8 ms·

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

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
    "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?" My criticism of western medicine isn't that it focuses on new molecular entities (NMEs), but rather that it focuses only on NMEs despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity. My point is that it's not fair to criticize alchemy for having guiding spiritual assumptions if you're not willing to admit that western medicine has its own spiritual assumptions.
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      > despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity Can you link to this empirical evidence? I'm honestly not aware of it.
      - Alex3917 14y ago
        I'm not aware of any single good source on this, but a couple interesting links: http://maps.org/ http://maps.org/ This is a non-profit pharma company working on getting MDMA through phase III trials. They've been getting tons of publicity lately, in part because of their very solid methodology and in part because of their results and the interestingness/importance of the project. No traditional pharma companies will do any research on the drug though because it can't be patented, not to mention it's schedule I meaning that each study can take literally several years to get approved. For a comparison of marijuana with marinol, this is a good link: http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/marinol-vs-natural-cannabis http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/marinol-vs-natural-c... There are lots of plants that compare well with pharma drugs safety and efficacy wise in preclinical studies, but there are basically zero actual clinical studies done on them because they can't be patented or prescribed. Andrew Weil has a great writeup on why plants are usually better than drugs here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-usually-be_b_785139.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-... Obviously there are many famous counterexamples where the isolated molecule really is much better, like with aspirin. But often with just the whole plant or some extract you can get at least 80% of the benefits but with only 10% of the side effects. (Plants kill only a couple hundred people in the US per year, whereas pharma drugs kill 200k+ per year.)
- freshhawk 14y ago
  > those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy So those other things that don't work? Zinc as a common cold treament has never had a convincing effect size and when controlling with equally bad tasting placebos has no effect. > 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.) I'm not aware of any universal and inviolable laws in modern medicine other than the need to prove a treatment actually works. There are certainly scientists and doctors looking at non-THC cannabinoids. To suggest that anyone is using non-scientific principles to do anything useful in this area is absurd. The reason that active ingredients are isolated is to provide a predictable and safe result for all patients. When you skip that step you get other results: Like the people who lost their sense of smell by taking Zicam because low dilution homeopaths told them it would cure the common cold.

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
  "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?" My criticism of western medicine isn't that it focuses on new molecular entities (NMEs), but rather that it focuses only on NMEs despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity. My point is that it's not fair to criticize alchemy for having guiding spiritual assumptions if you're not willing to admit that western medicine has its own spiritual assumptions.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    > despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity Can you link to this empirical evidence? I'm honestly not aware of it.
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      I'm not aware of any single good source on this, but a couple interesting links: http://maps.org/ http://maps.org/ This is a non-profit pharma company working on getting MDMA through phase III trials. They've been getting tons of publicity lately, in part because of their very solid methodology and in part because of their results and the interestingness/importance of the project. No traditional pharma companies will do any research on the drug though because it can't be patented, not to mention it's schedule I meaning that each study can take literally several years to get approved. For a comparison of marijuana with marinol, this is a good link: http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/marinol-vs-natural-cannabis http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/marinol-vs-natural-c... There are lots of plants that compare well with pharma drugs safety and efficacy wise in preclinical studies, but there are basically zero actual clinical studies done on them because they can't be patented or prescribed. Andrew Weil has a great writeup on why plants are usually better than drugs here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-usually-be_b_785139.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-... Obviously there are many famous counterexamples where the isolated molecule really is much better, like with aspirin. But often with just the whole plant or some extract you can get at least 80% of the benefits but with only 10% of the side effects. (Plants kill only a couple hundred people in the US per year, whereas pharma drugs kill 200k+ per year.)
freshhawk 14y ago
> those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy So those other things that don't work? Zinc as a common cold treament has never had a convincing effect size and when controlling with equally bad tasting placebos has no effect. > 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.) I'm not aware of any universal and inviolable laws in modern medicine other than the need to prove a treatment actually works. There are certainly scientists and doctors looking at non-THC cannabinoids. To suggest that anyone is using non-scientific principles to do anything useful in this area is absurd. The reason that active ingredients are isolated is to provide a predictable and safe result for all patients. When you skip that step you get other results: Like the people who lost their sense of smell by taking Zicam because low dilution homeopaths told them it would cure the common cold.