Homeopathy: A review Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Posted by ThomDG in Alternative Medicine, Homeopathy, Skepticism.Tags: Alternative Medicine, Health, Homeopathy, Skepticism
2 comments
As promised, I’m writing my in depth post on homeopathy. In my previous post, I mentioned that homeopathy was founded by Samuel Hahnemann in 1807. Homeopathy works off of three basic ideas. First, like cures like. Second, less is more. As I dramatically demonstrated in my previous post, homeopathic remedies range from 1¹º dilution at the weakest to 14ºº at the strongest. Anything “stronger” than 30c dilutions has been scientifically proven to contain no molecule of the original substance. To most of you this train of thought probably makes no sense, but never fear! Homeopathy has the answer, and it is called the third principle of homeopathy: water, when shaken, retains memories of what was in it.
Let’s take a look at each of the principles of homeopathy and see why they don’t work. First, we have the Law of Similars or what’s commonly called ‘like cures like’. Hahnemann thought of homeopathy in the late 18th century, a time when trepanning, or drilling a whole into the skull to release spirits, was still a popular medical treatment. Even though this was the age of reason, we still knew very little in the field of medical science. If we think about the Law of Similars with basic logic, we can see that it doesn’t make any sense. If you have a peanut allergy don’t eat peanuts. But, by the logic of like cures like, if you want to get someone to stop smoking crack, give them some crack, but only a little bit.
Now Hahnemann couldn’t publish a paper stating that like cure like, and nothing else. So he began diluting his substances a lot. At most, an average homeopathic remedy contains as much of the original substance as a grain of sand in all the words deserts. Even at the time he published his paper on homeopathy, it was know in chemistry that there was a limit to how much something could be diluted and still have some of the substance remain. Still. Hahnemann theorized that the less of the active ingredient there was, the more powerful it became. This became known as the Law of Infinitesimals. Once again this defies basic logic. If you go into your doctor and complain that the medication you’re taking isn’t helping, chances are he won’t prescribe a lower dosage to help it work better.
The third and final principle is just as ridiculous as the last two. It states that the substance leaves an imprint in the water which stimulates the body to cure itself. Claims have been made about this ranging from spiritual effects to effects on the molecular level. As most of us know, if its spiritual it isn’t based on science. It therefore cannot be tested and should be treated with caution. As for effects on the molecular level, there has yet to be a well controlled study looking into these effects.
Homeopathy is one of the most researched alternative medicines. SInce its inception people have been skeptical of its validity. One recent and very damning article was by the journal The Lancet. In a 2005 Meta-Analysis of 110 studies, they declared that effects from homeopathic remedies were as effective as the placebo effect. A response to this the UK Society of homeopaths said, “It has been established beyond doubt that the randomized controlled trial is not a fitting trial of homeopathy”. This should raise serious red flags for anyone looking into this form of alternative medicine. When somebody says that their cure shouldn’t be subject to the same testing as all other medications, we should be wary.
The Burden of a Skeptiholic Monday, August 18, 2008
Posted by ThomDG in Skepticism.Tags: Skepticism
add a comment
As skeptics we all have a heavy burden to bear. It is our duty to examine claims, debunk claims, and educate the public. The latter duty is the heaviest burden of all. We are constantly fighting an uphill battle. We have to fight against religious programming, psuedoscience, and limitless amounts of misinformation. We do not have the luxury of being able to make claims and have people take them at face value. We are constantly bound by the strict laws of the Scientific Method.
One of the most notable problems we face is a method of “debate” as eloquent as a drunkard’s ramblings, the Gish Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after Duane Gish, a creationist who would bombard his opponents with false claims. The reason this works is because his opponent doesn’t have the time to debunk each claim. This is, for me, the most frustrating part of being a skeptic. It is nearly impossible to definitively debunk even a single claim that may come up in conversation.
The best way we can ease our burden is to educate the public. Improve science education in schools, encourage critical thinking, and never stop our fight. It is our duty to bear this burden, heavy though it may be. We must fight this fight, no matter how hard or vain it may seem.
