| Revision as of 23:42, 11 December 2001 view sourceEloquence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,329 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:44, 11 December 2001 view source Eloquence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,329 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Park points out that Hahnemann was likely unaware of exceeding the dilution limit because he did not know about ], a physical constant which makes it possible to calculate the number of molecules in a given mass of a substance. Park explains the early success of homeopathy with the use of actually harmful remedies at the same time: "Physicians still treated patients with bleeding, purging, and frequent doses of mercury and other toxic substances. If Hahnehmann's infinitely diluted nostrums did no good, at least they did no harm, allowing the patient's natural defenses to correct the problem." Park further explains how modern homeopathologists agree that there is no actual molecule of medication in their medicine, but that the liquid "remembers" the substance after the process of dilution. How this substance memory is attained has never been explained. | Park points out that Hahnemann was likely unaware of exceeding the dilution limit because he did not know about ], a physical constant which makes it possible to calculate the number of molecules in a given mass of a substance. Park explains the early success of homeopathy with the use of actually harmful remedies at the same time: "Physicians still treated patients with bleeding, purging, and frequent doses of mercury and other toxic substances. If Hahnehmann's infinitely diluted nostrums did no good, at least they did no harm, allowing the patient's natural defenses to correct the problem." Park further explains how modern homeopathologists agree that there is no actual molecule of medication in their medicine, but that the liquid "remembers" the substance after the process of dilution. How this substance memory is attained has never been explained. | ||
| Recent research indicates that in certain situations the further diluted a substance, the more its ]s tend to clump together. Some see this as the beginnings of evidence supporting homeopathic therapies. However this doesn't explain why the substances need to be diluted, just that they might remain active after this preparation ( |
Recent research indicates that in certain situations the further diluted a substance, the more its ]s tend to clump together. Some see this as the beginnings of evidence supporting homeopathic therapies. However this doesn't explain why the substances need to be diluted, just that they might remain active after this preparation (not in the non-concentrations of homeopathic medicine, though), and many scientists doubt that it has any implications with regard to homeopathy at all. Homeopathy proponents argue that not knowing the underlying mechanism for why something works is irrelevant, pointing to ] as an example of a drug that was used for years before anyone knew why it worked. | ||
| Some homeopathic practitioners may ascribe the lack of definitive support from controlled trials to the the absence of emotional doctor-patient bond that is necessary in order for treatment to be successful (an argument, as opponents point out, that is common to religion and pseudosciences). Despite these claims, debate continues on the results of further trials. | Some homeopathic practitioners may ascribe the lack of definitive support from controlled trials to the the absence of emotional doctor-patient bond that is necessary in order for treatment to be successful (an argument, as opponents point out, that is common to religion and pseudosciences and contradicts the ]). Despite these claims, debate continues on the results of further trials, as it likely will as long as homeopathy is a flourishing business. | ||
| '''Additional information''' | '''Additional information''' | ||
Revision as of 23:44, 11 December 2001
Homoeopathy is a traditional method in treating disease. The principle relies on using highly diluted remedies that, were they to be taken in larger amounts, would actually produce the symptoms of the disease being treated. Its underlying philosophy, on which the cures are based, explores ways in which the human mind, body and soul works.
Conventional medicine views symptoms as signs of illness. Modern treatments are intended to fight disease by targeting the pathogen causing the symptoms. According to homeopathy, however, symptoms are actually the bodies way of fighting 'dis-ease' (verb not noun.) Homeopathy teaches that symptoms are to be encouraged, by way of prescribing a remedy in miniscule doses that in large doses would produce the same symptoms seen in the patient. These remedies are intended to stimulate the immune system, helping to cure the illness.
Homeopathy is generally unregulated, prompting suggestions that homeopathic doctors could potentially cause more damage than harm. Also, proponents of convential medicine charge that patients who rely fully on homeopathic techniques, denying any conventional medicine, are at risk of leaving some easily treatable diseases (such as some early skin cancers) until they become untreatable.
