8 ms·

Whenever I hear about homeopathy I think of this wonder rant ("Storm") by Tim Minchin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Whenever I hear about homeopathy I think of this wonder rant ("Storm") by Tim Minchin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

sjwright 13y ago
"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And whilst its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it."
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  The water forgets the previous substances that were in it, when a trained homoeopath hits it with magic paddle. Yes, that's really how it's suggested to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparation
- ekianjo 13y ago
  The saddest thing is that in some countries (like France...) Homeopathic medicines are actually reimbursed by social security (and therefore paid for by everyone who pays taxes). We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are.
  - todd8 13y ago
    Years ago, I dated a French woman while she was here (in the USA) for a couple of months. She took homeopathic medicine and said that she knew that it worked because it was provided by the national health service! (One night she saw a full moon and remarked to me that it meant it would rain. When I said that I didn't think so, she was surprised and said "All farmers know the full moon brings the rain.")
  - seszett 13y ago
    The idea is that they are as good as placebos (which are proven to be useful in some cases) so they are actually somewhat useful. While I think that "real" placebos would be better for this than de facto placebos with bullshit pseudoscience attached to them, it's still not completely stupid to reimburse them if they do provide the same level of relief as active medicine through placebo effect. Of course they're not effective at killing bacteria, but there are some domains in which placebos have their place. Edit - to be clear, the reason given for reimbursing them is explicitely that they are good as placebos, they are not claimed by the French social security to be useful as active medicine.
    - Sniperfish 13y ago
      Would that not logically justify reimbursement for anything taken for its placebo effects - which would be literally anything as research[1] showed placebo effect occurs even when the subject knows they are taking a placebo? It feels more like justification after the fact. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effec... [1 alternate] http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-w...
    - saalweachter 13y ago
      You have to be very careful when endorsing placebos. The research I've heard about basically says "placebos only have subjective effects". The classic study was on asthma. Participants receiving the placebo reported feeling better, but had no measurable improvement in lung function. So relying on a placebo for a subjective feeling of improvement could be dangerous whenever what's needed is an actual, objective improvement -- ie, "whenever something is actually wrong".
    - zecg 13y ago
      Yes! Also, placebo has been shown to be more efficient if more expensive, so they can't just be giving them away.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > placebos are actually somewhat useful. Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick? Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact?
  - KumarAseem 13y ago
    I have no idea on how they do those clinical studies which say that there is no difference between a placebo and actual homeopathic medicines. And what I read of USA, I have doubts that these studies are really done by independent personnel and not by those who get directly/indirectly paid by companies like Merck, J&J, etc. I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. Also a lot of people I know rely on homeopathy and not one has ever said that it did not give the desired results. The only factor is that the doctor should be able to diagnose the patient properly and have enough knowledge to understand how each chemical interacts with the body and with other chemical to be able to make a compound that will help the body in overcoming the disease. Homeopathy is as much about the medicines as it is about the knowledge and experience of the doctor.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      You and the people you know are being scammed, spending your money for nothing. You see improvements because your body is recovering all on its own - it's pretty good at that. Homeopathic "medicines" contain no chemicals that interact with the body or form compounds, which is exactly why anyone who isn't a complete idiot should immediately understand that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Your homeopath peddler (who does not deserve to be called "doctor") understands absolutely nothing about your body, he has merely memorized a bunch of arbitrary meaningless rules.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      > I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. That's exactly the Placebo effect that you are describing.
    - LinXitoW 13y ago
      Homeopathic remedies have been shown to be no more effective than placebos. The thing is, placebos actually are effective to some degree. So the problem isn't that homeopathy isn't effective, it's that the entire premise of why they are effective is total BS, and people are getting ripped off.
    - 13y ago
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    Don't feel too smug. A lot of health plans in the US cover chiropractors and acupuncture.
    - gambiting 13y ago
