Which one is more modern medicine: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

[Billy T]

Billy T actually there is no reson to go that deep into it at all, ...

As I noted there are many question that all require a Yes answer for homepatic medicine to be more than placebo effect. The first is about the nature of "pure" water. This can be approached by the tools of physics and doing so would help many to appreciate the miracle of water -if water were not the exceptional material it is, life would not have existed on Earth as all water, the ocean included, would be frozen year round - The snow ice cover Earth's albedo would be much higher. The fact that water expands when it becomes solid is very exceptional and essential to life on Earth - otherwise lakes etc would freeze from the bottom up and only in the tropics might their occasionally be any thin film of liquid H2O in the late afternoons.


Perhaps this "first question" aspect, which physics can answer, should be in another thread, but homeopathy is like a chain - break this first "water has memory" link and the rest is nonsense. I think the reason "too dig that deep"(into the nature of water) is that it is facinating physics.

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I have only read this first of your five references and only it to page 589, but want to post a quote (in blue)from that page (and then make a few comments):

"A very large number of additional excellent and detailed papers have appeared which present evidence for the presence of specific molecular arrangements. An interesting cluster of these appeared recently in Science. Miyazaki et al. (Science, May 21, 2004) show infrared spectroscopic evidence for oligomers of different shape and sizes from n=4-27 in (H2O)n [41]. Shin et al. (May 21, 2004) present intriguing IR data near the 3.7μ O-H stretching band in oligomers from 6-27, around the “magic number” of n=21 [42]. From neither of these papers can one tell whether the authors believe that water—all waters under undelimited conditions—contain 100% of these molecules, or a majority. Nor is there any comment on how such clusters are distributed in space, or whether different size clusters are themselves formed into separate regions of the nano-heterogeneous bulk water. Some six months later, the October 22 and October 29 issues of Science carry several
exquisitely detailed papers on water from senior authors. They discuss the energetics and dynamics of electron binding and transport in various cluster sizes, some of it in vapor samples. These processes are extremely rapid in the tens of femtoseconds. The papers do not consider any models with a distribution of cluster sizes, nor do they show how reproducible the data are with different water samples, even allegedly ‘pure’ ones, or prepared by different means...."

For more than 30 years I have known water is not just a collection of H2O molecules kinetically bouncing off each other in a dense liquid. I have also understood why the dielectric constant of water is so unusually large (80 for DC as I recall). Until Nancy directed my attention to some of this literature, I had assumed that water was really (H2O)n -a collection of short chains (with the distribution favoring larger n as the temperature decreased)

All of this is due to the fact that both hydrogens are on one side of the oxygen atom (a triangle with 105 degrees at the O atom and 75/2 at each of the hydrogens.) I.e. each molecule of H2O has a permanent electric dipole. It would not if it were arranged in a straight line like H-O-H. To represent the dipole water I will use (+W-). Thus >30 years ago it was obvious to me that real water was a collection of "super molecules" like:

(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)
and
(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)
and
(+W-)(+W-)(+W-)(+W-) etc. but surely the longer ones were not straight as illustrated above. I feel a little stupid that it is only now that I realize that the longer ones can loop back on themselves, like a snake eating it own tail. If I had ever had occasion before today to actually draw the first of the three illustrated above, I am sure I would have realized this long ago also.

If one had a large set of small thin strong magnets and with epoxy made joined them together pair-wise, always with the "N end" touching (to represent the O atom) and the "S end" separated to form 105,37&38 degree triangles (representing H2O molecules) one could do some interesting experiments.

Of course the "O end" of the water analog could be the epoxy joined S ends. Also it would be convenient and cheap to use short pieces of magnetic wire to make the water analogs and one would need several thousand of them to do any really interesting experiments.

These experiments would mainly be to place all the "water analogs" in a box and shake it with various degrees of vigor (corresponding to different temperatures). Sudden termination of the shaking followed by careful inspection of the structures that have formed is one experiment. Another is to slowly diminish the amplitude of the shaking while it continues - here very interesting would be to see if the volume of the mass in the box is increased as the "analogue ice" is formed. Perhaps the way to approach this problem /question is to have a floating Styrofoam lid* covering the mass while shaking and lines (of different colors adjacent) on the inside of the box and video record which are visible while the shaking is still vigorous. The volume of the mass when shaking has stopped could then be computed to the computed volume when shaking was vigorous.

