5 ms·

Note: I don't want to be the [citation needed] asshole here, but this is the first time I've heard of the distinct schools of homeopathy and I'm skeptical (of c

Note: I don't want to be the [citation needed] asshole here, but this is the first time I've heard of the distinct schools of homeopathy and I'm skeptical (of course). Can you point me to an article about this history?

Alex3917 14y ago
From JAMA: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202602 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202602 "19th-century homeopaths pioneered systematic drug-testing research, challenged the dangerously depleting procedures of mainstream physicians at that time, established rigorous professional standards, and valued advanced education at least as highly as their mainstream counterparts did. It was not without reason that homeopaths considered the bases of their approach to medical problems to be more logical and more promising than the inherited tradition of the ancients, upon which mainstream physicians still based their practices. [...] This book will be useful primarily to scholars looking for specific information about particular people, events, and developments within the homeopathic movement during the period covered. Among other things, readers will find the names—and often the opinions—of hundreds of previously invisible homeopathic practitioners, publicists, and professors; they will follow fierce debates between the so-called high-dilutionists (whose therapeutic commitment to infinitesimally small doses of supposedly energized substances verged on spiritualism) and the low-dilutionists (who ultimately merged with mainstream physicians in the early decades of the 20th century); they will explore the founding and fate of homeopathic medical schools; they will listen to well-intentioned homeopaths defend themselves against attacks from the American Medical Association; and they will learn about regional variations in the character, reception, and legal standing of homeopathy around the country." Anyway not to defend homeopathy, but I just find it sad that so many people view James Randi as a credible source despite the fact that he can rarely go five minutes without lying about something.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Thank you! It seems a stretch to say that James Randi is lying when he doesn't include a disclaimer that the same word happened to also be used for something more scientific around 80 years ago. Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word "homeopathy"
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word 'homeopathy'. Which he wasn't. He was specifically talking about homeopathy in the period when it was invented and when it came to the US in the mid 19th century. In fact he even talks about 'the proving', which as a far as I know isn't even actively done anymore in modern homeopathy. (I'm pretty sure the modern manufacturers are just reusing old formulas and not actually doing new 'research'.)
    - zargon 14y ago
      He gave some historical background but also brought it around to how homeopathic preparations are presently made, with the examples of actual products using 30x and 1500x dilutions. There are lots of specifics we could be pedantic about, but I agree with the grandparent that for a 15 minute summary of homeopathy it's on target.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  Let's pull another part of that quote: "John S. Haller, Jr, reminds us that homeopathy in the 19th century rested upon highly specific principles—all of which flowed from Samuel Hahnemann's fundamental axiom that “like cures like”" Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science. You can make the exact same arguments about alchemists and some schools of occult study. They used careful and meticulous methods, and even made some discoveries in the areas of lab work or procedure that were useful to many areas. These things don't mean the beliefs are any more true. So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists? That just seems like you are looking for something to object to.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science." If that's true, then modern medicine isn't science because it works exactly the same way. It starts with all sorts of spiritual axioms, like the idea that the most effective drugs are made by isolating one single molecule out of the entire plant. And that's what modern medicine believes is a universal and inviolable law, no matter how much empirical evidence there is that this isn't always the case. (E.g. look at the efficacy trials of marijuana vs. pure THC.) "So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists?" It's not really a small piece of trivia, especially considering the idea that all homeopathy is high dilution was the sine qua non of his argument. And furthermore, low dilution homeopathic treatments still exist today, e.g. those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy. More people probably have exposure to those than every other homeopathic remedy combined.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      You're going to disparage the scientific credibility of the entire medical profession because some practitioners are focused on isolating and synthesizing the effective components of medication? I guess Randi could have said "only the people who believe this crazy stuff believe this crazy stuff", but he did make it clear that his history wasn't complete and comprehensive. The damning evidence remains the same: I can go into an otherwise reputable store and pay for "medicine" that is just water with pseudoscientific incantations performed over it. And you have the chutzpah to call Randi dishonest?

Alex3917 14y ago

From JAMA: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202602 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202602 "19th-century homeopaths pioneered systematic drug-testing research, challenged the dangerously depleting procedures of mainstream physicians at that time, established rigorous professional standards, and valued advanced education at least as highly as their mainstream counterparts did. It was not without reason that homeopaths considered the bases of their approach to medical problems to be more logical and more promising than the inherited tradition of the ancients, upon which mainstream physicians still based their practices. [...] This book will be useful primarily to scholars looking for specific information about particular people, events, and developments within the homeopathic movement during the period covered. Among other things, readers will find the names—and often the opinions—of hundreds of previously invisible homeopathic practitioners, publicists, and professors; they will follow fierce debates between the so-called high-dilutionists (whose therapeutic commitment to infinitesimally small doses of supposedly energized substances verged on spiritualism) and the low-dilutionists (who ultimately merged with mainstream physicians in the early decades of the 20th century); they will explore the founding and fate of homeopathic medical schools; they will listen to well-intentioned homeopaths defend themselves against attacks from the American Medical Association; and they will learn about regional variations in the character, reception, and legal standing of homeopathy around the country." Anyway not to defend homeopathy, but I just find it sad that so many people view James Randi as a credible source despite the fact that he can rarely go five minutes without lying about something.

MartinCron 14y ago
Thank you! It seems a stretch to say that James Randi is lying when he doesn't include a disclaimer that the same word happened to also be used for something more scientific around 80 years ago. Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word "homeopathy"
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word 'homeopathy'. Which he wasn't. He was specifically talking about homeopathy in the period when it was invented and when it came to the US in the mid 19th century. In fact he even talks about 'the proving', which as a far as I know isn't even actively done anymore in modern homeopathy. (I'm pretty sure the modern manufacturers are just reusing old formulas and not actually doing new 'research'.)
  - zargon 14y ago
    He gave some historical background but also brought it around to how homeopathic preparations are presently made, with the examples of actual products using 30x and 1500x dilutions. There are lots of specifics we could be pedantic about, but I agree with the grandparent that for a 15 minute summary of homeopathy it's on target.
freshhawk 14y ago
Let's pull another part of that quote: "John S. Haller, Jr, reminds us that homeopathy in the 19th century rested upon highly specific principles—all of which flowed from Samuel Hahnemann's fundamental axiom that “like cures like”" Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science. You can make the exact same arguments about alchemists and some schools of occult study. They used careful and meticulous methods, and even made some discoveries in the areas of lab work or procedure that were useful to many areas. These things don't mean the beliefs are any more true. So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists? That just seems like you are looking for something to object to.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science." If that's true, then modern medicine isn't science because it works exactly the same way. It starts with all sorts of spiritual axioms, like the idea that the most effective drugs are made by isolating one single molecule out of the entire plant. And that's what modern medicine believes is a universal and inviolable law, no matter how much empirical evidence there is that this isn't always the case. (E.g. look at the efficacy trials of marijuana vs. pure THC.) "So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists?" It's not really a small piece of trivia, especially considering the idea that all homeopathy is high dilution was the sine qua non of his argument. And furthermore, low dilution homeopathic treatments still exist today, e.g. those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy. More people probably have exposure to those than every other homeopathic remedy combined.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    You're going to disparage the scientific credibility of the entire medical profession because some practitioners are focused on isolating and synthesizing the effective components of medication? I guess Randi could have said "only the people who believe this crazy stuff believe this crazy stuff", but he did make it clear that his history wasn't complete and comprehensive. The damning evidence remains the same: I can go into an otherwise reputable store and pay for "medicine" that is just water with pseudoscientific incantations performed over it. And you have the chutzpah to call Randi dishonest?