      Both of which are scientifically proven to work in some cases. Acupuncture can actually relieve pain[1], and as long as a point of going to a chiropractor is to give muscles a massage rather than to pray and inhale incense sticks, then it helps as well. [1]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11655-011-0665-7 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11655-011-0665-7
      - mchusma 13y ago
        Acupunture is as BS as homeopathy. Here is a great overview. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/
      - aestra 13y ago
        Yeah, I'm sure puncturing the skin can cause a release of endorphins which relieves pain. No doubts there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html
        DanBC 13y ago
        Pain is complex. People report relief from chronic pain after taking placaebo. Cancer patients have relief from pain after cognitive behaviour therapy - a psychological intervention. I have no problem accepting that someone feels pain, has acupuncture, and then no longer feels that pain. I do have a problem with the bullshit mechanisms that acupuncture suggests. Since acupuncture has reasonable few side effects and long term pain medication has some scary side effects it's not so easy ro just dismiss it out of hand even though we know it is nonsense.
        13y ago
  - jaffathecake 13y ago
    It's available on the NHS in the UK too. There was an evidence check into it. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the-science-and-technology-committee-report-evidence-check-2-homeopathy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-respon... - which found it to be without evidence. However, the government changed as the report was published and they decided not to act on the findings.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      > they decided not to act on the findings. Hey, how typical. Let's not imagine a kind of collusion between politicians and homeopathic drugs makers, let's not.
  - simias 13y ago
    That is correct, however one "rational" explanation I've heard for this fact is that homeopathic remedies have a placebo effect and sometimes manage to replace actual medicine to cure minor ailments. Apparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse. I'm not sure if that's true or just a clever excuse to keep homeopathy reimbursed though. An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      > pparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse. Then we are really reimbursing a very expensive form of sugar. I'm not sure who we are kidding but there is no science behind that kind of policy - and if placebo can make such claims, then it should be Open-bar for products making health claims all across the board, from supplements to food items. Yet these are actually controlled, while the regulations on homeopathics benefit from special provisions. No need to prove anything.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      > An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company. Yeah, and they have actually moved their site to my home town in France, and they have detestable practices. They grab all the land around them to expand their operations (even though it used to be land reserved for agriculture) by threatening the mayor to leave the city if they don't get everything that they want. They're just a bunch of bullies and I wouldn't be surprised there's some shady thing going on with them and politicians at the national level.
  - rmc 13y ago
    > We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are. There have been double blind vs placebo tests for homeopathy. It doesn't work. It's no better than a placebo.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Oh, I know, I have seen the studies. I meant, we are still waiting for clinical trials to prove that they work, because so far all trials show it's just like placebo.
      - rmc 13y ago
        But if there's trials that show they don't work, then you don't need to wait for positive results. The question isn't open, the question has been answered with a "no". Absence of evidence where you should expect evidence is evidence of absence.
  - HillRat 13y ago
    We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are. They submitted one. It was two dozen blank sheets of paper that "remembered" the data showing homeopathy works.
  - acheron 13y ago
    As the saying goes: what do they call alternative medicine that passes double-blind clinical tests? Regular medicine.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Not sure. I have not seen the data myself, but I have heard more than one that acupuncture has had demonstrated benefits in clinical trials. And chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. I wouldn't discard everything out there, but homeopathy is, for me, clear BS - from the theory to the data generated.
      - mchusma 13y ago
        Here is a good overview of the evidence. At a high level, Acupunture is just as BS as Homeopathy. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ reply
      - dfxm12 13y ago
        I believe OP is saying IF "alternative medicine" can pass the proper clinical trials, then it no longer deserves the "alternative" label, and is just medicine. Let homeopathy go through trials. Let it fail & put these discussions to bed.
        scott_s 13y ago
        It has failed the trials, for a century. Sadly, it will not die.
        SimHacker 13y ago
        How can you possibly not be aware that homeopathy has gone through trial after trial and has always failed? Have you ever used google or wikipedia? There are NOT two valid sides to this argument.
      - aestra 13y ago
        > chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. You gotta be kidding me! Do you really believe that? Traditional Chinese Medicine is based on an incorrect understanding of the body and an incorrect disease model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine >With an eye to the enormous Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[126] Successful results have however been scarce: a 2007 editorial in Nature said that while this may simply be because TCM is largely irrational pseudoscience, advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients.[126] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html I am not saying there might be merit in some of the practices, however to say "usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials" is incorrect.
mrcsparker 13y ago
Along the same line, I always think about this Mitchell and Webb bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
rayiner 13y ago
It's getting popular. The other day, my wife and I were looking for some teething gel. All we could find was homeopathic ("contains no benzocaine!") shit. Including products from brands I previously considered reputable.
pgt 13y ago
Great beat poem. Here is the live performance: http://youtu.be/KtYkyB35zkk http://youtu.be/KtYkyB35zkk
pron 13y ago
Nice and true, obviously. But I do think that hard-sciences folks, when it comes to this very issue, sometimes refuse to understand what it is that they're seeing; worse - they refuse to examine it. It's understandable as unscientific views are infuriatingly ignorant, but that's no justification! Why is it that in an age of science and technology and their palpable, measurable advantages, do so many people intentionally choose to "hate on" science? What is it that's missing, at least for them? As an imperfect product of nature, rather than perfect observers of it, we are subject to illusions and delusions, that from a phenomenological perspective are as real to us (or as important to us) as gravity. People have the ability to never consider walking out the window but to believe in astrology at the same time, and that's probably not going to change. And yes, people are going to die as a result of intentional ignorance, but people die of many things, many of them are just as stupid. Instead of constantly trying to fight this, I've been trying to open myself to these views, not because of any physical reality they possess (as they possess absolutely none), but because of their phenomenological reality, and what they teach us of human nature.
- greggman 13y ago
  Maybe I'm mis-understanding your point but the issue isn't just about "phenomenological reality". It's about real harm http://whatstheharm.net/ http://whatstheharm.net/
  - wdewind 13y ago
    Thought I agree with the message, this site is terrible. It essentially collects anecdotes and treats them as data. You could do the exact same thing with "real" medicine as well (so and so died during this operation, so we shouldn't do it anymore? no.).
- fab13n 13y ago
  > Why is it that [...] so many people intentionally choose to "hate on" science? My impression is that people miss the Devil. You know, the horny guy with the pitchfork: something well identified, to hate personally, almost anthropomorphically, for everything that goes wrong with their lives, with the world, and with their lack of control and understanding of it. Disclaimers: 1) the ravings that follow are grounded in anecdotal and mostly Western-European observations. They only partially and imperfectly apply to the USA, but that you'll find significant similarities. 2) I'm intentionally caricaturing to get my point across. Just keep the grain of truth deep inside. Consider the caricature of the homeopathic believer: ecologist, liberal, anti-vaccine, anti-big-corps, who might have graduated in humanities but probably not in sciences, who sort-of believes in astrology, completely believes in every alternative medicine that either uses a couple of greek-sounding big words to explain its "theoretical foundation", or draws from extreme-oriental mysticism. Easily sympathetic to conspiracy theories, especially when it's about big money colluding to destroy the ecosystem or maintain suffering populations into poverty. This person is typically defiant of organized religions, be it Catholicism or conservative protestantism. But although she--she seems to be majoritarily female--rejected organized religions, she still needs identifiable, if possible anthropomorphic, incarnations of Good and Evil to worship and hate respectively. Ecology is her Pachamama, a thinly veiled reboot of the Mother-Goddess cult. Science, this mysterious and powerful thing that's used by corporations to shape the world and sometimes dehumanize it, is the instrument of Evil. And her reactions to science at large, including medicine, are uncannily similar to her (great-?)grand-mother's reaction to the Devil. First she'll pretend it doesn't work; if it's too obvious that it does, then she'll be convinced that nasty side effects are going to haunt those who use it, and she'll be desperate to believe in any hollier alternative. And when her religious views contradict her obvious immediate interests, she'll use science, but first she's temporarily unplug any part of her intellect that might see the contradictions between her faith and her acts. This could probably be fixed, by offering less counter-productive ways for people to indulge into their religious feelings. Established mainstream religions don't cut it anymore for most people in Europe, and for increasingly more people in the USA, especially those of liberal inclination. They need a better alternative religion than anti-scientific new-age cults. The difficulty in engineering such an alternative is that in order to work, it must be non-obvious that cults are manufactured by humans...