I am suggesting this as a physics experiment -It alone shows nothing about Homeopathic medicine’s claims, which I tend to doubt. However, those doubting those claims because water is "only a bunch of H2O water molecules" are very ignorant of how complex water is.

The text I quoted at start suggest that real water can be (and has been) investigated by careful observation of its electrically conductivity. (I suspect that any variations observed not due to temperature may be due to very slight contamination, but if contamination can be avoided, then "homeopathic water" should have some differences in the conductivity as the postulated structures are presumed to be different. I suspect that much stronger difference than in the electrical conductivity would be observed in the conduction and SCATTERING of ultra short sound waves.

I do not have convenient access in Brazil to the Science papers cited in the quoted reference, but would realy try to read any studies that have looked at ultra sound waves thru water. I suspect that if there are stable structures in "homeopathic water" that are not present in normal water, then they would be very different scatters and also that a small amount of atomic impurities would have very little effect upon the scattering of sound waves with wavelengths which in some way "resonate" with these structures. Surely someone has thought of and done these ultra sound scattering experiments - does anyone have a reference?
------------
*This plane lid would also make the analogy more complete as water does effectively have a "gravitational lid" that keeps it upper surface flat. Without this lid, I suspect the top surface of the "analogue water" would be far from flat.

PS despite being retired, I am very busy and thus may not have time to follow the literature you are suggesting be read. I also am more interested in other subjects active here, especially economics, and post more in them. I try to correct clear non-sense I see posted when I can. Homeopathic ideas are not IMHO quite "clear nonsense" but I think they need many more tests and demonstration before I would accept them. Certainly if I had a ruptured appendix, I would want a surgen, not some homeopatic water.

The structure of Water is not so simple it seems.
Thanks for your intererest in water. There is lot of things to learn from you about water

 

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

At some point a moderator has to drop in on one of these discussions. Even though I'm the Linguistics moderator I'm also a former future scientist with a considerable science education.

I followed the link to Dr. Chaplin's website and then further into linked material. From this effort I have taken the impression that the "memory of water" theory hinges on the presence of other molecules that are simply at too low a concentration to detect with current technology. One of the articles even used the phrase "effectively non-existent material."

But effectively means just that. It means that the material is present in such a low concentration that it has no effect on the reaction being studied. If we discover a condition that is a perfect match for the known effects of the "effectively non-existent material," then by Occam's Razor--one of the cornerstones of the scientific method--the first hypothesis to test is the simplest: Was our use of the word "effectively" wrong, and this material, despite its extremely low concentration, is nonetheless exerting its known effect?

Without testing that hypothesis first, to assert instead that some as yet unknown phenomenon is responsible for the condition, and on top of it this alternative hypothesis contradicts a couple of canonical theories that have withstood testing and peer review for generations, becomes an extaordinary assertion. And by the Rule of Laplace--another cornerstone of the scientific method--every extraordinary assertion must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect.

The only reasoning that I wasn't able to trace in the link was the hypothesis that this "memory of water" could be caused by nanobubbles. The footnote is to a document I cannot access. But what I read about nanobubbles does not lead me back to this hypothesis.

So please, we're just trying to be good scientists here and since most of us are not actually practicing career scientists that's not easy. You've made an assertion that clearly qualifies as extraordinary. You seem to be trying to provide the extraordinary evidence that qualifies it for respectful consideration. I personally can't follow the chain of evidence because it's too obscure to access, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Nonetheless, respectful consideration is not the same thing as acceptance.

Other scientists with far better credentials have been peer-reviewing the claims of homeopathy for decades without finding the evidence compelling. This, despite the fact that a number of other scientists with credentials that are at least decent have been looking for that evidence for decades. And despite the fact that a good many of these scientists have friends, family, or selves who desperately need the miracle cures that homeopathy and other fringe science treatments promise, and thus have no personal reason to be prejudiced against them--the usual complaint of the fringe scientist.

