Homeopathy - complete crap or mere sham?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
An interesting way of looking at this is by asking 'can it actually be
proved that homeopathy is a sham?'

If, as homeopathy claims, it is not the volume of a given substance
that has therapeutic effect but the probability of a substance being
present in a solvent after serial dilution. Cannot it be said that by the
act of measurement of the effects o ...[text shortened]... therapy, we are thereby
collapsing the probability wave function and nullifying the results?

Homeopathists don't base their argument on the probability of a substance being in solution. Their idea is that the solution somehow absorbs the essence of the solute (by "harmonizing the vibrations of the solution" or "collectin energy" or somesuch) through a series of dilutions that include, most importantly, "succusion". Succusion is basically shaking the solution around by hand, thereby "directing the energy" somehow. Apparently this human intervention is the reason why water, the universal solvent, is not the most powerful homeopathic drug known to man, considering it's been shaken in contact with every substance on Earth for millions or years.

Whether or not it can be proven conclusively that homeopathy is a sham is an interesting question. You could try to preclude its effectiveness based an argument from first principles (i.e. it violates the principles of physics and chemistry, which it does), or you could run several trials to demonstrate that homeopathy offers no statistically significant increase in effectiveness over a placebo (which has been done many times). However, I would say the burden of proof lies with the homeopathists to demonstrate their craft is a viable alternative to other types of medicine if they wish to be licensed.

Originally posted by PBE6
However, I would say the burden of proof lies with the homeopathists to demonstrate their craft is a viable alternative to other types of medicine if they wish to be licensed.

Although in principle I agree, I think that more should be done to inform the public of the contradictions with established principles in physics and chemistry and the studies who show its no better than a placebo.

It's funny that many defenders of homeopathy I've met tend to rant against the market-driven pharmaceutical companies, but fail to realize that homeopathy has become an industry fuelled by disinformation alone.

Originally posted by Palynka
Although in principle I agree, I think that more should be done to inform the public of the contradictions with established principles in physics and chemistry and the studies who show its no better than a placebo.

It's funny that many defenders of homeopathy I've met tend to rant against the market-driven pharmaceutical companies, but fail to realize that homeopathy has become an industry fuelled by disinformation alone.

True. Oscillococcinum is one of the more egregious examples of this in my opinion (look for it at your local drugstore - it's extremely expensive!!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I think I read it recently but can't find the link now.

Quantum physics aside, the idea of probability was about before
then with Schrodinger's cat and Einsteins' glove thought experiment.

If somebody says for example you put schrodingers cat under your
bed for a week and without opening the box if the cat hasn't died
in half the time that it is likely to have, you will be cured. How can
you prove that person wrong?

I also solved the Schrödinger's Cat paradox in that topic. 🙂 It's quite simple, really.

In any case, the "probability" is not a fundamental quantum mechanical principe in this case because an atom is either in a bowl or it isn't, there is no superposition in which it's partly in vastly different places.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I also solved the Schrödinger's Cat paradox in that topic. 🙂

Link plx.

Originally posted by PBE6
Link plx.

I just state it there. 😉 Anyway, it comes down to realizing that the release of the toxin is simply a measurement that will collapse the wavefunction, and as a result the cat's fate is determinate. There can be no part living, part dead cat because any event in which it dies requires a measurement.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, some health care insurance companies here actually cover this, and other "therapies" such as acupuncture. I think this is a complete travesty and should be forbidden by government as it legitimizes these alternative remedies.

While both of the descriptors PBE6 applies to homeopathy in the thread title are true, acupuncture is in a different category, since with the latter there are, at minimum, reasons to argue about its efficacy for certain things.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
While both of the descriptors PBE6 applies to homeopathy in the thread title are true, acupuncture is in a different category, since with the latter there are, at minimum, reasons to argue about its efficacy for certain things.

What are those reasons?

The main problem I have with acupuncture is that in many studies that use a placebo the placebo appears to work just as well.

I also haven't heard a real reason why it works other than this kind of woo woo stuff about qi and energy.

Originally posted by PBE6
Does anyone believe in this nonsense? For anyone who doesn't know what it is, Wikipedia has a wonderful article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

A prime example of the ridiculousness of these "remedies" is Oscillococcinum. Read on and be astonished:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum

And here's one more interesting article on a v ...[text shortened]... t homeopathy works I'd sincerely like to know why you think that. I'm flabbergasted. 😕

Homeopathic products help people recover in the same way that bathing in the water at Lourdes would help remove my current bout of the flu.

In other words - very likely an utter fraud...but a cleverly marketed one.

Parts people of their money in the same way that the dark forces marketing protection packs to "the Millenium Bug" did.

Unfortunately, enough people believe in it to give it a market.

There are commonly held beliefs that 'the power of the mind' somehow accelerates the efforts of the body in beating an affliction - a theory I'd subscribe to, in a standoffish manner. It is probably along this basis that homeopathy products have their effect.

I would theorise that 'hope'/'good-feeling' chemicals in the brain play some kind of part in speeding up a metabolic response to minor infections. Luckily for my bank account, I would imagine that your faith in the product would have to be unquestionable for it to work on you. I'd try them in desperation on my deathbed, perhaps.

(A little like religion...if your belief in Jesus/whatever is largely sceptical/uncertain/contrived as a matter of selfish convenience - then, whatever the everlasting benefits are, you won't be seeing them...if indeed there are any salient ones)

However, this doesn't change the probability that homeopathy products are, placebo effect excluded, ineffectual crap.

The most well-known attempts to concoct and market "proof" were done by Dr. Jacques Benveniste. Sounds French? Well, guess which country buys into this the most? Benveniste was an interesting guy, tipped for great things before his steadfast belief in water memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste