topics

> You betcha Donald.
> Catalyst next week re: Homeopathy is a go.

> Ray

> OK. Errrm! OK. I did bring in the subject of homeopathy looking for list
> reaction. And yes, I was being [just a bit] frivolous.

And I replied in kind.

> But...
> Those who were around on this list will all remember Rebecca who came to
> reform us and left [apparently] in silence. There were several dozen
> postings in less than a week. I think the response nearest to encouraging
> said something like: "Well it is still obviously rubbish, but if mainline
> medicine gave me no hope and I still wanted to live I would grab anything
> labelled a 'lifeline'."

As my wife suffered from severe arthritis for some 30 years and died from a brain cancer I am more than sensible to this argument. However it is this very vulnerability for such people and there families that is at the root of the problem.

I am having a battle with my local U3A (University of the Third Age- Old Farts). They wanted to run a course in reflexology, something that made me rise to the bait. I half won the battle in that such things will have to go to the executive for decision in the future, and/or be dealt in a comparative manner, in the same way as we already deal with religion and politics. In this particular case I was chuffed to find that it failed anyway from lack of participants.

My main contention was that not only did these 'alt med' beliefs have almost no credibility, we were a particularly vulnerable group, most members experiencing deteriorating health with age.

> 'Catalyst' is I think the local show that most people would have to nominate
> as closest to science based TV. I suspect that some of us should watch it to
> see what they make of the subject of homeopathy. I will admit to hoping that
> our watchers find themselves cheering as Catalyst investigators undertake a
> remorseless quest for evidence. The pessimistic part of my mind thinks that
> our watchers will watch in dismay as a parade of untruths and anecdotal
> 'cures' is presented as evidence.

In spite of having a science unit Aunty is giving a good run to a lot of this pseudo science guff of late. 'Bush Telegraph' gave extensive air time to a certain Hugh Lovel whom I have mentioned before. The journalist, Elisha Brown (who I have had the odd interview with -all my interviews are odd;-)) did sound sceptical, but there was no countering of the nonsense. I
did ask before the interview went to air for there to be at least a counter view put, but to no avail. Our local ABC had one of its 'true believers' interview a palm reader at great length, again with no comment.

> Given a chance we need to discuss how to cheer on the good guys. If said
> good guys do not get star billing we need to discuss how to make a flagship
> stop carrying a flag of convenience.
>
> It occurs to me that there is science content in the label. A flag of
> convenience is one that flies over an outhouse. Given any encouragement, I
> am sure Toby will explain that there is a lot of good science and technology
> associated with outhouses. It can be claimed that we have become too fussy
> about smells associated with the processes therein. Perhaps we should all
> accept the smells near the building. OK, but.....When science is presented,
> there should be no outhouse smells coming off the printed page, at least in
> the current stage of technology.

It seems to me that there is always a problem in presenting any of this pseudo science to the general public. It is seldom, if ever possible to present it in such a fashion that the pseudo science explanation is not a credible alternative to people not trained in critical thinking. The recent Catalyst story presented by Paul Willis on the 'Yowie' is a case in point. The scientific explanation of the tree damage was attributed to black cockatoos. However there was no footage of this happening, which left the alternative explanation of yowie damage probably just as credible in the public mind.

I'll make a prediction that the upcoming segment on homeopathy will present a case in which X disease did not respond to Y treatment but after taking Z alternative it cleared up.

Natterers will of course know that this could be attributed to the complaint being cured despite any treatment, being cured by Y after an appropriate time or possibly by Z. They will also realise that it is only one case out of zillions and just may not have anything to do with any of the above. But 'general public' will not see it that way.

The general public sees anecdotal evidence as real evidence, not just as a possible lead for further research.

>From my point of view there is something needed to be said about what is scientific and what isn't.

Chris Lawson responded:

At 23:19 28/03/03 +1100, Donald Lang wrote:

>'Catalyst' is I think the local show that most people would have to nominate
>as closest to science based TV. I suspect that some of us should watch it to
>see what they make of the subject of homeopathy. I will admit to hoping that
>our watchers find themselves cheering as Catalyst investigators undertake a
>remorseless quest for evidence. The pessimistic part of my mind thinks that
>our watchers will watch in dismay as a parade of untruths and anecdotal
>'cures' is presented as
>evidence.

To be fair to Catalyst, if they want to present both sides of the story (and one assumes they do given they've devoted two episodes to it), then most of the evidence for homeopathy will have to be anecdotal. I have no objection to this. But my suspicion, having tuned into Catalyst once or twice, is that they will present the anecdotal evidence only briefly, and
then do something even worse: they will go talk to one of the "scientific" homeopath supporters and allow the guy to present the best trials they have as if they are convincing...even though I don't know anyone at all with any solid understanding of stats who thinks the pro-homeopathy papers are of any real value. But nevertheless, this will be presented as strong evidence for homeopathy, and because the report will not focus on scientific methodology (this being a boring subject to most viewers), the evidence will be left to stand uncriticised except by skeptics who will be made to look bitter and vindictive by simply insisting on decent scientific standards.

Having done this, the report will then look at the scientific basis for homeopathy and present the evidence that it completely flies in the face of the last two hundred years of chemistry research. This will then be presented as a choice between homeopathy being ineffective, or the vanguard of an exciting new science. It will not be explained to viewers that "exciting new fields of science" still have to incorporate existing evidence. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton's findings, he showed that they only applied to a limited domain. But homeopaths ask us to completely reject all the existing knowledge of chemistry -- not the same thing.

Finally, the audience will be asked to make its own decision. Which is fine, but to my mind this always assumes the audience has been given a fair approximation of the best available evidence. Unfortunately, the Catalyst report will not be interested in giving a summary of the best available evidence, but will instead have strived for the common journalistic goal of "even time." This is a noble and important principle of journalism, but it should not be universally applied. There are times when one side of a
debate simply doesn't deserve to be treated on an equal basis -- an extreme example would be Holocaust revisionists. They do not deserve equal time with mainstream historians. Homeopathy is obviously not as extreme an example, but it does deserve a more critical appraisal than it is likely to receive.

and:

At 17:05 29/03/03 +1030, David Maddern wrote:

>However, they then seem to deride it still when talking about their drugs
>effect in the body.
>
>This is an error. Placebo Effect can be a positive feature of the system,
>and works regardless of the efficacy of the treatment being applied.

David, with due respect this is simply not true. Scientists and doctors don't want to do away with the placebo effect. They want to make sure their treatments work better than placebo. There's a big difference.

It is well known, for instance, that modern anti-depressants take at least a week to make any difference to mood, and more usually a full month, but it is also known that many people who start taking anti-depressants feel better almost immediately -- because they are doing something and because they often have a hope of improvement that they may not have perceived prior to therapy. Nobody wants to stop this benefit, even though it is a placebo effect.

Chris Lawson replied:

This link you posted has a major spoiler: it gives the final result of the study. I will not discuss this any further because there are many people on this list who would prefer to see the story unfold next week.

But I would point out one MAJOR error in the Horizon summary page (this has no spoilers, so I'm happy to reproduce it).

The page says: "Could the beneficial effects of homeopathy be entirely due to the placebo effect? If so, then homeopathy ought not to work on babies or animals, who have no knowledge that they are taking a medicine. Yet many people are convinced that it does."

I'm sorry, but this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As I've already discussed earlier, the placebo effect works not just through the *test subject's* awareness, but the parents, colleagues, friends of the test subject, and also the researchers themselves. That is why we do *double-blind* studies and not single-blind studies. This is a really elemental error, and does not do much for my faith in Horizon.

I note with particular irritation that this is discussed quite well in the "Q&A" webpage, but the fallacy is in the summary and the full transcript of the story. I mean, really. Given that the journalist had gone to the trouble of interviewing quite a few scientists, I would have thought this would have been cleared up by the time the story was being written for broadcast.

In the main story, the journalist interviews a "homeopathic vet" who says this same thing about animals: "when you see a positive result in a horse or a dog that to me is the ultimate proof that homeopathy is not placebo", but then instead of *answering* the challenge, the journalist just does one of those segues, "But Mark's small trial doesn't convince the sceptics." You know, it's the old thing of simply *stating* someone's position without giving any of the reasons for that position. It's the intellectually lazy way of pretending to cover both sides of a story.

The full answer is in Randi's email session for Horizon, when he replies to a question about homeopathy in animals thus: "The problem with those experiments has always been that human beings make the decisions on whether or not the animals have benefitted from the treatment. If we were to see experiments done with animals in a double-blind fashion, and those proved to be positive, I would accept them as evidence of homeopathy's efficacy." I get the distinct feeling that the journalist was impressed by the homeopathic vet's answer and didn't think to check it with any of the numerous scientists he collected for the story. I accept that the journo would have had serious time pressures, but still...

But I have to say that most of my dire predictions did not come to pass. The journalist gave a fair and accurate description of homeopathy and the scientific opposition to it; he talked to Benveniste and Reilly and Ennis (pro-homeopathy scientists); he talked to Randi and Robert Park and Maddox (homeopathy skeptics) as well as talking to practising homeopaths. So I think he did a very good job. In full context, this is a minor slip-up, but I guess it's one of my bugbear subjects, plus I think it could have been fixed with very little work from the journalist. So, all in all, I give the report an A-, and I'm a pretty hard marker.

Podargus responded:

The problem as I see it in these sorts of programs, made as they are for Joe/sephine Average is that the audience is not trained or capable of appreciating what is required to evaluate the results. So even in a well made program they will be left with the impression that it 'works'. Someone saying it 'does' is stronger than someone suggesting that it probably doesn't.

Yesterday the 'Old Codger' who camps on my place (in a caravan) got all enthused about the A1 and A2 casein program on 4 Corners. Well he was all enthused about the A2 and at least in the short term will be imbibing. He had come away without the concept that there was some contention in the matter; and he has spent his working life on the fringes of science. At least it will not be as bad (for me) as his dabbling into lavender.

> I'll be down for the show. I'll order a truck load, providing you can prove
> it is better than the Byron Bay stuff. Thinks- maybe Unique Water has a
> better profit margin. Or Byron's own Empowered Water.

Chris Lawson replied:

>You can trust me, I'm a homeopath. Look, I don't need to prove it:
>the results speak for themselves. No, I don't want scientists
>involved, I don't want a Nobel Prize or anything. But even scientists
>will tell you that my seawater contains homeopathic levels of gold, so
>what are you waiting for?

This is an outrage and a lie! Since the seawater you are selling has detectable quantities of gold, it is unfair to call this "homeopathic".

Peter Macinnis replied:

At 13:52 3/04/03 +1000, Zero wrote:
><DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE>
>
>Given that the placebo effect may save someone's life, are you justified in
>saying to someone whose life might be saved that it is a load of hogwash
>and won't help (thereby destroying the placebo effect and killing them?
></DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE>

Just responding to that bit (I am working tonight, quite by chance, on a series of vignettes of homeopathic doctors who murdered by poison [Crippen, de la Pommerais, and Henry Meyer, if he existed], so I am busy) but I will come in on the side of the angels.

You may recall the mumblepath who surfaced here last year, whom I crash-tackled with a question about metastasis from melanoma -- she replied airily that it was a surface cancer, so metastasis would be no problem. Wrong answer. It wasn't an unfair test -- she could have looked it up, but she did not. They never do.

THAT is why you have to crash-tackle them every time. Because they will tell people not to allow the doctors to poison them, to take some magic water, and the cancer will go away.

Well, perhaps it will, but it will take the patient with it, nine times out of ten. EVERY homeopath will, sooner or later, murder somebody, and live the rest of his or her life as a charlatan, a crook, a fraudster.

peter, extremely annoyed at the wrap-up.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 20:40, Peter Macinnis wrote:
> THAT is why you have to crash-tackle them every time. Because they will
> tell people not to allow the doctors to poison them, to take some magic
> water, and the cancer will go away.
>
> Well, perhaps it will, but it will take the patient with it, nine times
> out of ten. EVERY homeopath will, sooner or later, murder somebody, and
> live the rest of his or her life as a charlatan, a crook, a fraudster.

