millions and millions of people CAN be wrong.
As to the scientific refutation, you can use http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html as a starting point, being sure to follow the links and the references.

My question was:  “wouldn’t that make homeopathy the most successful medicine-related “scam” to date?!”

It just requires a yes/no answer.

Btw, bloodletting has medical benefits.  Ask a hemochromatosis patient:

Iron overload
Treatment

Routine treatment in an otherwise-healthy person consists of regularly scheduled phlebotomies (bloodletting).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemochromatosis#Treatment

macgyver - 17 November 2011 09:02 AM

The false arguments and misrepresentations in the OP’s post could keep us busy for weeks, but everyone here has done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses in suede’s arguments.

Such as?

traveler - 18 November 2011 12:58 PM

Yes, homeopathy may well be the most successful alt-med scam to date.

Amazing.  A “scam” over 200 yrs old, hundreds of companies producing this “scam” medicine, thousands of doctors world-wide in on it, a multi-BILLION dollar industry, and keeps getting more popular year after year.  How do you think they keep doing it without getting caught?!

And you would drink homeopathic E. Coli? You do know that homeopathy is just a series of dilutions, right?

Why not, it’s just water, right?

So what?

Inaccuracy doesn’t bother you?

Eventually the dilution can get to a point where not a molecule of the “substance” remains.

Yeah, homeopaths are pretty upfront about this. 

And do you believe that water has “memory?”

As in how?

Well, if some homeopaths say that, then she has a right to say that some homeopaths say that. (BTW, homeopathy “says” nothing.)

Shouldn’t she make a disclaimer?  It’s all about accuracy, right?

Sorry, you make no sense here.

Kinda likewise.  I don’t understand what her point is bringing up sewage water.  Do you know?

She is correct. She doesn’t have to state how many.

Well she doesn’t have to, but shouldn’t she to not look so extremely biased at the very least?

Yeah, if 10 people/yr are harmed by homeopathy, it’s worth getting the news out. The medical profession admits its mistakes. Panels and boards are constantly investigating their practice.

Just seems like your time and energy is focused on the wrong target if you truly doing this for people’s safety.

I stand for science and hope to have corrected you, if possible.

Corrected me on what?

suede the problem with your arguments is that you seem to think that something can be proven true just because a lot of people use it or believe in it.  Do you honestly believe that?  The majority of the world believes in god too but that isnt proof of his/her/its existence. People believe what they want to believe but real science and real medicine rely on empirical evidence. Something that homeopathy conveniently ignores.

Its bad enough that they have no controlled studies of their treatments to support their effectiveness but they have no valid scientific theory as to how they work. The one theory they do have flies in the face of everything we know of chemistry and physics backed up by a hundreds of years of scientific evidence.

Your argument about the harm caused by conventional medicine is ridiculous. As I stated in my previous post its easy for a treatment to be harmless if it has no biological activity at all. Homeopathic remedies are largely inert. I could come up with a very safe treatment too if I created something that did nothing at all when you put it in the body. Water is relatively harmless, but its also largely useless unless your treating dehydration.

As far as herbs go no one here has said they couldn’t have some value, but as skeptics and good scientists and intelligent patients we should always require proof that a product is effective and that its benefits outweigh its risks. You can fault the FDA for not being as thorough as you would like in providing the public with this information but it really stretches the imagination to understand why anyone would then try to argue that LESS regulation and testing ( ie. what alt meds get away with) is some how better. Someone has to explain the logic of that to me. There is no logical argument you can come up with to support that position.

macgyver - 18 November 2011 03:52 PM

suede the problem with your arguments is that you seem to think that something can be proven true just because a lot of people use it or believe in it.

No, my arguments is that Skepchick’s little video rant is full of errors.  Why aren’t you guys addressing that? 

People believe what they want to believe but real science and real medicine rely on empirical evidence. Something that homeopathy conveniently ignores.

Why should they not ignore it?  They seem to be doing pretty well the way they are doing things.

Its bad enough that they have no controlled studies of their treatments to support their effectiveness but they have no valid scientific theory as to how they work. The one theory they do have flies in the face of everything we know of chemistry and physics backed up by a hundreds of years of scientific evidence.

So how do you think they’ve managed to be so ever increasingly successful after 200+ years?

Your argument about the harm caused by conventional medicine is ridiculous.

I think the millions of people harmed by conventional medicine each year will disagree with you.