Proponents and opponents of homeopathy disagree over whether scientific trials with the use of placebos have shown success with homeopathic methods. Some clinical trials have produced results supporting homeopathy, but critics contend that these trials are flawed. In 1997, the British medical journal Lancet published a meta-analysis of 89 clinical trials, with a resultingly ambiguous conclusion that served as fodder for both supporters and critics of homeopathy.
Criticism of Dilution Process
Critics argue that diluting substances as much as homeopathy does would not only vastly decrease any effects the substance in question has, but in fact completely destroy the healing agent. Robert L. Park, Professor of Physics and director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, writes in his book "Voodo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud":
Hahnemann used a process of sequential dilution to prepare his medications. He would dilute an extract of some "natural" herb or mineral, one part medicine to ten parts water, or 1:10, shake the solution, and then dilute it another factor of ten, resulting in a total dilution of 1:100. Repeating that a third time gives 1:1000, etc. Each sequential dilution would add another zero. He would repeat the procedure many times. Extreme dilutions are easily achieved by this method.
The dilution limit is reached when a single molecule of the medicine remains. Beyond that point, there is nothing left to dilute. In over-the-counter homeopathic remedies, for example, a dilution of 30X is fairly standard. The notation 30X means the substance was diluted one part in ten and shaken, and then this was repeated sequentially thirty times. The final dilution would be one part medicine to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts of water. That would be far beyond the dilution limit. To be precise, at a dilution of 30X you would have to drink 7,874 gallons of the solution to expect to get just one molecule of the medicine.
Compared to many homeopathic preparations, even 30X is concentrated. Oscillococcinum, the standard homeopathic remedy for flu, is derived from duck liver, but its widespread use in homeopathy poses little threat to the duck population--the standard dilution is an astounding 200C. The C means the extract is diluted one part per hundred and shaken, repeated sequentially two hundred times. That would result in a dilution of one molecule of the extract to every 10 molecules of water -- that is, 1 followed by 400 zeroes. But there are only about 10 (1 followed by 80 zeroes) atoms in the entire universe. A dilution of 200C would go far, far beyond the dilution limit of the entire visible universe!
Park points out that Hahnemann was likely unaware of exceeding the dilution limit because he did not know about Avogadros number, a physical constant which makes it possible to calculate the number of molecules in a given mass of a substance. Park explains the early success of homeopathy with the use of actually harmful remedies at the same time: "Physicians still treated patients with bleeding, purging, and frequent doses of mercury and other toxic substances. If Hahnehmann's infinitely diluted nostrums did no good, at least they did no harm, allowing the patient's natural defenses to correct the problem." Park further explains how modern homeopathologists agree that there is no actual molecule of medication in their medicine, but that the liquid "remembers" the substance after the process of dilution. How this substance memory is attained has never been explained.
Recent research indicates that in certain situations the further diluted a substance, the more its molecules tend to clump together. Some see this as the beginnings of evidence supporting homeopathic therapies. However this doesn't explain why the substances need to be diluted, just that they might remain active after this preparation (not in the non-concentrations of homeopathic medicine, though), and many scientists doubt that it has any implications with regard to homeopathy at all. Homeopathy proponents argue that not knowing the underlying mechanism for why something works is irrelevant, pointing to aspirin as an example of a drug that was used for years before anyone knew why it worked.
Some homeopathic practitioners may ascribe the lack of definitive support from controlled trials to the the absence of emotional doctor-patient bond that is necessary in order for treatment to be successful (an argument, as opponents point out, that is common to religion and pseudosciences and contradicts the scientific method). Despite these claims, debate continues on the results of further trials, as it likely will as long as homeopathy is a flourishing business.
Additional information
- Homoeopathic Medical Association (HMA)
See also:
Citations:
Robert L. Park: Voodoo Science. The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
/Talk