Chris Lawson replied:

At 13:52 3/04/03 +1000, Zero Sum wrote:

><DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE>
></DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE>

Understood.

Here are my responses:

1. Prescribing something that you know has no effect but placebo is dishonest. It involves lying to your patient. This is very dubious ethically.

2. There are plenty of treatments available which we know work; these will also have a placebo effect without lying.

3. When there are no treatments that are proven to work, there are still treatments with some theoretical justification behind them. The placebo effect will also apply here, again without lying to the patient.

4. Even if there are no proven treatments, and no treatments with strong theoretical claims, there are always modalities such as meditation and yoga which do not pretend to be curative, but which may help the person deal with the emotional issues of their problem. These will also have a placebo effect.

5. If you recommend the continued use of treatments which are known to be ineffective, then why test for effectiveness? The only purpose in scientific testing is to discern whether a treatment is effective; if you don't adopt effective treatments and abandon ineffective treatments, then why bother at all?

6. The placebo effect is greatly misunderstood. It doesn't just apply to physiological changes due to one's awareness, it also applies to scientists interpreting their results. Thus it is quite possible for a *harmful*treatment to be enthusiastically recommended because the placebo effect hides its harm from researchers and therapists.

7. The use of placebos discourages people from getting real treatment that works. Homeopathic vaccines are a good example: there is not a shred of evidence that they work, yet there are people who use them *instead of* tested vaccines that we know work. NSW recently had the case of a naturopath being convicted of manslaughter for telling parents he could cure their daughter's heart anomaly -- the child died after the parents cancelled her surgery.

8. The desire to be right and the desire to care for the patient are not contradictory. The whole purpose of modern medical research is to align these two goals. To knowingly give ineffective treatment and hope for a placebo miracle is not caring for the patient. It's a combination of lying and wishful thinking. To tell a patient the treatment they have been given won't work *is*caring for patient if you have very good reasons for your position (as is the case with homeopathy). Telling them the truth may save them from wasting money (some alternative practitioners charge thousands of dollars to pensioners), may save them from dangerous advice (see Peter's comments re: homeopaths and melanoma), may get them to avoid side-effects for no benefit (not such a problem with homeopathy, but a big problem with some other alternative modalities) and may get them to undertake tested treatments earlier than they would otherwise (see the naturopath manslaughter story above).

8a. Let me put this another way. I am about to use an example that occurs not infrequently. Suppose you are a doctor. You see a patient with a urinary infection and prescribe an antibiotic. You tell the patient that the antibiotic will probably have a noticeable effect within 24 hours, and has a better than 90% chance of working. This is truthful. But the next day the patient comes back complaining that the pain is no better. You check the culture result. The bacterium is resistant to the antibiotic
prescribed. Now, in this situation, my strategy would be to express sympathy that the bug turned out to be resistant to the antibiotic and to prescribe a different antibiotic according to the bug's sensitivities which are now known. Your devil's advocate would take a different approach, it seems. Your advocate seems to be saying that the correct response would be to say "don't worry about the pain; the antibiotic I gave you is a wonder drug; keep taking it and you'll feel good as gold in no time at all."

9. If you really think a deliberate fraud who exploits the fears of sick people has better ethics than a doctor who tells his patients the truth, then I guess this has gone beyond Devil's advocacy and into being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.

10. Your advocate seems a little confused here. He says that a doctor who tells a the truth about homeopathy is doing so to assuage his own sense of outrage. But let's remind ourselves of why the doctor is outraged. He is outraged because the patient has a pathological condition which is being "treated" by a practitioner who has no understanding of physiology or pathology, and who obviously has no understanding of basic chemistry, and who is telling the patient falsehoods. Or he is outraged (as I often am) by an alternative practitioner quite simply *inventing* a pathology to justify bogus treatment. The number of people I have seen who swear that they have "candida in the blood" because their naturopath said so is mindboggling. The number of people I see who "need" to know their blood group so they can follow the blood group diet is also astonishing. (Almost all of these
people decide they don't really need the blood test after all when I explain

(i) the blood group diet is bogus, and
(ii) since there is no medical justification for it, any blood group testing will be billed privately and not to Medicare. )

To say that the doctor is telling the truth because he is outraged is the wrong way round. The doctor is outraged because of the truth he has to tell.

11. I am not deeply convinced, but there are sufficient papers showing the effectiveness of acupuncture for pain relief that I find it quite acceptable that doctors practise acupuncture. I have even recommended acupuncture (and not just with acupuncturists medically-trained) for people with chronic pain.

12. The advocate says the placebo effect is a subtle and powerful thing. Find me someone who disagrees. The advocate seems to be labouring under the misunderstanding that the placebo effect and real physical effects are mutually exclusive.

and:

>Is there any study to show that any benefits gained from the placebo effect
>is outweighed by the effects of 'bad advice'? You seem to be taking that
>as a given, but it seems to me that in todays moral climate you would have
>to ask "how many lives saved" versus "how many lives lost" and "how much
>suffering ameliorated" compared to "how much suffering increased". Now, I
>know we are capable of such studies, but have in fact any been done?

Ummm. I think you misunderstand how difficult it is to answer the question the way you want it answered. Just think for a moment about the study design you would need to decide whether the placebo effect's benefits
outweigh the risk of bad advice.

>If the answer is "no", then we are in a situation where we simply do not
>know which is the worse evil.

You can still draw strong conclusions in the absence of absolute "yes"/"no" answers. There are many scientific conundra that cannot be solved simply by doing a definitive study.

>We do know that the "bad advice" could be remedied with the correct
>education. I suggest that when homeopathy was prescribed by doctor's
>rather than 'wanabees' there would have been far less 'bad advice'.
>
>Looking at it that way, it might have remained a useful tool in a doctor's
>arsenal rather than a disgarded sharp impliment that has been picked up
>and used dangerously by quacks.

This may be true, but I'm a little curious about the ethics here. You seem to be suggesting that it might be a good idea for doctors to practise modalities that they know to be false in order to prevent people from receiving bad advice from non-medical people using the same modalities. This seems a bit like destroying the village in order to save it, at least to me. It also ignores the fact that many people's faith in homeopathy and other "natural" modalities would only be strengthened by this strategy. The homeopaths would say, and with complete justification, "how dare they argue against my advice when they practise it themselves?"

Zero Sum replied to Chris:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:36, Chris Lawson wrote:

> >Looking at it that way, it might have remained a useful tool in a
> > doctor's arsenal rather than a disgarded sharp impliment that has been
> > picked up and used dangerously by quacks.

>
> This may be true, but I'm a little curious about the ethics here. You
> seem to be suggesting that it might be a good idea for doctors to
> practise modalities that they know to be false....

If a "modality" is known to produce positive results, how can it be said to be a "false" modality?

Are hypnotherapy and psychotherapy "false modalities" in the same way?
What is the difference?

> ...in order to prevent
> people from receiving bad advice from non-medical people using the same
> modalities. This seems a bit like destroying the village in order to
> save it, at least to me....

Not quite what I said. If it remained under the purview of medicine and not quackery then it would not be legal for the quacks to use it, and doctors might use it with 'profit' to the patient.

> It also ignores the fact that many people's
> faith in homeopathy and other "natural" modalities would only be
> strengthened by this strategy...

Half the people I know think an of an electron as a pea. That does not stop them using electricity and electronics. Very few people have an understanding of why they take particular medicines. That even applies to some doctors (that is not a shot at doctors, you can't keep up with everything). If the faith in homeopathy led to saving their lives with a placebo, what right does someone have to interfere from indignation?

The only justification is saving lives. If the attitude expends them it is unsound.

> ...The homeopaths would say, and with
> complete justification, "how dare they argue against my advice when they
> practise it themselves?"

If it were under the purview of medecine there would be no medically unqualified homeopaths. End of problem...

I still do not see how in good concience an effective treatment can be dicarded because it is based on false premises.

>>I still do not see how in good concience an effective treatment can be dicarded because it is based on false premises.

Zero Sum, responding to Chris' post:

<DEVIL'S ADVOCATE>

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:27, Chris Lawson wrote:

> Here are my responses:
>
> 1. Prescribing something that you know has no effect but placebo is
> dishonest. It involves lying to your patient. This is very dubious
> ethically.
>

Less so than letting them die for lack of another (or better) treatment?

If lying might save their life and telling the truth allow them to die?
There is no time for psychological rebuilding and retraining that may give them volountary control of the placebo effect.

If the mind can affect health in such a way, where is the research on how to train someone to be able to manage this themselves?

> 2. There are plenty of treatments available which we know work; these
> will also have a placebo effect without lying.
>

Adding "another" placebo could increase the effectiveness of the overall treatment. How many studies have been done on this? It might be that a "complex" treatment has benefits over a "simple" one purely from the placebo effect.

People always seem to take more joy in a rack of medicines rather than a single one.

> 3. When there are no treatments that are proven to work, there are still
> treatments with some theoretical justification behind them. The placebo
> effect will also apply here, again without lying to the patient.
>

Isn't that the difference between a sin of ommission and a sin of commission?

The trouble is that saying to a patient that this "may help you but it is unlikely" might even have a reverse placebo effect.

The real question here is whether it is possible to give the best treatment to a patient and still tell them the truth.

> 4. Even if there are no proven treatments, and no treatments with strong
> theoretical claims, there are always modalities such as meditation and
> yoga which do not pretend to be curative, but which may help the person
> deal with the emotional issues of their problem. These will also have a
> placebo effect.
>

Undetermined by the medical view that these things have no curative value.

Being told, "Look, mate, you are dying but if you go and do some yoga, you might be better off. It won't really help, but it might make you feel better" would seem designed to *counter* the placebo effect.

> 5. If you recommend the continued use of treatments which are known to
> be ineffective, then why test for effectiveness? The only purpose in
> scientific testing is to discern whether a treatment is effective; if
> you don't adopt effective treatments and abandon ineffective treatments,
> then why bother at all?
>

The argument here is that it is not proven to be effective or ineffective. We know there are some wins and some losses, but we have not quantasised that so no claims of relative effectivity can be made.

We need to distinguish when we are talking homeopathy and when we are talking placebo. Homeopathy does not work, placebo does.

> 6. The placebo effect is greatly misunderstood. It doesn't just apply to
> physiological changes due to one's awareness, it also applies to
> scientists interpreting their results. Thus it is quite possible for a
> *harmful* treatment to be enthusiastically recommended because the
> placebo effect hides its harm from researchers and therapists.
>

Perhaps what is needed is more research into the placebo effect, how it works and how to make it more effective.

Was there not some study that showed that having people praying for you had a practical effect even if the patients did not know they were being prayed for and the people making the prayers did not know the identity of the patient?

If a combined treatment of "harmful" plus "placebo" has a beneficial
effect, can the overall (combined treatment) be said to be "harmful" - No,
I don't think so. It could be said that the effectiveness would be
increased if you could replace the "harmful" part, but the overall
tereatment could not be called "harmful" (given that in the majority of
cases a benefit results).

> 7. The use of placebos discourages people from getting real treatment
> that works. Homeopathic vaccines are a good example: there is not a
> shred of evidence that they work, yet there are people who use them
> *instead of* tested vaccines that we know work. NSW recently had the
> case of a naturopath being convicted of manslaughter for telling parents
> he could cure their daughter's heart anomaly -- the child died after the
> parents cancelled her surgery.
>

Cognitive dissonance.

Hang on we do know that the placebo effect does work. How can it be an "ineffective" treatment? There is a difference between something being "ineffective" and "misapplied".

I am not aguing a case for the effectiveness of homeopathy.

> 8. The desire to be right and the desire to care for the patient are not
> contradictory. The whole purpose of modern medical research is to align
> these two goals...

I'm _not_ sold on that. The desire to be right should be of no relevance whatsoever.

