h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No. Why would I say that?

What homeopaths have observed is that when they give someone a remedy and the illness resolves there is often a shift of symptoms first, and that often this sift happens from up to down. This doesn't mean it will happen every time, nor that any upper illness in the body is related to an illness lower in the body (which is what you seem to be saying).

The lack of a rationale explanation for this doesn't stop it from being an observable effect, although as I said earlier one needs to understand it in a homeopathic context rather than a medical science one.

I've always thought it a curious thing myself, strange in fact. So I'm not sure that I would take it absolutely literally. It may be that it is a method of working homeopathically that assists with prescribing eg if the symptoms start to shift upwards the homeopath knows they have the wrong remedy.

However it's not so far fetched I suppose when you consider that the human body has a lot of systems that run up/down - nervous, circulatory, lymphatic, musculo-skeletal.

kea:
May be misunderstanding here, but first you say that
"homeopathic principles like that illness clears from the head down are based on empiricial evidence" - Kea post 99

"What homeopaths have observed is that when they give someone a remedy and the illness resolves there is often a shift of symptoms first, and that often this sift happens from up to down. This doesn't mean it will happen every time," - Post 101

Empirical evidence is evidence based on experience and observation. So you say that there is such evidence for this working. Yet you then say that it doesn't happen each time.

So, therefore, there is empirical evidence that it doesn;t work.

And then your are left with a decision as to who you believe, those with a vested interest saying it does, and those who are just trying to find out the if and then how saying it appears it doesn't.



BTW, also interested in how you perceive the neural/skeletal systems to be up/down oriented?

Hey Ictoan

>>
Empirical evidence is evidence based on experience and observation. So you say that there is such evidence for this working. Yet you then say that it doesn't happen each time.

So, therefore, there is empirical evidence that it doesn;t work.
<<

Not sure what you are getting at there. Are you saying that for there to be empiric evidence that the principle of up towards down works, that it has to work 100% of the time?

Wouldn't that be like saying that a cold always progresses to pneumonia? We know, empirically, that colds sometimes progress to pneumonia, but the fact that they don't always doesn't mean the empirical evidence is that colds don't progress to pneumonia.


>>And then your are left with a decision as to who you believe, those with a vested interest saying it does, and those who are just trying to find out the if and then how saying it appears it doesn't.
<<

Still don't know what you are getting at. In the absence of adequate research the only people in a position to know if the principle works or not are those who have taken the time to observe homeopathy in practice (usually practitioners and/or patients).

I don't know who here is in a position to say the principle doesn't work.

All I'm doing is explaining what homeopaths understand about what they do (and bearing in mind I'm not a homeopath).


And I think it's fairly obvious by now that there are vested interested on all sides of this debate At least homeopathy hasn't degenerated to the point of paying for it's preferred results.


>>BTW, also interested in how you perceive the neural/skeletal systems to be up/down oriented?<<

Isn't that self-evident? The body runs on an up/down axis and the systems mentioned have a linear form so they follow the up/down axis.

Hi kea!

>>Not sure what you are getting at there. Are you saying that for there to be empiric evidence that the principle of up towards down works, that it has to work 100% of the time?<<

What I'm saying is that if you have two sets of data, i.e. one where a then b happens, and one where a then not b happens, why choose the former as empiracle evidence for the causative effect, whilst ignoreing the later which surely provides equally valid empiricle evidence that there is no causitive effect?

>>Wouldn't that be like saying that a cold always progresses to pneumonia? <<
Indeed so. If you said you had empirical evidence that colds cause pneumonia I'd ask the same question, since I have such evidence it does not.
In the case of the causes of pneumonia we have, thanks to medical science, a rather better understanding of things and so don;t have to rely on empirical evidence.

>>Still don't know what you are getting at.<<
OK, I'll be blunt:
You said:
"homeopathic principles like that illness clears from the head down are based on empiricial evidence"
like it meant something. What I am saying is that when a bunch of people with vested interests swear blind it works/that they have experienced it work, I get just a tad suspicious.

