NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/med/20764

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-10 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!caen!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-is-not-mail
From: [e-mail] (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Summary of evidence for homeopathy
Date: 10 Nov 1992 13:35:11 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

-*----
The dialog between Bernie Simon and me has reached the point of
diminishing returns.  This, my last post in this thread, attempts
a summary.  I will try to be fair, and in doing so, I must first
acknowledge that Simon and I will likely differ in what
constitutes fairness.  He may have the last word.

First, it is clear that Simon cares about the empirical evidence
and he seems to endeavor a scientist's perspective in his
approach to the issue.  He distinguishes himself in this regard
from the usual net proponent of "alternative" medicine.

Second, he refers to primary, refereed literature to back his
claims (though some people have challenged his rosy
interpretation of what this literature says.)  He has pressed
home the point that there is respectable evidence that *some*
homeopathic solutions have an effect that goes beyond a placebo
action.

Now to the other side.  Simon is unable to point to *any*
well-controlled experiment designed to test *any* of the
underlying and distinguishing principles of homeopathy, e.g.,
that therapeutic effect increases with homeopathic dilution, that
water which is pure by conventional chemistry can carry an
"imprint" of past solutes, that the "law of similars" is a
*generally* valid and applicable principle in a well-defined
domain, etc.  This great void of empirical evidence regarding
homeopathic *principles* causes most scientists to cast a very
jaundiced eye on homeopathy.  It is the reason that homeopathy is
denigrated as quackery.  It reflects poorly on homeopaths as a
group that after almost two centuries of practice their
underlying principles are still untested.  (If other physicians
paid so little attention to their medical theories, medical
practice would still be in the 18th century!)

In his arguments, I would criticize Simon on only one count: that
he reads evidence too broadly.  He focuses on the positive
studies rather than wondering about the negative ones.  He reads
the review articles optimistically.  These are matters of degree
and may reflect his discursive role as proponent; he may complain
that his critics are too strict.  But in one (and I think the
most important) regard, his broad reading constitutes a logical
error.  It is little support for homeopathic *principles* that a
few homeopathic solutions have an action that goes beyond a
placebo.  On a point by point basis this could well be normal
biochemistry at work.  There are a variety of historical factors
(how Hahnemann initially noticed them, how some were later
rejected, etc.) that would make this likely REGARDLESS of the
validity of homeopathic principles.  (Virtually every system of
medicine, from the four humour theory to ancient Chinese
medicine, has some remedies that have some efficacy.)

Experiments that directly test homeopathic principles are easily
designed and performed.  One such was discussed in another thread.
Until these are performed in a well-controlled fashion and show
successful results, homeopathy remains a nonscientific system.

Russell