Whenever I hear about homeopathy I think of this wonder rant ("Storm") by Tim Minchin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

sjwright 13y ago

"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And whilst its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it."

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
The water forgets the previous substances that were in it, when a trained homoeopath hits it with magic paddle. Yes, that's really how it's suggested to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparation
ekianjo 13y ago
The saddest thing is that in some countries (like France...) Homeopathic medicines are actually reimbursed by social security (and therefore paid for by everyone who pays taxes). We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are.
- todd8 13y ago
  Years ago, I dated a French woman while she was here (in the USA) for a couple of months. She took homeopathic medicine and said that she knew that it worked because it was provided by the national health service! (One night she saw a full moon and remarked to me that it meant it would rain. When I said that I didn't think so, she was surprised and said "All farmers know the full moon brings the rain.")
- seszett 13y ago
  The idea is that they are as good as placebos (which are proven to be useful in some cases) so they are actually somewhat useful. While I think that "real" placebos would be better for this than de facto placebos with bullshit pseudoscience attached to them, it's still not completely stupid to reimburse them if they do provide the same level of relief as active medicine through placebo effect. Of course they're not effective at killing bacteria, but there are some domains in which placebos have their place. Edit - to be clear, the reason given for reimbursing them is explicitely that they are good as placebos, they are not claimed by the French social security to be useful as active medicine.
  - Sniperfish 13y ago
    Would that not logically justify reimbursement for anything taken for its placebo effects - which would be literally anything as research[1] showed placebo effect occurs even when the subject knows they are taking a placebo? It feels more like justification after the fact. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effec... [1 alternate] http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-w...
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    You have to be very careful when endorsing placebos. The research I've heard about basically says "placebos only have subjective effects". The classic study was on asthma. Participants receiving the placebo reported feeling better, but had no measurable improvement in lung function. So relying on a placebo for a subjective feeling of improvement could be dangerous whenever what's needed is an actual, objective improvement -- ie, "whenever something is actually wrong".
  - zecg 13y ago
    Yes! Also, placebo has been shown to be more efficient if more expensive, so they can't just be giving them away.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > placebos are actually somewhat useful. Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick? Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact?
- KumarAseem 13y ago
  I have no idea on how they do those clinical studies which say that there is no difference between a placebo and actual homeopathic medicines. And what I read of USA, I have doubts that these studies are really done by independent personnel and not by those who get directly/indirectly paid by companies like Merck, J&J, etc. I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. Also a lot of people I know rely on homeopathy and not one has ever said that it did not give the desired results. The only factor is that the doctor should be able to diagnose the patient properly and have enough knowledge to understand how each chemical interacts with the body and with other chemical to be able to make a compound that will help the body in overcoming the disease. Homeopathy is as much about the medicines as it is about the knowledge and experience of the doctor.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    You and the people you know are being scammed, spending your money for nothing. You see improvements because your body is recovering all on its own - it's pretty good at that. Homeopathic "medicines" contain no chemicals that interact with the body or form compounds, which is exactly why anyone who isn't a complete idiot should immediately understand that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Your homeopath peddler (who does not deserve to be called "doctor") understands absolutely nothing about your body, he has merely memorized a bunch of arbitrary meaningless rules.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > I myself take homeopathic medicines for various ailments (small or big) and have seen improvement in my physical condition every time. That's exactly the Placebo effect that you are describing.
  - LinXitoW 13y ago
    Homeopathic remedies have been shown to be no more effective than placebos. The thing is, placebos actually are effective to some degree. So the problem isn't that homeopathy isn't effective, it's that the entire premise of why they are effective is total BS, and people are getting ripped off.
  - 13y ago
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Don't feel too smug. A lot of health plans in the US cover chiropractors and acupuncture.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    Both of which are scientifically proven to work in some cases. Acupuncture can actually relieve pain[1], and as long as a point of going to a chiropractor is to give muscles a massage rather than to pray and inhale incense sticks, then it helps as well. [1]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11655-011-0665-7 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11655-011-0665-7
    - mchusma 13y ago
      Acupunture is as BS as homeopathy. Here is a great overview. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/