I agree that in today's culture, particularly in The United Corporations Of America, many scientists have sold their scholarly souls to commerce and violate the scientific method every day by attempting to prove their assigned hypotheses instead of trying to find the truth. Nonetheless, the takeover by the corporate devil is not complete, and many scientists still toil honestly, albeit for less money, or perhaps in civil service jobs that generally permit honest science but nibble away at their souls in other ways.

Any scientist who falsifies a canonical theory, or simply finds a miracle cure for a pesky illness by proving something that no one else could prove, will be famous. Fame is quite a motivator. And this is not medieval Rome or Soviet Russia: he will not be imprisoned for it.

Current science may not yet become "absolute and final" but in process of it

 

[Myles]

Dear Nancy,

Water has its place in the scheme of things; we drink it and wash in it, for example but you still have not told us how it remembers where it has been. Do explain !

 

[funkstar]

1. Allopathy is based on alleviation of symptoms, not cure of a functional or structural defect. Once cured, the disease comes back after some time, this time with much greater intensity.

Patently untrue. You even mention anti-biotics below: What do they do, if not cure the cause? Palliative measures are only a small part of real medicine.

Homeopathy treats the root cause of the disease. You have along lasting to permanent cure.

Except, of course, that it doesn't work.

2. Allopathy uses the human body as a passive battlefield usually trashed in the process by drug and radiation. Homeopathy often avoids surgery.

No, homeopathy rarely avoids surgery, because it doesn't work.

3. Antibiotics kill bad as well as healthy bacteria. This result in weakening of immune system. Homeopathic medicines strengthen the immune system by building resistance to sickness. They do not disturb or hamper digestive system.

In other words, homeopathic "medicine" has no impact, and if you survive you'll be stronger. Sounds like a really bad plan if you're, say, weakened by the disease!

4. Most patients of allopathy tend to have been over-medicated, repeated frequently and for long term, making them dependent/addictive, resulting in side effects. Medicines kept going in and out of market every few decades once their side effects become obvious to the general public. Homeopathic medicines are ultra-dilute doses (this makes them non-toxic, safe and free from side effects) administered in minute quantity. Medicines used in the times (200 yrs back) of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann are used even today because of their efficacy.

Covered elsewhere. Homeopathy is at best harmless (if taken alongside actual medical care), and at worst lethal (if taken in place of medical care).

Also, your ancestor worship will not win you points in the scientific community.

5. Allopathic physicians mostly take only physical symptoms of the patient, except the psychiatrist. The emotions and mental state of the patient is not taken into account. Homeopathy is based on the science that the body, mind and emotions are not really separate and distinct, but are integrated. It views disease as a total affection of mind and body, the disturbance of the whole organism. The parts (organs) of the body do not independently get sick. It is the whole person who gets sick.

Holistic bullshit, reminiscent of christian science. It's arrogant to presume that because you do not understand modern science's vastly more complex view of disease and immune response, then you can simply substitute your own ignorant model and try to pad it in mystical wordings.

You're a dangerous individual, "Dr." I hope, for your sake, that you never "treat" a person with a serious medical condition. You could end up causing serious harm if you manage to convince someone that drinking water could actually alleviate their condition and that 'allopathy' was bad for them.

Give up your snake-oil peddling ways, before you kill someone.

 

[Asguard]

funkstar one comment. Holistic med does work, thats why the biopsychosocial method was introduced. There is no point cutting out the lung of someone with lung cancer if you dont then help them quit smoking and that requires a social and psycological aproch. The same with obesity, i actually got marked down in my recent responce because i called them "self induced" which, i agree with her they arn't (i just couldnt think of a better name for them)

 

[John99]

Asguard, do people where Holistic medicine is practice live longer?

 

[Asguard]

good question, i dont know.

The WHO states that the the french are amongst the longest live and most importantly the healthiest and there whole goverment focuses on a holistic aproch. By this i mean they are focused on how long people work, have they got good housing, universal across the board health care ect.

