Homeopathic tablets

[Rolfe]

Incidentally, the tablets are labelled glucose, not lactose.

That's interesting, the ones I had were labelled "sucrose/lactose", and tasted like pure sucrose. That's why I just call them "magic sugar pills", sort of covers all the bases.

(I think you're probably right, there's not much chance there's a lot of anything in these pills, but it's the quality control I'd worry about. Anyway, if you do any demonstration or trial with these, and get a negative result, the homoeopaths will simply declare that this is "not true homoeopathy", and you're back where you started.)

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

(Can't you cure your husband's allergies homoeopathically? )

even under the best homeopathic practitioner it takes typically 3 YEARS for homeopathy to cure allergies. I am by far not the best practitioner and hubby is also not a willing patient. He will however take what I give him but it is difficult to get a good case description from him. However, having said that, I have had a NAET treatment done on him through a distance practitioner (I am sure this must be even more WOO than homeopathy) and since then his allergic reactions have been drastically reduced. I am still skeptical about it and am waiting until fall allergy season comes around. Though we just got a doggie and he was licking my husband and this is the first time he didn't get a red skin reaction from dog saliva. Could be coincidence, not placebo though as hubby was unaware of the NAET.

Poor puppy had fleas and hookworm from the rescue organization but luckily the heartworm test results were negative - phew - I was very worried. He has been sleeping a lot but is just adorable. He is a Tibetan Terrier and looks a lot like Benji. He is 6 months and going through that awkward lanky teenage stage.

Just thought I would share.

 

[Rolfe]

I have had a NAET treatment done on him through a distance practitioner (I am sure this must be even more WOO than homeopathy) and since then his allergic reactions have been drastically reduced. I am still skeptical about it....

Depends. Do you favour coincidence or magic as an explanation? Gotta be one or the other....

He is a Tibetan Terrier and looks a lot like Benji. He is 6 months and going through that awkward lanky teenage stage.

Just thought I would share.

Pictures. We demand pictures!

Rolfe.

Oops, just noticed how that came out when I did the selective quoting. It's OK, we realise your husband isn't a Tibetan Terrier.

 

[Barbrae]

It's OK, we realise your husband isn't a Tibetan Terrier.

and not nearly as cute!

 

[Rolfe]

I have had a NAET treatment done on him through a distance practitioner (I am sure this must be even more WOO than homeopathy)

Been mulling this one over.

No, it isn't.

Nothing is more woo than homoeopathy.

It may seem more woo, superficially, when the practitioner doesn't meet or touch or do anything to the patient, but really, it isn't. It's all about doing nothing and calling it therapy, and I really can't see any significant difference between them. The fact that homoeopathy dishes out a minuscule amount of some form of sugar or a water/alcohol mixture may make it seem as if it's doing more, but what's a few grammes of sugar or a couple of ml of water/alcohol in the grand scheme of things?

Homoeopathy, radionics, therapeutic touch, crystal healing, that nonsense with pyramids and so on, are all in the same category - of things where nothing is done to the patient. No one of them is any more or less woo than any other.

Yes, Barb, I know you're going to tell us there are "energies" in the remedies. Well, no there aren't. Nothing that can be measured or explained or demonstrated in any way at all. And certainly nothing that's capable of interacting in any way with biological systems, and perhaps more importantly, nothing that has ever been demonstrated to have any effect on biological systems.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not that I don't want to see pictures of the puppy, but can we perhaps get back to the more serious questions round here?

Consider the uncertainties surrounding homoeopathy.

• There is no agreement about the dose rate (the number of tablets to take)
• There is no agreement about shelf life
• There is no agreement about intercurrent interferences (for example, whether or not drinking coffee will prevent the remedy from working)
• There is no agreement regarding possible inactivation of the remedies by EM radiation

If this were conventional medicine that contained all these unknown quantities, how would the homoeopaths react? Would there be enough electrons in the planet to express their disdain?

Barb, did you understand what I said about homoeopathy not being an art appreciation class? Medicine isn't about individual expression and subjectivism. What do you say to the patient who wants to know what the FACTS are?

And how would you establish these facts?

If you don't think that fact is important when intervening in people's health, could you explain why not?

Rolfe.

And by the way, Barb, do you understand yet what my sig (the first part) means? You've frequently said how terrible you think my attitude is, and that I should think the patient is the important thing, not the numbers.

The sig is a quote from a drama where a doctor has been denying (to himself and others) that he is addicted to prescription drugs. It's only when he's forced to look at his own lab report that he admits he has a problem.