The Anti-Christ is Here Saturday, August 9, 2008
Posted by ThomDG in Religion.Tags: Anti-christ, DMV, Religion, West Virginia
add a comment
And according to this article its the DMV. Apparently enough people in West Virginia are worried that digital pictures are a “mark of the beast”. First of all this is just ridiculous. We are not talking about a small town, we are talking about the ENTIRE STATE of West Virginia.
The core issue however is does this qualify as a violation of Separation of Church and State or is it protecting peoples right to practice their religion. This is a question we face all to often in the skeptical movement. It is a question we face right now with the FLDS. Does religious freedom include the right to molest and trade children. I think the answer there is pretty clear, but what about people who just don’t want pictures on their licenses because they fear it is the “mark of the beast”. This doesn’t harm anybody directly, but what if West Virginia decided to stop producing licenses with pictures on them at all. It isn’t a big leap. It might not seem like a big deal, but not having a picture license can really be an inconvenience. Imagine a parent who wouldn’t allow their child to get a picture license, they wouldn’t even be able to go see an R-rated movie or anything else an 18 year old could do. In the end this shouldn’t be a big deal, but that doesn’t mean we should treat it as such.
NHS declares Homeopathy useless Friday, August 8, 2008
Posted by ThomDG in Alternative Medicine, Homeopathy.Tags: Alternative Medicine, Health, Homeopathy, pseudoscience, Skepticism
2 comments
The National Health Service has declared they will no longer pay for homeopathic treatments. This is a huge victory for the skeptical movement. Homeopathy is absolutely huge in the UK, due in part to loonies like Prince Charles. Of course wherever there is homeopathy there will be a downside. One woman, 90 year old Marjorie Titchen, has lost coverage that she feels allows her to keep working. I don’t doubt that she feels better, I’m sure she does. I’m also sure that homeopathy isn’t the reason she is feeling better.
For those of you who don’t know what Homeopathy is, it is utter bullshit. Homeopathy was founded around 1792 by Samuel Hahnemann. It is based around two primary concepts, like cures like, and less is more. For example if you have trouble getting to sleep, just take some caffeine, diluted to the point where there isn’t a single molecule of it left. Homeopathic “remedies” come in many different dilutions ranging from 1x to 400x or in other words from 1:10 to 1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Incase you can count that many zeroes or don’t feel like it, thats 10 to the power of 400. This is Homeopathy. I plan to post a more in-depth review and description of homeopathy in the near future.
The only good thing about homeopathy is that it is basically harmless. You can do as much damage with a homeopathic remedy as you can with water. The problem is that water doesn’t detach people from their money and prevent them from getting scientifically proven medical care. In the end Britain is making the best choice popular for the population as a whole. Overall the population of the Untied Kingdom is going to be healthier.
Dr. What? Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Posted by ThomDG in Academia, UFO's.Tags: Skepticism, UFO's, Ufology
add a comment
So while browsing news aggregator Fark I saw an article that mentions a man in Melbourne being given a PhD in Ufology. For those who don’t know, Ufology is the “study” of UFOs. That might sound legit, but the vast majority of people who call themselves that are not studying UFO’s from an objective or skeptical standpoint. The writer claims that the man who is receiving this degree, Martin Plowman, “maintains a healthy level of skepticism”, but in the second paragraph down he says: The first time you meet an abductee as they are called, it can be quite confronting because they are trying to come to terms with it … it is something that can stay with people a long time.”. That is Hardly a skeptical viewpoint. He barely seems enthused about ufology, he only came upon it out of boredom and then again because he saw a book at a friends house.
This is really sad to see. Its just another way for cranks to feel legitimate. This is worse than licensing for woo medicine practitioners, a PhD provides a degree of authority and credibility, something cranks shouldn’t have.
Welcome to Skeptiholic Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Posted by ThomDG in Uncategorized.add a comment
Hello I’m Thom, and I’m a skeptiholic. I’m a twenty years old, and I’m starting my freshmen year at Warren Wilson College in Asheville, NC. I’ve been a skeptic for two years now. My introduction to Skepticism came in the form of the podcast, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. I hope this blog will provide a unique look at skepticism through the eyes of someone younger.