Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Homeopathy was quackery in 1796, it was quackery in 1988, and it will still be quackery in 2096
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/03/homeopathy-was-quackery-in-1796-it-was-quackery-in-1988-and-it-will-still-be-quackery-in-2096/This is a post about homeopathic quackery. But I repeat myself.
Those of you who’ve been readers here for a while have no doubt encountered Dana Ullman. He’s been popping up from time to time as a topic of this blog for many years now, almost to the very beginning, when he began spewing the most unbelievably silly and pseudoscientific defenses of homeopathy. Darwin had his bulldog in the form of a man named Thomas Huxley. Unfortunately, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, has his very own pit bull 200 years later in the form of Dana Ullman. That is not a compliment, nor is it meant to imply that there’s any equivalence whatsoever between Thomas Huxley and Dana Ullman other than that Ullman is quite the tenacious defender of someone else’s work. Of course, he’s devoted his life to defending quackery, where Huxley defended science.
When last we left Mr. Ullman, he was defending yet another attempt to make homeopathy sound scientific by adding the word “DNA” to it and calling it “homeovitality.” Previous to that, we’ve seen Ullman make a fool of himself advocating “respecting the body’s intelligence,” homeopathy to treat radiation poisoning (in the wake of Fukushima, naturally), not to mention for the idea that homeopathy is actually real medicine. Meanwhile, he claims there is a “disinformation campaign” against homeopathy run by skeptics, particularly James Randi, who, I’m sure, would be flattered that homeopaths view him as such a force against them. Personally, I like to think of it as an “information campaign,” because that’s what it is.
Homeopathy, of course, rests on two principles. First, there is the idea that “like cures like,” which states that to relieve a symptom you should use a substance that causes the symptom in healthy people. The second idea behind homeopathy is that dilution makes the remedy stronger. Well, actually, serial dilution—but only with vigorous shaking between each dilution step, referred to as “succussion.” Absent succussion between each dilution step, the homeopathic remedy will never be “potentized.” In any case, a typical dilution is 30C, which means 30 serial 100-fold dilutions, which, when you figure it out, comes to a final dilution of 1 in 10^60. Avogadro’s number, of course, is on the order of 10^23, meaning that it’s incredibly unlikely that even a single molecule of the original remedy is left behind, absent, of course, carryover contamination from the serial dilutions. Homeopathy, by many well-established laws of physics and chemistry, is impossible, and there is no convincing evidence, when viewed critically, that homeopathy produces effects greater than placebo.
Of course, if there’s one characteristic of the crank, it’s what I like to call the “I’ll show you!” phenomenon, or, as I’ve sometimes called it, the “vindication of all kooks” principle. Basically, it’s the delusion from which nearly all cranks suffer besides their other delusions, that one day their quackery or pseudoscience will be vindicated. On that day, their enemies will be forced to admit that they were right all along and abase themselves in embarrassment and atonement. On that day, the crankery, whatever it is, becomes mainstream science that everyone appreciates. We see this delusion in antivaccinationists. We see it in Burzynski supporters.
Those of you who’ve been readers here for a while have no doubt encountered Dana Ullman. He’s been popping up from time to time as a topic of this blog for many years now, almost to the very beginning, when he began spewing the most unbelievably silly and pseudoscientific defenses of homeopathy. Darwin had his bulldog in the form of a man named Thomas Huxley. Unfortunately, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, has his very own pit bull 200 years later in the form of Dana Ullman. That is not a compliment, nor is it meant to imply that there’s any equivalence whatsoever between Thomas Huxley and Dana Ullman other than that Ullman is quite the tenacious defender of someone else’s work. Of course, he’s devoted his life to defending quackery, where Huxley defended science.
When last we left Mr. Ullman, he was defending yet another attempt to make homeopathy sound scientific by adding the word “DNA” to it and calling it “homeovitality.” Previous to that, we’ve seen Ullman make a fool of himself advocating “respecting the body’s intelligence,” homeopathy to treat radiation poisoning (in the wake of Fukushima, naturally), not to mention for the idea that homeopathy is actually real medicine. Meanwhile, he claims there is a “disinformation campaign” against homeopathy run by skeptics, particularly James Randi, who, I’m sure, would be flattered that homeopaths view him as such a force against them. Personally, I like to think of it as an “information campaign,” because that’s what it is.
Homeopathy, of course, rests on two principles. First, there is the idea that “like cures like,” which states that to relieve a symptom you should use a substance that causes the symptom in healthy people. The second idea behind homeopathy is that dilution makes the remedy stronger. Well, actually, serial dilution—but only with vigorous shaking between each dilution step, referred to as “succussion.” Absent succussion between each dilution step, the homeopathic remedy will never be “potentized.” In any case, a typical dilution is 30C, which means 30 serial 100-fold dilutions, which, when you figure it out, comes to a final dilution of 1 in 10^60. Avogadro’s number, of course, is on the order of 10^23, meaning that it’s incredibly unlikely that even a single molecule of the original remedy is left behind, absent, of course, carryover contamination from the serial dilutions. Homeopathy, by many well-established laws of physics and chemistry, is impossible, and there is no convincing evidence, when viewed critically, that homeopathy produces effects greater than placebo.
Of course, if there’s one characteristic of the crank, it’s what I like to call the “I’ll show you!” phenomenon, or, as I’ve sometimes called it, the “vindication of all kooks” principle. Basically, it’s the delusion from which nearly all cranks suffer besides their other delusions, that one day their quackery or pseudoscience will be vindicated. On that day, their enemies will be forced to admit that they were right all along and abase themselves in embarrassment and atonement. On that day, the crankery, whatever it is, becomes mainstream science that everyone appreciates. We see this delusion in antivaccinationists. We see it in Burzynski supporters.
Orac is awesome.
Edit: Link to the HuffPoo article that set Orac off -
Homeopathy and the Future of Medicine: A Report from the Future
Sid
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Why is it that the loudest defenders of homeopathy don't actually know what homeopathy is?
Sid
...of "homeopathy" has some people confused into thinking "homeopathy" = "home remedies".
indeed.
Edit: I see going further down the thread I wasn't the first to wonder about this.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpə?i/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek ὅ????? hómoios "like-" and ?ά??? páthos "suffering"
is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like, according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.[1] Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience,[2][3][4] and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.[5][6][7]
Hahnemann believed the underlying causes of disease were phenomena that he termed miasms, and that homeopathic remedies addressed these. The remedies are prepared by repeatedly diluting a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on an elastic body.[8] Dilution usually continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain.[9] Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories, and by considering the totality of the patient's symptoms, personal traits, physical and psychological state, and life history.[10]
My ex had a very fancy little chest of drawers for homeopathy remedies. I never really asked her about it. Some things you just have to let go... 
Cute cartoon.
Sid
I have to assume that "everything" is in the water (appropriately diluted, of course) ... that's why no one ever gets sick in Metro Detroit.
My family is originally from Windsor.
Sid
I'm trying to get tickets to see him when he comes to Toronto in September.
Sid