Do you think there was any way we could have figured out what was wrong with Sarah or what to do about it without these numbers that Alphonse finally posted? And do you realise that we'd be whistling in the dark without getting up-to-date measurements to find out how she's responding to treatment? (For "we" read the veterinary profesison in general.)

In order to be able to help the patient you need to understand what's wrong, and in order to understand what's wrong, you need to understand the numbers. Anything else is just self-deceptive do-gooderism.

 

[Byzantine Magpie]

Well, I gave my Skeptics talk at the school yesterday, speaking to about 100 or so Year 11 boys just after lunch.

As a rule it went pretty well. I'd taken a bit of time to prepare a talk, keeping it to only a couple of topics.

The topics I covered were the Moon hoax and homeopathy. I started the talk by consuming 20 of the homeopathic sleeping pills, which generated a buzz of talk and laughter. (They tasted like little bits of sugar - not surprising.) The Moon hoax part skidded past because most of the boys accepted the reality of Apollo. In any case, I concentrated on the proofs of the landing, and let the boys ask about the supposed fakery if they were interested. The homeopathy bit generated a bit more interest. I described its origins, the dilution, how it's supposed to work, and its dangers, followed by a brief reference to other alternate medicines. I finished with a quote from a Sydney Morning Herald story about a Newcastle (Aust) naturopath who was convicted of manslaughter earlier this year.

The questions covered a wide range, and this was probably where I was the weakest. Why was I interested in Apollo? (I'd made the point that there was a reason to be concerned if Moon hoax belief became widespread, because of what it indicated about society.) Do I see skepticism as a religion and do I intend to impose it on everyone? Do I accept the placebo effect? Have I personally investigated the other alt meds I listed? Are you religious, and how not if over 95% of all people who ever lived were religious? Isn't it a waste of time to be a skeptic?

The best question was a suggestion that I didn't overdose on the sleeping tablets because taking more was in effect the reverse of over-dilution (the opposite of the joke about the man who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine and died of an overdose). Perhaps this bright young spark has worked out homeopathy!

Anyway, I know what to do to tailor this talk more specifically (talk more about what it is to be a skeptic and what skeptics stand for). And the teacher who invited me has suggested I'll be asked back next year.

Thanks again for all your help.

And by the way, I *didn't* fall asleep right after taking the tablets, and I also haven't had any other reaction.

 

[The Don]

Apparently it's not so simple as just ramming "sleeping tablets" down your neck. IIRC, from other homoeopathic threads homoeopathic "healers" keep saying that the treatment has to be individualised and that it takes time before they find the right combination of absent ingredients and before the correct level of these ingredients had built up.

On this basis it's highly unlikely that ingesting the tablets would have caused sleep after all they may not have been right for you (as opposed to mean old allopathic medicine in which the effects of a treatment seem to be mich more predictable). I think that you will find that had you taken 20 pills a day for six months they would have been proved to work (after all you are bound to have slept at some point during that time).

The more that people here teach me about homoeopathy, the less that the basic principles aren't the most ridiculous things about it (amazingly unbelievable though they are) and instead the machinations that pepple go through to explain away its apparent ineffectiveness become the true source of wonderment.

BTW stimulants presumably are included on a "like cures like" basis. To cure sleep depravation, dehydration or irritability, take a stimulant that causes all three in non-existent doses shook up just right.

 

[BillHoyt]

DO NOT INGEST THE ENTIRE BOX - NOT ONLY IS IT EXTREMELY STUPID IT WON"T GET YOUR POINT ACROSS WHICH I ASSUME IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES AND THEY ARE JUST SUGAR PILLS BECAUSE INDEED WITH THIS PRODUCT THERE IS ACTUAL MATERIAL SUBSTANCES LEFT.

If you want to take antire bottle of a homeopathic remedy make sure it is diluted past avagadros number and preferably with a relatively benign substance. By the way, how are you giving a talk on this stuff if you aren't aware of the substances in the product or even that they are not diluted past a safe dilution. Seems odd to give a talk about something you obvioulsy don't understand.

Balderdash, Barbrae,

I've pulled this stunt. I copped it from Randi, who pulled this stunt in front of Congress. "Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). " (from Steve Barret's Quackwatch site). The highest dosage (in real terms, not woo terms) is 4C. The lowest is 30C. If the manufacturer is not *ahem* stretching the truth about the pill content, you'd have very few molecules of anything other than filler.