Doesn't this sound at all suspicious to you?

>>In the absence of adequate research the only people in a position to know if the principle works or not are those who have taken the time to observe homeopathy in practice (usually practitioners and/or patients).<<
>>I don't know who here is in a position to say the principle doesn't work.<<

Now, y'see, the problem I have with both of those is this:

I can heal people by painting theem orange with purple stripes. It works, I have a previous patient here who has undergone the treatment and is now cured.
That'll be $2000 per treatment and no, I'm not available for any scientific studies that might disprove my claim.

Since noone has undetaken a study of my process, I'm the expert, therefore by your rules above, what I say goes. And I say it works.

See the problem I have?

>>All I'm doing is explaining what homeopaths understand about what they do (and bearing in mind I'm not a homeopath).<<
I know! Honest! You're putting up one point of view, I'm countering.
I do get the impression that you believe in it though.

>>And I think it's fairly obvious by now that there are vested interested on all sides of this debate At least homeopathy hasn't degenerated to the point of paying for it's preferred results.<<
Yes, you are right. This isn;t a competition though. See, when science says A causes B you can go check it to find out if they've made it up. Can;t do that with empirical evidence can you?
From that p.o.v. I'd say empirical evidence is about useless. You can't actually prove anything with it.

>>Isn't that self-evident? The body runs on an up/down axis and the systems mentioned have a linear form so they follow the up/down axis.<<

Ah, thought you were talking about some sort of system or process orientation rather than a design limitation of the human body.
There is, as far as I am aware, no up/down sytem or hierarchy to either of those mentioned. And the circulatory system is, well, circular, not up down. Not sure about the lymphatic one.

Thing is kea, all this has been said. You seem quite definitly to believe that there is something in homeopathy, that it works.
You also seem quite certain that there is some sort of non-science based cause and effect process possible.

I, on the other hand, am not convinced. I can;t say for certain that homeopathy doesn;t work because this has not been proved. But equally I can;t say it does work, nor how it works, because that hasn't been proved either.
I also believe that science is a tool to explain the universe.
That means that if you can heal people using spiritual rays of energy (or some other such oddball theory) then science will detect it and prove it.

But this is getting circular, we've had this discussion before.
What I really wanted to say was that your post appeared to give empirical evidence a level of credence it doesn't warrent in this environment.
Equally, you made an earlier comment, something about finding out which explanation of homeopathy is true, which carries an assumption that one of them is.

I am quite prepared to find out that homeopathy is a valid medical treatment with a full explainable cause and effect. But I want proof.

Are you prepared to find out it is a load of cobblers if so proved?

I apologise for the multitude of different spellings for 'empirical'.
Oh, and it probably sounds a lot more confrontational than it was intended to!

No worries Ictoan

>>What I'm saying is that if you have two sets of data, i.e. one where a then b happens, and one where a then not b happens, why choose the former as empiracle evidence for the causative effect, whilst ignoreing the later which surely provides equally valid empiricle evidence that there is no causitive effect?
<<

Well if the first set of data happens say 70% of the time and the second set of data happens say 10 % of the time, we might be able to place different value on each set, yeah?


>>>
>>Wouldn't that be like saying that a cold always progresses to pneumonia? <<

Indeed so. If you said you had empirical evidence that colds cause pneumonia I'd ask the same question, since I have such evidence it does not.

In the case of the causes of pneumonia we have, thanks to medical science, a rather better understanding of things and so don;t have to rely on empirical evidence.
<<<

I need you to pay closer attention to what I am actually saying. I intentionally didn't use the term or concept of 'cause'.

I don't actually know that much about pneumonia, so let me replace pneumonia with the lay term 'lung infection'. People do get lung infections secondary to having a cold. You don't actually need science to know this.

What I was saying is that one can observe in a certain percentage of people that a cold 'progresses' to a lung infection. If you observed enough people over time and took note of what happened you could say that there is empirical evidence that a percentage of people get lung infections after having a cold.

The principle of symptoms moving from upper to lower is one that homeopaths have observed and noted.