> To knowingly give ineffective treatment and hope for a
> placebo miracle is not caring for the patient. It's a combination of
> lying and wishful thinking. To tell a patient the treatment they have
> been given won't work *is* caring for patient if you have very good
> reasons for your position (as is the case with homeopathy).

Caring for the patient is providing for optimum chances of survival. if that includes lying then that is providing the optimum care. I have been knowingly lied to by doctors before and have found many that are very willing to lie to their patients - even lying about what they have observed.

Example: In 1984 a doctor told me that I should give up smoking because I had emphysema (a knowingly told lie). Now, if he had said "would get" rather than "got" he might not have disembowled the credibility of his profession. He knowingly lied in an attempt to improve my health. What is the difference here?

> ...Telling them
> the truth may save them from wasting money (some alternative
> practitioners charge thousands of dollars to pensioners), may save them
> from dangerous advice (see Peter's comments re: homeopaths and
> melanoma), may get them to avoid side-effects for no benefit (not such a
> problem with homeopathy, but a big problem with some other alternative
> modalities) and may get them to undertake tested treatments earlier than
> they would otherwise (see the naturopath manslaughter story above).
>

All of these points are based on the current situation where homeopathy (and it's ilk) are not under medical purview. They would not apply so readily had homeopathy (and it's ilk) remained under medical purview.

> 8a. Let me put this another way. I am about to use an example that
> occurs not infrequently. Suppose you are a doctor. You see a patient
> with a urinary infection and prescribe an antibiotic. You tell the
> patient that the antibiotic will probably have a noticeable effect
> within 24 hours, and has a better than 90% chance of working. This is
> truthful. But the next day the patient comes back complaining that the
> pain is no better. You check the culture result. The bacterium is
> resistant to the antibiotic prescribed. Now, in this situation, my
> strategy would be to express sympathy that the bug turned out to be
> resistant to the antibiotic and to prescribe a different antibiotic
> according to the bug's sensitivities which are now known. Your devil's
> advocate would take a different approach, it seems. Your advocate seems
> to be saying that the correct response would be to say "don't worry
> about the pain; the antibiotic I gave you is a wonder drug; keep taking
> it and you'll feel good as gold in no time at all."
>

No, I don't think I have said, or suggested anything like that at all. In fact I think that is a rather absurd twist on what I have said.

> 9. If you really think a deliberate fraud who exploits the fears of sick
> people has better ethics than a doctor who tells his patients the truth,
> then I guess this has gone beyond Devil's advocacy and into being
> confrontational for the sake of confrontation.
>

No, no. But are you not "case building" here? "deliberate fraud", "exploits the fears...". You are making out the worst possible case and in such cases, extreme action to prevent repetition is more than acceptable (In other words, "hang 'em high"). But these are not the majority of the cases.

All I have done is question the ethics of abandoning a treatment that can be effective (via the placebo effect). I have further questioned the ethics of releasing that treatment (homeopathy) into the public domain (rather than the purview of medecine) where it can and does do considerable harm.

There were/are a number of other options.

You can justifiably accuse me of being confrontational, but not with hostility. I am confronting a paradox in viewpoints and asking for it to be explained (justified?). I figure that if we do reconcile this, then we have improved the situation for all. ("reconsile" does not mean accepting homeopathy as a valid treatment in its own right).

> 10. Your advocate seems a little confused here. He says that a doctor
> who tells a the truth about homeopathy is doing so to assuage his own
> sense of outrage. But let's remind ourselves of why the doctor is
> outraged. He is outraged because the patient has a pathological
> condition which is being "treated" by a practitioner who has no
> understanding of physiology or pathology, and who obviously has no
> understanding of basic chemistry, and who is telling the patient
> falsehoods. Or he is outraged (as I often am) by an alternative
> practitioner quite simply *inventing* a pathology to justify bogus
> treatment.
<snip>

I think we are both a little confused. I agree with everything you say here, but it still does not help me understand how ethicly a treatment that has been shown to be effective (the placebo effect) can be disgarded and ignored when lives are at stake.

I am suggesting that an efective and ethical way of using this has to be found. it is too important and too powerful to be ignored or disgarded.

> 11. I am not deeply convinced, but there are sufficient papers showing
> the effectiveness of acupuncture for pain relief that I find it quite
> acceptable that doctors practise acupuncture. I have even recommended
> acupuncture (and not just with acupuncturists medically-trained) for
> people with chronic pain.
>

I have had accupuncture from medically trained people and chinese trained accupunturists. There is no comparison between the two. It is the skills of the accupuncturist him/herself that is important not the needles or precision in locating (in my opinion fictional) "points". It can't be learned from a book. (But this is for a seperate thread).

> 12. The advocate says the placebo effect is a subtle and powerful thing.
> Find me someone who disagrees. The advocate seems to be labouring under
> the misunderstanding that the placebo effect and real physical effects
> are mutually exclusive.
>

The advocate does not think so. The advocate is not looking to replace current treatments but to suppliment them.

You say that you disagree that "the placebo effect is a subtle and powerful thing". That seems to fly in the face of modern medicine.

</DEVIL'S ADVOCATE>

> If it were under the purview of medecine there would be no medically
> unqualified homeopaths. End of problem...

Paul Williams wrote:

> There are those for whom prognosis is so poor that the last recourse becomes
> the power of prayer. (a cover story in Time magazine last decade suggests
> some statistical evidence for the effectiveness of prayer -possibly on as
> equally shaky grounds as homeopathic results?)
>

All the studies I've read regarding the effectiveness of prayer have either shown no difference to survival times or were considered to be flawed. There may be other 'positive' studies but I'm unaware of them.

> Point is, when all modern medicine falls in a heap of ineffectuality, which
> it does from time to time, what else is left other than opiate assisted
> terminal departure, or alternative techniques which have no visible means of
> support (or both)?
>

Preying on the weakened and desperate appears to be the modus operandi of delusional would be messiahs and those whose god is mammon. These creatures have no place in a caring world. The morality of assisted death should perhaps be judged by those horribly dying. It is not caring to offer false hope. Positive attitudes are essential, but there comes a time when there is
no tail end to the graph of survival to rely on anymore.