Your last paragraph is pathetic, Barbrae. The talk being proposed is not about mechanisms or theory or chemistry (again, real chemistry, not woo). It is about efficacity. That is the point: it isn't real, it doesn't work. It is a scam.

 

[BillHoyt]

Apparently it's not so simple as just ramming "sleeping tablets" down your neck. IIRC, from other homoeopathic threads homoeopathic "healers" keep saying that the treatment has to be individualised and that it takes time before they find the right combination of absent ingredients and before the correct level of these ingredients had built up.

On this basis it's highly unlikely that ingesting the tablets would have caused sleep after all they may not have been right for you (as opposed to mean old allopathic medicine in which the effects of a treatment seem to be mich more predictable). I think that you will find that had you taken 20 pills a day for six months they would have been proved to work (after all you are bound to have slept at some point during that time).

The more that people here teach me about homoeopathy, the less that the basic principles aren't the most ridiculous things about it (amazingly unbelievable though they are) and instead the machinations that pepple go through to explain away its apparent ineffectiveness become the true source of wonderment.

BTW stimulants presumably are included on a "like cures like" basis. To cure sleep depravation, dehydration or irritability, take a stimulant that causes all three in non-existent doses shook up just right.

I guess the slip "sleep depravation" is appropriate when talking about this nonsense.

You make an interesting point about the "individualized" school of homeopathy. They are at odds with the very notion of homeopathic nostrums sold OTC.

 

[Rolfe]

Apparently it's not so simple as just ramming "sleeping tablets" down your neck. IIRC, from other homoeopathic threads homoeopathic "healers" keep saying that the treatment has to be individualised and that it takes time before they find the right combination of absent ingredients and before the correct level of these ingredients had built up.

Yes, they say it's all about individualisation. Especially when non-believers try to do a controlled trial and get no effect. Of course this is because the treatment wasn't individualised to each patient.

However, as BSM said on one of the other threads, but they don't DO any feckin' individualisation! If you read their own forum, it only takes someone to mention a diagnosis or suggested diagnosis ("allopathic" of course) and the remedy suggestions pour in.

Of course, they shouldn't be treating "insomnia". They treat the whole patient, remember? So they should be looking at this patient whose vital force isn't just quite the thing, and figuring out what to do about this by asking whole slew of personal questions. Not sleeping well, even if it's the patient's main concern, is just one little part of the whole symptom-taking and repertorisation. In theory.

And it isn't about a combination of remedies at all, this is completely contrary to homoeoapthic principles. The goal is to find the single "correct" remedy which is right for this individual patient. The good practitioners will find it first time of course, the novices may have to try several. Giving more than one remedy at once is anathema, because the multiple remedies will theoretically combine to be equivalent to a wholly new remedy, whose properties no one knows or can predict.

And it isn't about "absent ingredients" in the body. It's about a disturbed vital force. The homoeopaths claim that the content-free remedies contain an "energy imprint" which just gently nudges the vital force back on track.

So it isn't about building up correct levels of anything either. Theoretically, if you get the remedy exactly right, one dose should do it once and for all. It's theoretically frowned on to repeat a dose without waiting to see the result - they should be waiting days if not weeks between remedy administrations.

This is the theory. But in practice it just goes like this:

Alphonse: My cat is hyperthyroid.
Wim: My advice is to give Flor the piedra 12c or 30x (12c is 1st choice), 1 daily dose in the morning. In the afternoon give Iodum 30c, 1 daily dose. In the (early) evening give Thyroidinum 30c, 1 daily dose. (He later suggested moving to giving each remedy twice daily.)

Yeah, right.

Those pills Byzantine Magpie had aren't real homoeopathy at all. They're just a quack combination of not very much being sold under the homoeopathy banner in order not to have to satisfy any medicines licensing regulations.

Rolfe.

 

[Benguin]

Of course, they shouldn't be treating "insomnia". They treat the whole patient, remember? So they should be looking at this patient whose vital force isn't just quite the thing, and figuring out what to do about this by asking whole slew of personal questions. Not sleeping well, even if it's the patient's main concern, is just one little part of the whole symptom-taking and repertorisation. In theory.

Even evil allopathic GPs resist treating 'insomnia'. If all else fails you'll probably get sleeping tablets ... or if they turn out to be an appropriate solution.

I'd be very surprised to learn one dished them out before looking for the reason someone was struggling with sleep.

In any case, don't OTC homeo remedies go against hahnemann on secrecy as well as individualisation? I thought patients weren't supposed to know what they were taking ...
edited to add
Although, as you say, these aren't 'real' homeopathy pills.