I would suggest that the people there concider these indervidual polictical issues but in reality they are all area's of health.

To prove this we need to look at the life expectancy gap in the aborigional populations, time after time the goverments have tried a pure medically based health aproch and time after time they have been told that the abulance aproch symply wont work. You need to fix the housing problems, the lack of work ect if you want to fix health outcomes.

 

[funkstar]

funkstar one comment. Holistic med does work, thats why the biopsychosocial method was introduced. There is no point cutting out the lung of someone with lung cancer if you dont then help them quit smoking and that requires a social and psycological aproch. The same with obesity, i actually got marked down in my recent responce because i called them "self induced" which, i agree with her they arn't (i just couldnt think of a better name for them)

Well, as with so many other things, there are usually two interpretations: One is trivial and correct, the other is spectacular and wrong.

In the case of "holistic medicine" the trivial interpretation is somewhat like what you advocate (though I'd argue that cutting out the cancer even if the patient keeps on smoking is not generally frivolous). What the bad "Dr." advocates, however, is the extraordinary and false approach.

 

[SkinWalker]

Science-based medicine is the only type of "modern medicine" -all else is pseudoscience and bunk. Indeed, homeopathy is just drinking water.

 

[(Q)]

One of the main problems with homeopathy is that fact that it violates the fundamental principles of the Law of Mass Action. Here Nancy, try it yourself:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheLawOfMassAction/

 

[SkinWalker]

She will doubtless reply (if she ever comes back to this forum) with some un-tested and pseudoscientific nonsense about "water memory."

Clicking on the link in her forum profile, it leads to a bio that indicates she spent a lot of money "learning" the pseudoscience of homeopathy. I don't think she's willing to easily accept that she wasted her or her family's money on her supposed education. The best course of action for her at this point, would be to continue justifying the pseudoscience with more pseudoscience and pretending that she's really a "doctor" and that she really has an education.

I feel some sympathy for her. What a waste.

Then again, perhaps she's fleecing new and unsuspecting "students" of what they think is "tuition money" and is teaching this pseudoscience. In which case, she deserved to lose a small fortune in tuition since she's just a con artist herself.

 

[(Q)]

Scathing Skin, but necessary. I suppose the good "doctor" isn't phased in the least by this:

"Homeopathy's principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult—the characteristics of which prevent advances that would change Hahnemann's original principles. Most homeopathic studies are of poor methodological quality, and are subject to bias. Homeopathic product labels do not provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be nontoxic due to their high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful. The ostensible value of homeopathic products can be more than a placebo effect because some products have contained effective amounts of standard medications or have been adulterated."

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Homeopathy

 

[Myles]

good question, i dont know.

The WHO states that the the french are amongst the longest live and most importantly the healthiest and there whole goverment focuses on a holistic aproch. By this i mean they are focused on how long people work, have they got good housing, universal across the board health care ect.

I would suggest that the people there concider these indervidual polictical issues but in reality they are all area's of health.

To prove this we need to look at the life expectancy gap in the aborigional populations, time after time the goverments have tried a pure medically based health aproch and time after time they have been told that the abulance aproch symply wont work. You need to fix the housing problems, the lack of work ect if you want to fix health outcomes.

You are right when you say medicine and housing are priorities in France. However, there is wide variation in the occuirence of disease as one moves from south to north. People in the south have the greatest life expectancy, those in the north the lowest. We are obviously talking averages.

People in the south enjoy what has come to be know as the Mediterranean diet which is based on plenty of fruit and fish. As one moves northwards, meat consumption increases as does the amount of additional fat from butter and other dairy products. Greater use of olive oil is made in the south.

One mystery that has been discussed at length is why French people who eat lots of saturated fat, e.g., goose -liver pate, giblets in goose fat and so on have a lower incidence of coronary disease than might be expected. There have been lots of tentative explanations, two of the nost likely being the consumption of wine and, probably more importantly, the fact that the French eat smaller portions of food than most other Europeans.

Obesity is less prevalent in France than in most oter European countries I visit but this seems to be slowly changing owing to changes in eating habits.
Junk foods and oven-ready meals seem to be the culprits.