> No MD or medical scientist would dare to claim they hold the answers to all
> human ills.

Indeed. - Some alternative creatures do though.

>If a "modality" is known to produce positive results, how can it be said to
>be a "false" modality?

>Are hypnotherapy and psychotherapy "false modalities" in the same way?
>What is the difference?

>Not quite what I said. If it remained under the purview of medicine and
>not quackery then it would not be legal for the quacks to use it, and
>doctors might use it with 'profit' to the patient.

> > It also ignores the fact that many people's
> > faith in homeopathy and other "natural" modalities would only be
> > strengthened by this strategy...
>

>Half the people I know think an of an electron as a pea. That does not
>stop them using electricity and electronics. Very few people have an
>understanding of why they take particular medicines. That even applies to
>some doctors (that is not a shot at doctors, you can't keep up with
>everything). If the faith in homeopathy led to saving their lives with a
>placebo, what right does someone have to interfere from indignation?

>The only justification is saving lives. If the attitude expends them it is
>unsound.

> > ...The homeopaths would say, and with
> > complete justification, "how dare they argue against my advice when they
> > practise it themselves?"
>
>If it were under the purview of medecine there would be no medically
>unqualified homeopaths. End of problem...

>I still do not see how in good concience an effective treatment can be
>dicarded because it is based on false premises.

> > 12. The advocate says the placebo effect is a subtle and powerful thing.
> > Find me someone who disagrees. The advocate seems to be labouring under
> > the misunderstanding that the placebo effect and real physical effects
> > are mutually exclusive.

>You say that you disagree that "the placebo effect is a subtle and powerful
>thing". That seems to fly in the face of modern medecine.

Donald Lang wrote:

I did not get to watch the program last night. I had to record it while dedicated watchers were busy with real medicine on "Scrubs".

I have now watched it, and am wondering if there is any water anywhere that has C30 status for any chemical substance. In case anyone is interested and did not watch, homeopaths like to dilute their substances by a factor of a hundred, thirty times. [presumably C for hundredfold dilution, and thirty is efinitely the claimed number of times.] I am not going to seek out a
homeopath to ask, but anyone who has an encounter of a C30 kind might like to ask how you know which medicine you are using.

<IN MEMORY OF FRED HOYLE>
Since C30 dilution of one ml of any substance requires more water than is available on the entire planet, and even a lot further afield, perhaps the *real* medicine is introduced in this step and comes from outer space.
</IN MEMORY OF FRED HOYLE>

The point Chris made earlier about checking on the working of placebos was actually visible in the first program. People who "knew" which samples were "medicines" saw those samples as working. At least that was the message I got. Once they were in fact double blind the effect went away.

> At 09:41 4/04/03 +1000, Zero Sum wrote:
> >If a "modality" is known to produce positive results, how can it be
> > said to be a "false" modality?
>
> If a modality only shows placebo benefit, then it is the placebo causing
> the benefit, not the modality, and it is perfectly reasonable to call it
> a false modality.
>

>
> >Not quite what I said. If it remained under the purview of medicine
> > and not quackery then it would not be legal for the quacks to use it,
> > and doctors might use it with 'profit' to the patient.
>
> I think you'd find it hard to introduce legislation banning non-doctors
> from recommending homeopathy while allowing doctors, most of whom don't
> believe in it, access. I don't think you can justify this on either
> ethical or practical grounds.
>

>
> >The only justification is saving lives. If the attitude expends them
> > it is unsound.
>
> Show me a single trial showing that homeopathy has saved lives. In over
> 200 trials, the most effective result has been in the treatment of hay
> fever. And even this trial is, IMHO, not particularly well-researched
> (although they did do a good randomisation). The other trials have shown
> homeopathy doesn't work or at best has a borderline effect when giving
> maximal statistical massage. This is a spurious argument.
>

> > > ...The homeopaths would say, and with
> > > complete justification, "how dare they argue against my advice when
> > > they practise it themselves?"

> >
> >If it were under the purview of medecine there would be no medically
> >unqualified homeopaths. End of problem...

>
> See above. This is not a realistic option.
>

> >I still do not see how in good concience an effective treatment can be
> >dicarded because it is based on false premises.

>
> I answered this in my other post. To summarise: if you know the only
> benefit of a therapy is placebo, then to use that therapy involves lying
> to your patients; there are other modalities which are not known to be
> false and these will also elicit an effective placebo response; there
> are dangers associated with relying on placebo effect, including that
> patients avoid or delay treatments that are known to work.
>

Toby Fiander wrote:

Just a note on bleeding people....

I understand that there are several blood disorders for which "bleeding" is the treatment of choice. Haemochromatosis is the principal example. So as not to alarm the populace, it is sometimes called phlebotomy or venesection.

.Nisaba may be able to speak glowingly of the return of leeches... for removal of blood from bruised and even transplanted digits.

AFAIK, eye of newt has not yet re-appeared in the medical repertoire.

<snip>
> Have any studies been done on the placebo effect when
> a portion of the subjects are knowingly taking a placebo?
>
<snip>
> But this (my original idea) has become moot because I do not know if
the
> placebo effect will work with all or a portion of suceptible patients
when
> they knowingly take the placebo.

Anne responded:

"A sarcode is a section of healthy tissue used in homeopathic remedies that is prepared similar to a nosode "
From
http://altmed.creighton.edu/
another site that i love and others have cited is
http://www.skepdic.com
nothing on sarcode but much on homeopathy

David Martin noted:

You should be more careful with your advice.

In homeopathy, efficacy is presumed to increase with dilution. Distilled water is an infinitely diluted form of every known remedy (indeed, every possible substance) and is very potent material. It should be prescribed only by a qualified homeopath.

:-)

Sandra replied:

The patient may not know the difference when taking it, but they will notice the difference in their health after taking it! How many homeopathic remedies have you taken in your life. I hope you have not made this statement without experience, Ray

Podargus, replying to Paul:

> This has a deep 'homeopathological' inference, in that imbibing seawater
> (5 picolitres perhaps?) would cure every ill known to man.