    - aestra 13y ago
      Yeah, I'm sure puncturing the skin can cause a release of endorphins which relieves pain. No doubts there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html
      - DanBC 13y ago
        Pain is complex. People report relief from chronic pain after taking placaebo. Cancer patients have relief from pain after cognitive behaviour therapy - a psychological intervention. I have no problem accepting that someone feels pain, has acupuncture, and then no longer feels that pain. I do have a problem with the bullshit mechanisms that acupuncture suggests. Since acupuncture has reasonable few side effects and long term pain medication has some scary side effects it's not so easy ro just dismiss it out of hand even though we know it is nonsense.
        13y ago
- jaffathecake 13y ago
  It's available on the NHS in the UK too. There was an evidence check into it. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the-science-and-technology-committee-report-evidence-check-2-homeopathy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-respon... - which found it to be without evidence. However, the government changed as the report was published and they decided not to act on the findings.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > they decided not to act on the findings. Hey, how typical. Let's not imagine a kind of collusion between politicians and homeopathic drugs makers, let's not.
- simias 13y ago
  That is correct, however one "rational" explanation I've heard for this fact is that homeopathic remedies have a placebo effect and sometimes manage to replace actual medicine to cure minor ailments. Apparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse. I'm not sure if that's true or just a clever excuse to keep homeopathy reimbursed though. An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > pparently homeopathy is less expensive than the real stuff so social security has less to reimburse. Then we are really reimbursing a very expensive form of sugar. I'm not sure who we are kidding but there is no science behind that kind of policy - and if placebo can make such claims, then it should be Open-bar for products making health claims all across the board, from supplements to food items. Yet these are actually controlled, while the regulations on homeopathics benefit from special provisions. No need to prove anything.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > An other element to consider is that Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world is a french company. Yeah, and they have actually moved their site to my home town in France, and they have detestable practices. They grab all the land around them to expand their operations (even though it used to be land reserved for agriculture) by threatening the mayor to leave the city if they don't get everything that they want. They're just a bunch of bullies and I wouldn't be surprised there's some shady thing going on with them and politicians at the national level.
- rmc 13y ago
  > We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are. There have been double blind vs placebo tests for homeopathy. It doesn't work. It's no better than a placebo.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Oh, I know, I have seen the studies. I meant, we are still waiting for clinical trials to prove that they work, because so far all trials show it's just like placebo.
    - rmc 13y ago
      But if there's trials that show they don't work, then you don't need to wait for positive results. The question isn't open, the question has been answered with a "no". Absence of evidence where you should expect evidence is evidence of absence.
- HillRat 13y ago
  We're still waiting for double-blind, vs placebo, clinical trials to show how efficacious they really are. They submitted one. It was two dozen blank sheets of paper that "remembered" the data showing homeopathy works.
- acheron 13y ago
  As the saying goes: what do they call alternative medicine that passes double-blind clinical tests? Regular medicine.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Not sure. I have not seen the data myself, but I have heard more than one that acupuncture has had demonstrated benefits in clinical trials. And chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. I wouldn't discard everything out there, but homeopathy is, for me, clear BS - from the theory to the data generated.
    - mchusma 13y ago
      Here is a good overview of the evidence. At a high level, Acupunture is just as BS as Homeopathy. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/ reply
    - dfxm12 13y ago
      I believe OP is saying IF "alternative medicine" can pass the proper clinical trials, then it no longer deserves the "alternative" label, and is just medicine. Let homeopathy go through trials. Let it fail & put these discussions to bed.
      - scott_s 13y ago
        It has failed the trials, for a century. Sadly, it will not die.
      - SimHacker 13y ago
        How can you possibly not be aware that homeopathy has gone through trial after trial and has always failed? Have you ever used google or wikipedia? There are NOT two valid sides to this argument.
    - aestra 13y ago
      > chinese medicine usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials as well. You gotta be kidding me! Do you really believe that? Traditional Chinese Medicine is based on an incorrect understanding of the body and an incorrect disease model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine >With an eye to the enormous Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[126] Successful results have however been scarce: a 2007 editorial in Nature said that while this may simply be because TCM is largely irrational pseudoscience, advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients.[126] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html I am not saying there might be merit in some of the practices, however to say "usually fares relatively well when put in clinical trials" is incorrect.