As far as herbs go no one here has said they couldn’t have some value

I beg to differ:

mid atlantic - 15 November 2011 09:52 PM

Homeopathy, like all of alt med, works great if actually have no health problems to fix.

So do you agree Skepchick was minimizing the efficacy of herbs?

suede - 18 November 2011 05:31 PM

macgyver - 18 November 2011 03:52 PM

suede the problem with your arguments is that you seem to think that something can be proven true just because a lot of people use it or believe in it.

No, my arguments is that Skepchick’s little video rant is full of errors.  Why aren’t you guys addressing that? 

People believe what they want to believe but real science and real medicine rely on empirical evidence. Something that homeopathy conveniently ignores.

Why should they not ignore it?  They seem to be doing pretty well the way they are doing things.

Its bad enough that they have no controlled studies of their treatments to support their effectiveness but they have no valid scientific theory as to how they work. The one theory they do have flies in the face of everything we know of chemistry and physics backed up by a hundreds of years of scientific evidence.

So how do you think they’ve managed to be so ever increasingly successful after 200+ years?

Your argument about the harm caused by conventional medicine is ridiculous.

I think the millions of people harmed by conventional medicine each year will disagree with you.

As far as herbs go no one here has said they couldn’t have some value

I beg to differ:

mid atlantic - 15 November 2011 09:52 PM

Homeopathy, like all of alt med, works great if actually have no health problems to fix.

So do you agree Skepchick was minimizing the efficacy of herbs?

I think she was. Herbs that are effective, are not alternative medicine though.

suede - 18 November 2011 05:31 PM

macgyver - 18 November 2011 03:52 PM

suede the problem with your arguments is that you seem to think that something can be proven true just because a lot of people use it or believe in it.

No, my arguments is that Skepchick’s little video rant is full of errors.  Why aren’t you guys addressing that? 

People believe what they want to believe but real science and real medicine rely on empirical evidence. Something that homeopathy conveniently ignores.

Why should they not ignore it?  They seem to be doing pretty well the way they are doing things.

Its bad enough that they have no controlled studies of their treatments to support their effectiveness but they have no valid scientific theory as to how they work. The one theory they do have flies in the face of everything we know of chemistry and physics backed up by a hundreds of years of scientific evidence.

So how do you think they’ve managed to be so ever increasingly successful after 200+ years?

Your argument about the harm caused by conventional medicine is ridiculous.

I think the millions of people harmed by conventional medicine each year will disagree with you.

As far as herbs go no one here has said they couldn’t have some value

I beg to differ:

mid atlantic - 15 November 2011 09:52 PM

Homeopathy, like all of alt med, works great if actually have no health problems to fix.

So do you agree Skepchick was minimizing the efficacy of herbs?

suede its nearly impossible to have a discussion with you because you dont address the points that we bring up. You ask why I think “they’ve managed to be so successful after 200 years” and I already answered this if you would actually read the posts you are responding to. They prey on the weak scientifically illiterate minds of the average person who believe in whatever they want to belive in.

I would have to argue with you about the so called ‘success’ of homeopathy. Exactly how are you measuring success. There are no proven cures and no proven benefits so Im guessing that your definition of success is simply that the purveyors of this crap have managed to separate a good number of people from their money over the years without being abe to prove that any of it works.

As far as your claim that there are millions of people harmed by conventional medicine who would disagree with me. Go ahead and line em up and I’ll be happy to compare the millions of people saved by modern medicine to the um.. lets see NO ONE saved with homeopathy. If you are going to argue a point than answer your critics. Homeopathy may be safe but only because its inert. It does nothing good or bad. You call that a treatment, I call it a sham.

thevillageathiest - 18 November 2011 12:48 PM

rebut this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WyzM_TsIXc

Cap’t Jack

What am I supposed to rebut from Prof. Grump’s homeophobia video rant, Cap’t Jill?  Funny all the insults this senior citizen makes of a industry that is highly successful.

Oh and thanks for the video.  It revealed the real reason you skeptics are irked by Homeopathy; not because you’re mostly concerned about people being harmed or ripped off by it, but because Homeopathy is an affront to science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WyzM_TsIXc#t=00m38s

Strange priorities.