I do understand what you are saying - that they could be just misinterpreing random events and ascribing meaning to them that isn't there. However the intial development of homeopathy involved far more formal empirical work than some other alternative practices (eg herbalism). Have you looked at how the original remedies and principles were discovered?


>>>
What I am saying is that when a bunch of people with vested interests swear blind it works/that they have experienced it work, I get just a tad suspicious.
Doesn't this sound at all suspicious to you?
<<<

I think that actually says more about your feelings/veiws about homeopathy. I guess I have more respect for homeopaths and trust in the integrity of the practice than you do. I don't see why homeopaths would be any more likely to be the lowlifes you seem to thing they are than any other profession. It also pays to remember that many people use homeopathy in a lay sense and have observed its effects.

>>>
I can heal people by painting theem orange with purple stripes. It works, I have a previous patient here who has undergone the treatment and is now cured.

That'll be $2000 per treatment and no, I'm not available for any scientific studies that might disprove my claim.
Since noone has undetaken a study of my process, I'm the expert, therefore by your rules above, what I say goes. And I say it works.

See the problem I have?
<<<

It's a bad analogy:

1. Homeopathy isn't based on the presence of one 'cured' patient. It's a 200+ year old discipline practiced by thousands of clinicians. Also, as I mentioned before the development of the remedies and principles of homeopathy was relatively rigourous. You seem to have the view that someone just made up these remedies and that people who 'believe' in them don't have anything to base their belief on other than the say so of a practitioner. I think that is an invalid and ignorant view of homeopathy.

2. Homeopathy *is available for study. The reasons that this hasn't happened adequately are complex but include the following:

- the people with the research funds are baised against homeopathy because the memory of water theory isn't supportable by any current science.

- the people with alot of the research funds won't want to give it to a discipline that uses remedies that can't be patented.

- I'm guesing that homeopaths haven't traditionally been trained in research methodology. There are other disciplines where this has been true also - I'm thinking nursing and midwifery where training in research methodology was not common until those trainings became degree courses. The teaching of research methodology (and the teaching of the value of this) makes a huge difference to how a profession gets regarded.

I think this also explains why there is relatively little of the cheaper kinds of research like case studies being published (or there could be this research happening but it's not in the public domain).

- the people doing alot of the research so far are not homeopaths, have a very poor understanding of what homeopathy is, and so have poorly designed their trials.


>>
>>All I'm doing is explaining what homeopaths understand about what they do (and bearing in mind I'm not a homeopath).<<

I know! Honest! You're putting up one point of view, I'm countering.
I do get the impression that you believe in it though.
<<

Always good to debate countering views I wouldn't say that I 'believe' in homeopathy - it's not quite the right term to use. I've used first aid homeopathic remedies for myself and pets and seen them work. I've known alot of people that have managed their and their families health care in part with homeopathics. I've known a few practicing homeopaths, and GPs who support the use of homeopathics. Alot of those people are intelligent and capable of understanding the difference between coincidence and observable effect.

In fact I would say that people who routinely use alternative healthcare at home have a much better capacity for observation of what happens in the body than people who rely primarily on pharmaceuticals simply because close observation is essential in alternative medicine.

I don't know how homeopathy works. I'm still open to the possibility that it's some kind of extended placebo effect. And I think it's possible that there is something else going on that science hasn't been able to look at yet. I seriously doubt that it's a load of cobblers, although I guess this is theoretically possilble.


>>>See, when science says A causes B you can go check it to find out if they've made it up. Can;t do that with empirical evidence can you?
From that p.o.v. I'd say empirical evidence is about useless. You can't actually prove anything with it.
<<<

I thought empirical evidence was the basis of good science (as opposed to say faith or belief).


>>
There is, as far as I am aware, no up/down sytem or hierarchy to either of those mentioned. And the circulatory system is, well, circular, not up down. Not sure about the lymphatic one.
<<

Well if you have low blood pressure and you stand up suddenly there is a process of readjustment for the body to re-estalish balanced pressure and this can be felt in an up/down way. So yes the circulatory system is circuar but that doesn't preclude it from having up and down aspects as well.