 

[Rolfe]

The highest dosage (in real terms, not woo terms) is 4C. The lowest is 30C. If the manufacturer is not *ahem* stretching the truth about the pill content, you'd have very few molecules of anything other than filler.

Bill, this has already all been dealt with. Most of the ingredients in there are at "potencies" below the Avogadro limit. Several are at 3C, not necessarily negligible.

We agree that in fact the probability is that there's very little of anything in these pills. However, as we don't know the concentrations of anything in the mother tinctures, or exactly how the pills were prepared, it's impossible to be sure. And the fact that the manufacture obviously involves handling appreciable quantities of potentially dangerous herbal substances means that you'd be taking an awful lot on trust as far as quality control goes, in a situation which we know is not subject to any legislative or safety controls.

And indeed, that was all that Barb was saying, if a little stridently. She cautioned against taking the entire bottle because the contents were not diluted past Avogadro's number. She suggested that if Byzantine Magpie wanted to do such a demonstration he should choose a preparation which was diluted past Avogadro's number. On safety grounds.

She made no claims regarding theory, or mode of action, or efficacy. All she said was, don't shovel down handfuls of pills admitted to containing material quantities of toxic herbs!

She was quite right.

Just because Barb is a homoeopath doesn't make everything she says nonsense, and absolutely does not justify attacking a perfectly reasonable post about a safety concern as "balderdash" and "pathetic".

Bill, we take a lot of vicious rudeness from the homoepaths on their boards. Personally, I'd prefer it if we could confine our reciprocal attacks to situations where the homoeopaths are actually talking balderdash, rather than just attacking on sight even when one of them is making a perfectly valid point.

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

Hi Barbrae, and sorry for the delay in replying.

The purpose of my demonstration was to show that homeopathic sleeping pills do not put one to sleep. In that respect, I was copying the similar demonstrations performed elsewhere. However, to prevent any claim that self-made homeopathic products are useless, I used a product manufactured and sold here in Australia.

However, I'm a little puzzled by a couple of things you say.

"A homeopathic remedy is NOT homeopathy."

What do you mean by this? Homeopaths practice homeopathy by producing homeopathic remedies. Where is the disconnect?

"I can't show that adivil is ineffective for headaches if I take a pill when I don't have a headache."

But if I take a laxative, I'm going to have to visit the toilet whether I'm constipated or not.

Anyway, the product is called "Sleep and Insomnia Relief", and it's marketed by Brauer Natural Medicine Pty Ltd as a "Homoeopathic Product" for "Relief of sleeplessness and insomnia". Further details about the product are available at their web-site: www.brauer.com.au

Cheers

Hi Byzantine magpie

Well, if it was your point to show that the homeopathic sleeping remedies would not put one to sleep then you are correct becuase that is not how homeopathy works.

Homeopathy is based on certian principles - the main one is that like cures like - so you MUST be experiencing insomnia to experience relief from a homeopathically prepared remedy. It will not work on someone not having insomnia. It isn't conventional medicine and works differenty and must be administered according to the principles behind homeopathy. It is the principle that is homeopathy not a remedy.

That is what I mean by a homeopathically prepared remedy is NOT homeopathy. Just like I said before - an accupunturist needle is NOT accupunture. You need to follow the principles of accupunture, the meridians, flow of chi and then administer the needle according to the principles - the needle is not accupunture.

A remedy is useless, is nothing, unless given according to homeopathic principles. So the demonstration tells us nothing about homeopathy, it just tells us that homeopathic remedies do not act the same as conventional meds - but we all know that.

 

[geni]

A remedy is useless, is nothing, unless given according to homeopathic principles. So the demonstration tells us nothing about homeopathy, it just tells us that homeopathic remedies do not act the same as conventional meds - but we all know that.

Well acording to the rules of homeopathy there isthe posibility of him provingand becoming hyperactive

 

[Chris Haynes]

..A remedy is useless, is nothing, unless given according to homeopathic principles.

Actually when is a homeopathic remedy NOT useless?

So the demonstration tells us nothing about homeopathy, it just tells us that homeopathic remedies do not act the same as conventional meds - but we all know that.

As of yet, I have not seen any evidence that homeopathy acts as anything other than a placebo.

 

[Rolfe]

Exactly this test has been used and is being used to make a point to the audience. Exactly this demonstration was used last month by over twenty people in a "mass suicide."

As a "stunt", this is fun and may well make a useful point to people who know little or nothing of homoeopathy. The point it makes is that homoeopathy doesn't work the way normal people might expect it to work.