Oh btw, that video led me to this one:

Zicam disproves homeopathy
“If homeopathy worked, Zicam would be too weak to do anything. Turns out it’s strong enough to destroy your sense of smell.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujbMsTXn5dk

I don’t get it.  You guys say Homeopathy doesn’t work because it’s only sugar and water and in of itself won’t do anything, yet this skeptic chick seems to be saying Homeopathy doesn’t work because it is too strong?!!

So, which is it?

mid atlantic - 18 November 2011 05:38 PM

suede - 18 November 2011 05:31 PM

So do you agree Skepchick was minimizing the efficacy of herbs?

I think she was. Herbs that are effective, are not alternative medicine though.

So you agree she was being biased against herbs?

macgyver - 18 November 2011 05:51 PM

suede its nearly impossible to have a discussion with you because you dont address the points that we bring up.

Well it’s kinda because they are off-topic.  My thread is about Skepchick’s errors and flawed logic, not whether Homeopathy works or not.

You ask why I think “they’ve managed to be so successful after 200 years” and I already answered this if you would actually read the posts you are responding to. They prey on the weak scientifically illiterate minds of the average person who believe in whatever they want to belive in.

But why do you think Homeopathy has been such an incredibly successful “scam” that no other Alt Med “scam” has come close to be as big and profitable?  And how have they been able to keep the millions involved in this “scam” from not whistleblowing?

I would have to argue with you about the so called ‘success’ of homeopathy. Exactly how are you measuring success. There are no proven cures and no proven benefits so Im guessing that your definition of success is simply that the purveyors of this crap have managed to separate a good number of people from their money over the years without being abe to prove that any of it works.

Well you guys say it’s a “scam,” right?  Seems like an incredibly successful “scam” to me.

As far as your claim that there are millions of people harmed by conventional medicine who would disagree with me. Go ahead and line em up and I’ll be happy to compare the millions of people saved by modern medicine to the um.. lets see NO ONE saved with homeopathy. If you are going to argue a point than answer your critics. Homeopathy may be safe but only because its inert. It does nothing good or bad. You call that a treatment, I call it a sham.

A multi-billion dollar a year “sham” indeed.  Unlike any other.  Wow.

suede - 18 November 2011 01:08 PM

domokato - 16 November 2011 12:18 PM

Scientifically, how’s that supposed to work?

Ask a homeopath.

An extremely diluted solution has no mechanism known to science that would allow it to have an effect on somebody’s health. Homeopaths do not support their claims with science. A homeopath would answer with some pseudo-scientific explanation.

At least evidence-based medicine is based on evidence. Compare with alt-med, where health claims are often made without supporting evidence. Fewer people use alt-med so fewer people die from it. So it’s not really a fair comparison you’re making. Instead, you should compare how health is affected by alt-med treatments vs mainstream treatments, per patient.

Not fair?  Tell that to all the many many more people who are harmed by conventional medicine vs. Alt med.

Apparently you didn’t understand what I just said. Either that, or you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks that conventional medicine is out to hurt people intentionally, which would be ridiculous.

Skepchick’s video is full of errors and faulty logic.  Are you guys going to “Stand for Science” and correct her?

Homeopathy is not scientific.

That didn’t answer my question.  My question requires a simple yes/no answer.

To “stand for science” would be to stand for conventional, evidence-based medicine, not pseudo-scientific alternative medicine. But if by “science” you mean logic, then that’s a different question. And the answer is, maybe.

suede - 18 November 2011 06:50 PM

macgyver - 18 November 2011 05:51 PM

suede its nearly impossible to have a discussion with you because you dont address the points that we bring up.

Well it’s kinda because they are off-topic.  My thread is about Skepchick’s errors and flawed logic, not whether Homeopathy works or not.

Your argument against skepchick is predicated on homeopathy working. So it’s on topic.

domokato - 18 November 2011 06:51 PM

To “stand for science” would be to stand for conventional, evidence-based medicine, not pseudo-scientific alternative medicine. But if by “science” you mean logic, then that’s a different question. And the answer is, maybe.

Maybe you’ll confront Skepchick about her errors and flawed logic?

domokato - 18 November 2011 06:57 PM

Your argument against skepchick is predicated on homeopathy working. So it’s on topic.

OK, Mr. Forum Authority.  (Lucky for me there’s an “ignore” feature on here.)

suede - 18 November 2011 06:50 PM

A multi-billion dollar a year “sham” indeed.  Unlike any other.  Wow.

When it comes to scams homeopathy can’t hold a candle to religion. They’re both scams, but religion has far more followers and fleeces people out of far more money.