The nervous system also has an up/down aspect - look at the spinal cord.

The point I would make here is that the body is the body. It's not a science machine. Science is a very useful tool for observing and understanding the body, but it's not the only valid way of doing those things and it cetainly doesn't have the rights to final definition. It's possible that homeopathy has a different way of understanding what is going on that serves its own practice.


>>
You also seem quite certain that there is some sort of non-science based cause and effect process possible.
<<

Not quite. If there is something to homeopathy I would expect that eventually science will have a way of looking at and describing that. I don't think science knows everything about everything just yet though

>>I also believe that science is a tool to explain the universe.
That means that if you can heal people using spiritual rays of energy (or some other such oddball theory) then science will detect it and prove it.<<

Exactly. So it's possible then that we just aren't there yet?


>>
I am quite prepared to find out that homeopathy is a valid medical treatment with a full explainable cause and effect. But I want proof.

Are you prepared to find out it is a load of cobblers if so proved?
<<

I think you established earlier that you can't prove the negative here.

And I have no problem with you wanting some evidence that homeopathy works. I'm all up for that too. Personally I already have enough evidence but it would be good to see some good science as well.

The thing that's irked me in this thread is that there were some people using sloppy science and sloppy thinking to discredit homeopathy, instead of applying science in an intelligent and open way.

you expect me to read all that? How am I supposed to get any work done this afternoon?

will reply later when I have had a chance to digest your response!

That's alright, I've been wondering how I am going to get some sleep

I think that's the biggest post I've made all year

I don't think there is anything wrong with empirical evidence that is unsupported by theory. Just a matter of theory having to do some catch-up work.

But I don't think there is empirical evidence for homeopathic efficacy. It has never had greater than placebo effect.

I'll bet you're on that statistics page for the longest posts made in the past 24 hours, kea . . . tried to find it but couldn't.

buenas noches,

az

The number of postings and longest postings don't get done as part of the info (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/info )page any more. Jim Lynn took them off as calculating them was affecting the server performance.

Oi, you lot, try taking the experiment challenge on the Design an Experiment challenge. Go on, dare ya!

Kea, I've created a thread to challenge people to design a test, which will be acceptable to all sides, but which will provide some sort of experimental evidence of how efective Homeopathy is. Gnomon has got the ball rolling by naming groups to test (or not) with remedies. Gonna come help with the design work? Pleeese.

Got a link?

Kea, it seems you found the design an experiment thread. Could you post your ideal experiment to test the efficacy of homeopathy there?

Or should we just assume that in addition to knowing homeopathy doesn't work, we also now know it's advocates are uncooperative and unwilling to put it to the test?

http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/090905these.html#1

Boots The Chemists - a HUGE pharmaceytical type store in Britain avoiding backing up their claims in leaflets they have given out.

I'm feeling very excluded from homeopathy right now. I want to believe, but it seems as if only a certain priviledged few are allowed to see the evidence and beleive.

I've personally been using homeopathy and herbal remedies for some time now with mixed success. It does take a fair bit of trial and error (which can get rather expensive).

On the whole I've found herbal remedies more effective than homeopathy (for things like hay fever and psoriasis/ ezcema).

Last year my sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The doctors prognosis was weeks rather than months. So, in addtion to radiotherapy and steroids, she used herbal and homeopathic remedies. She also took the advice of a nutritionalist and went onto a fairly extreme diet.

This (combined with a faith healer, which opens up a whole load of questions) extended her life for 8 months. OK it wasn't a cure but it allowed her to enjoy what remained of her life. I think a strong mind can go a long way in this world.

I think it'd probably be interesting to have a general study of doctor's prognoses and what actually happened for all kinds of people.

It's *possible* that doctors tend to be pessimistic in their estimates, but possibly not. Maybe some give a vague range of possibilities, and people tend to pick the lower end to compare their actual survival against?

I could understand various approaches, but wouldn't be able to make even a slightly educated guess as to what the actual situation is.