Now, if this was the way homoeopaths also claimed that it worked, then you might be well on your way to something positive. However, as Barb has just explained, this is not how homoeopaths claim that homoeopathy works. This is why it is a straw man.

More useful, I think, is to go on to explain why it is a straw man, and what homoeopaths really believe. This is so much madder than the general public usually assumes, and actually presenting the reality of these beliefs in the cold light of day is likely to stimulate a lot more thought and questioning than simply showing that so-called "homoeopathic" sleeping pills don't put anyone to sleep no matter what the quantity ingested.

Otherwise, the audience is simply primed for the type of explanation that Barb is coming up with, and once that has been delivered, the effect of the stunt may be completely negated.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris Haynes]

As a "stunt", this is fun and may well make a useful point to people who know little or nothing of homoeopathy. The point it makes is that homoeopathy doesn't work the way normal people might expect it to work.

... snip...

Otherwise, the audience is simply primed for the type of explanation that Barb is coming up with, and once that has been delivered, the effect of the stunt may be completely negated.

Rolfe.

Or another demonstation would be to have one person take the "homeopathic" sleeping remedy, and then have another take a couple of tablets of diphenhydramine whatever (Benadryl or generic). At the end of one hour see which one is actually sleepy (it helps if the person taking the antihistamine is susceptible -- like I am -- AND is not going to be operating any heavy machinery like a car).

Most "normal" people who when they are told what homeopathy REALLY is (most just think it is some kind of herbal remedy with actual ingredients) would probably not be convinced by Barb's explanation that homeopathy actually does "work".

editted to correct something stupid

 

[BillHoyt]

As a "stunt", this is fun and may well make a useful point to people who know little or nothing of homoeopathy. The point it makes is that homoeopathy doesn't work the way normal people might expect it to work.

Now, if this was the way homoeopaths also claimed that it worked, then you might be well on your way to something positive. However, as Barb has just explained, this is not how homoeopaths claim that homoeopathy works. This is why it is a straw man.

More useful, I think, is to go on to explain why it is a straw man, and what homoeopaths really believe. This is so much madder than the general public usually assumes, and actually presenting the reality of these beliefs in the cold light of day is likely to stimulate a lot more thought and questioning than simply showing that so-called "homoeopathic" sleeping pills don't put anyone to sleep no matter what the quantity ingested.

Otherwise, the audience is simply primed for the type of explanation that Barb is coming up with, and once that has been delivered, the effect of the stunt may be completely negated.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

All one needs do is look at the label to see the problem. It claims to be homeopathic, and, in fact, is. (Homeopaths do not all follow Hahneman's ideas. This is a free-for-all in which you make money with mumbo-jumbo and really expensive water.) The public doesn't know about this. We are also all aware of what happens when you create a stop-them-dead-in-their-quacks argument, such as Avogadro. They trot out phony or deluded research about water memory to obfuscate the issue. We can educate until we're green in the face and we'll just get blank stares and increased noise from the quacks.

So, I'm afraid I disagree that scientific explanations will win the day. What will win the day is to show the public it doesn't work. You kick the car tires and see the doors fall off, and Jane Public leaves the used car lot without making a purchase. They want the OTC product to work. Show them that it doesn't.

Let the quacks then fight amongst themselves over who is homier than thou. Or let them go on the defensive and try to explain that OTC and homeopathy are inherently incompatible. Meanwhile, the customer moves on down the the real OTC aisle and picks up something that works.

I like to keep in mind when dealing with this nonsense that the main audience is the defrauded public, and the next audience are those amongst the purveyors who are truly deluded. The remainder know it is pap and will go to any ruse to thwart the truth and retain their hold on the first two groups. The key to stopping them is to remove the customer as quickly as possible. If the demonstration gets them to keep their hands on their wallets long enough, we might get a more thorough education in, if we're lucky.

 

[Barbrae]

Rolfe,


So, I'm afraid I disagree that scientific explanations will win the day. What will win the day is to show the public it doesn't work. You kick the car tires and see the doors fall off, and Jane Public leaves the used car lot without making a purchase. They want the OTC product to work. Show them that it doesn't.

You know, Jane Public is not an idiot and if she tries a homeopathic OTC and it doesn't work she will then go to the conventional OTC's. Most homeopathic remedies are under 10.00 US dollars, not much of a loss if it fails. The public is not made up of idiots - people use what works for them, whether it be conventional or alternative.

Just to repeat - homeopathic remedies aren't homeopathy.