mrcsparker 13y ago

Along the same line, I always think about this Mitchell and Webb bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

rayiner 13y ago

It's getting popular. The other day, my wife and I were looking for some teething gel. All we could find was homeopathic ("contains no benzocaine!") shit. Including products from brands I previously considered reputable.

pgt 13y ago

Great beat poem. Here is the live performance: http://youtu.be/KtYkyB35zkk http://youtu.be/KtYkyB35zkk

pron 13y ago

Nice and true, obviously. But I do think that hard-sciences folks, when it comes to this very issue, sometimes refuse to understand what it is that they're seeing; worse - they refuse to examine it. It's understandable as unscientific views are infuriatingly ignorant, but that's no justification! Why is it that in an age of science and technology and their palpable, measurable advantages, do so many people intentionally choose to "hate on" science? What is it that's missing, at least for them? As an imperfect product of nature, rather than perfect observers of it, we are subject to illusions and delusions, that from a phenomenological perspective are as real to us (or as important to us) as gravity. People have the ability to never consider walking out the window but to believe in astrology at the same time, and that's probably not going to change. And yes, people are going to die as a result of intentional ignorance, but people die of many things, many of them are just as stupid. Instead of constantly trying to fight this, I've been trying to open myself to these views, not because of any physical reality they possess (as they possess absolutely none), but because of their phenomenological reality, and what they teach us of human nature.

greggman 13y ago
Maybe I'm mis-understanding your point but the issue isn't just about "phenomenological reality". It's about real harm http://whatstheharm.net/ http://whatstheharm.net/
- wdewind 13y ago
  Thought I agree with the message, this site is terrible. It essentially collects anecdotes and treats them as data. You could do the exact same thing with "real" medicine as well (so and so died during this operation, so we shouldn't do it anymore? no.).
fab13n 13y ago
> Why is it that [...] so many people intentionally choose to "hate on" science? My impression is that people miss the Devil. You know, the horny guy with the pitchfork: something well identified, to hate personally, almost anthropomorphically, for everything that goes wrong with their lives, with the world, and with their lack of control and understanding of it. Disclaimers: 1) the ravings that follow are grounded in anecdotal and mostly Western-European observations. They only partially and imperfectly apply to the USA, but that you'll find significant similarities. 2) I'm intentionally caricaturing to get my point across. Just keep the grain of truth deep inside. Consider the caricature of the homeopathic believer: ecologist, liberal, anti-vaccine, anti-big-corps, who might have graduated in humanities but probably not in sciences, who sort-of believes in astrology, completely believes in every alternative medicine that either uses a couple of greek-sounding big words to explain its "theoretical foundation", or draws from extreme-oriental mysticism. Easily sympathetic to conspiracy theories, especially when it's about big money colluding to destroy the ecosystem or maintain suffering populations into poverty. This person is typically defiant of organized religions, be it Catholicism or conservative protestantism. But although she--she seems to be majoritarily female--rejected organized religions, she still needs identifiable, if possible anthropomorphic, incarnations of Good and Evil to worship and hate respectively. Ecology is her Pachamama, a thinly veiled reboot of the Mother-Goddess cult. Science, this mysterious and powerful thing that's used by corporations to shape the world and sometimes dehumanize it, is the instrument of Evil. And her reactions to science at large, including medicine, are uncannily similar to her (great-?)grand-mother's reaction to the Devil. First she'll pretend it doesn't work; if it's too obvious that it does, then she'll be convinced that nasty side effects are going to haunt those who use it, and she'll be desperate to believe in any hollier alternative. And when her religious views contradict her obvious immediate interests, she'll use science, but first she's temporarily unplug any part of her intellect that might see the contradictions between her faith and her acts. This could probably be fixed, by offering less counter-productive ways for people to indulge into their religious feelings. Established mainstream religions don't cut it anymore for most people in Europe, and for increasingly more people in the USA, especially those of liberal inclination. They need a better alternative religion than anti-scientific new-age cults. The difficulty in engineering such an alternative is that in order to work, it must be non-obvious that cults are manufactured by humans...