> Regards
> Paul

The problem with sea water is that it has detectable amounts of 'stuff', therefore would need diluting to be effective.

Rob, replying to Peter:

> Please don't hold back -- I would love to see what a
> homeopath has to say about ignorance.

Out of interest Peter, had you ever wondered about the amount of research into naturally occurring toxins,
and their application in disease control? Maybe there's some parallels with the use of diluted toxins in homeopathy? I'm not saying I agree with homeopathy, but I think science still has a lot to learn from "alternative medicine".

While there's an awesome amount of knowledge accumulated by science, there's still a lot which science fails to explain. In some respects, there are people who are such focussed "believers" in science, that their belief results in the same sort of blindness to alternative explanations that other religions do.

Susan Wright posted:

Hi Sandra (if you're still onlist)

<Sandra wrote - snip>>>>>
I thought it was too good to be true, that I could successfully communicate
with scientists.
<snip>

There have been many discussions of homeopathy, among the hundred of others topics, on this list. How useful it may be; how rigorous testing is; evidence; facts etc etc. Lots of digs about it as well ... but that does not
mean scientists are poor communicators - merely that they value rigour. Homeopathy as a subject is not immune regardless of how highly it may be valued by individuals.

This statement also comes from a non-scientist (just about as non as you can get).

David's remarks are actually logical (in a tongue in cheek way)- and useful as a prompt for further discussion. Because they poke fun shouldn't really matter - it's not a personal attack on anyone. Simply ask more questions
i.e. why do you think that, what gaps do you see in evidence/testing etc.

Ian Musgrave wrote:

At 03:43 1/09/03 -0700, Rob wrote:
>--- Peter Macinnis <macinnis@OZEMAIL.COM.AU> wrote:

> > Please don't hold back -- I would love to see what a
> > homeopath has to say about ignorance.

>
>Out of interest Peter, had you ever wondered about the
>amount of research into naturally occurring toxins,
>and their application in disease control?

Peter sure has. For example a synthetic version of a component of the toxin from the venomous cone shell Conus magus is being used to treat chronic pain. Some modern anti-hypertensive drugs are based on the snake venom component saitiotoxin. And there is digitalis, the toxic component of foxglove, used to treat heart failure.

>Maybe
>there's some parallels with the use of diluted toxins
>in homeopathy?

No. The principles are completely unlike homeopathy (like cures like), and is ground firmly in modern biology. And of course they are not used at infinite dilution, but at dilutions where there is actually some product. As a pharmacologist I have tested the above toxins, and can confirm that they work according to the law of mass action, not homeopathic principles. Also they act on on defined receptors/enzymes not "like cures like". Digitalis inhibits the sodium-potassium ATPase, the coneshell venom inhibits N-type calcium channels and saitotoxin and its therapeutic cousins inhibit anigotensin converting enzyme.

>I'm not saying I agree with
>homeopathy, but I think science still has a lot to
>learn from "alternative medicine".

There is no "alternative medicine" there is only medicine that has been shown to work, and medicine that has no evidence of efficacy.

Science already knows that many plants have bioactive substances, and that they are present in wildly differing amounts between plant preparations, and if they are not stored properly the bioactive components will go off, and you have to be careful with identification and processing or your herbal preparations will get contaminated with undesirable, possibly lethal, substances. Many "alternative" practitioners still haven't worked this out.

>While there's an awesome amount of knowledge
>accumulated by science, there's still a lot which
>science fails to explain.

Thank goodness, otherwise there would be nothing left for us researchers to research.

However, homeopathic "medicine" does not fall into this category.

Rob Geraghty replied:

> There is no "alternative medicine" there
> is only medicine that has been shown to
> work, and medicine that has no evidence
> of efficacy.

So no knowledge other than the result of scientific research has any value? Actually, your statement above could be applied equally to things which are classed as "alternative medicine" as well as Medicine (with a capital M for want of an exhaustive definition).

A lot of useful research has stemmed from home remedies, herbal treatments and traditional medicines
(in the latter I'm trying to categorise treatments used by tribal cultures). I'm not at all convinced that science has already learned all it can from such sources.

> Science already knows that many plants
> have bioactive substances, and that
> they are present in wildly differing
> amounts between plant preparations,

Just ask Pan Pharmaceuticals. :)

> However, homeopathic "medicine" does not
> fall into this category.

For the record, I don't think homeopathic remedies are likely to show much more than a placebo effect.
However, I don't think it's necessary to make insulting jokes in the presence of people who may feel otherwise.

David Martin wrote:

First of all, my apologies, Sandra, for what was really a cheap shot; I hope it hasn't pushed you off the list. My thanks to Sue in particular, and others, who have given much more measured responses to the topic.

Nevertheless Sandra, if you express a belief in homeopathy then, on a science list, you should be prepared for a bit of flack.

The process of science is the testing of ideas against measures such as internal consistency, experimental evidence, well established scientific laws and so on. This process is, quite deliberately, rigorous and thorough,
often to the point of appearing hostile. If it wasn't, false ideas would easily slip through the net and science would founder. The following quote, I think from Galileo, sums up the enterprise of science very nicely:

"The aim of science is not to open the door to everlasting wisdom but to set a limit on everlasting error".

Any perceived hostility is meant to test your ideas and should not be taken personally. If you can't defend an idea then you can't lay claim to it. Those of us on the list who are professional scientists are well used to this process, but it can be a bit of a shock to non-scientists.

Anyway, as Sue has pointed out, the point of my previous email (neglecting the sarcasm :-) was that a logical consequence of homeopathy would seem to be that pure water is a potent cure for all ills. Perhaps you'd like to
comment on that?

Ian Musgrave posted:

At 05:28 1/09/03 -0700, Rob wrote:

>--- Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue <reynella@MIRA.NET>
>wrote:

> > There is no "alternative medicine" there
> > is only medicine that has been shown to
> > work, and medicine that has no evidence
> > of efficacy.

>
>So no knowledge other than the result of scientific
>research has any value?

No, read that again. When you or I take a drug, whether it be an aspirin tablet or powdered willow bark, we want to know if it works, and if it is safe to use. We we are testing conventional drugs, we don't take anyones sayso as evidence, there has to be a rigorous testing procedure to ensure the drug does work as advertised. We have these rigorous testing procedures because our "common-sense" notions of what constitutes proof that a drug works (Aunty-Flo ate thin sliced cucumber and her arthritis went away, so thin sliced cucumber is a cure for arthritis) are usually badly wrong, as we have discovered to our cost. There is a reason why it takes 15 years and half a billion dollars to bring a new drug from discovery to clinical use.

Many natural products that are used as folk remedies do in fact do useful things (after all, our ancestors weren't fools, and were capable of astute observation). Even more folk remedies do nowt, and many of the ones that
do work have really horrible side effects, but this was NOT picked up by our astute ancestors because testing medicines is HARD, variable disease courses, responder vs non-responder sub groups, and plain wishful thinking can overcome the best of us unless we have a VERY rigorous testing procedure. Why do you think conventional medicine has the double blind controlled trial as it's golden standard, because we know from bitter
experience how easy it is to be fooled.

Folk wisdom doesn't work to well on things that have long lag times also, in Southern China there is a region which has a staggering incidence of oral cancer. It turns out the local delicacy, fermented cabbage, was made
with a fungus as the fermenting agent which produced a extremely virulent carcinogen. Folk wisdom and observation didn't catch this, despite the locals being astute.

Most folk remedies haven't even undergone the most basic of testing to see if they actually do anything, let alone testing for toxic side effects. Those that have, like powdered willow bark, have generally been tested by poor, reviled conventional medicine. And conventional medicine picks up the pieces afterwards. And if you are thinking "these things have been used for thousands of years, they must be safe or the locals would have noticed", remember the pickled cabbage. Even persuasive, consistent side effects can be hard to pick up, unless you have a rigorous, dare I say it, scientific, testing proceedure.

Generally, "alternative" medicine lacks even the barest semblance of testing of any sort, let alone rigorous.

>Actually, your statement
>above could be applied equally to things which are
>classed as "alternative medicine" as well as Medicine
>(with a capital M for want of an exhaustive
>definition).

Yep, there is this whole field called evidence-based medicine. The whole point is to make sure every therapy we use actually works as advertised. Much to the annoyance of some drug companies.

>A lot of useful research has stemmed from home
>remedies, herbal treatments and traditional medicines
>(in the latter I'm trying to categorise treatments
>used by tribal cultures). I'm not at all convinced
>that science has already learned all it can from such
>sources.

Sure we can learn more, but be aware that just as many traditional medicines do nothing as those that do. And those that work are often based on an active component that we have already defined and made better variants of (many Chinese tradition medicine for colds and flu revolve around ephedrine, we use a variant, pseudoephedrine, which is more selective and effective and a bit less likely to kill people with high blood pressure.)

> > Science already knows that many plants
> > have bioactive substances, and that
> > they are present in wildly differing
> > amounts between plant preparations,

>
>Just ask Pan Pharmaceuticals. :)

Exactly, Pan Pharmacetical was "Natural Products" company, one of the biggest suppliers of "alternative" medicine in Australia. The powers that be at Pan evidently didn't think the conventional science idea of testing your drugs to make sure they had what they said they had in them was worthwhile. How wrong they were.

Sandra replied:

To Peter,
I am still here.

Firstly, I am not a practitioner. I would sincerely hope that I would know the meaning of sarcode if I were. I am a philosopher, amongst other things.

Regarding ignorance: I was going to say that one should not comment on subjects one knows nothing about, let alone give incorrect advice. This was directed towards Ray, not David. David may have had tongue in cheek and I will answer David's post later.

A doctor has only cured me of one thing, and that was amoebic dysentery, which was poisoned. I was poisoned, with arsenic no less. For all other maladies during my life, I have cured myself by self-prescribing. I have used many different homeopathic remedies successfully. I have also used Bach Flower remedies and Bush Flower essences made by Ian White, whom I have met. I have also used herbs and even Purple Plates, all with success.

Unlike left-brained scientists, I don't always need to know how something works. The fact that it does is often enough for me. I am neither left nor right brained. I use the left hemisphere when I want to analyse something
and the right hemisphere when I want to be creative. I use the left when I am being critical and the right when being insightful or intuitive. I have even taken a test which showed that I have perfect balance. Out of twenty
questions, I answered 10 with the left hemisphere and 10 with the right.

and:

Ian,
I have written several letters to the NCI of USA and have not received one reply. All my letters were concerning natural treatments and cures. I asked them to comment on Hulda Regehr Clark's two books The Cure for all Diseases and The Cure for all Cancers. I also sent copies of the letters by fax. When Hulda Clark was arrested and thrown into jail for advocating that she could cure cancer. I wrote again and asked them if there was something they could do for her. No reply!

After visiting their Website, I realised that they are not the least interested in natural cures. If it is not radiation, chemo therapy, MammoSites and the like or drugs, they don't want to know about it. This is a very narrow view. How can drugs ever be superior to natural? If a person has tried every natural therapy and none of them worked, then drugs etc. should be used as a last resort. Okay, jump up and down and scream at me, or be sarcastic --whatever, but nothing will convince me that unnatural is better than natural. Or that synthetic is better than organic.

The reason scientists have not got the proof they need for homeopathic remedies is because the persons used in the trials were not highly evolved (spiritually) enough for it to be of benefit. I believe it to be quirte true that a lower evolved soul can not benefit from homeopathic remmedies. Also an overly sceptical person can block the healing process and this could be transfered from the scientist to the patient. So with a combination of a less than highly evolved person being trialed and a highly sceptal scientist, what hope have you got? A person must have reached a certain level of awareness for homeopathic remedies to work. Please note that lower class, uneducated people are not attracted to these types of remedies. They run to the doctor at the first sign of illness and do NOT take responsibility for their health!

and:

Well David, I think science flounders, founders frequently. You only have to look at how many people science has not cured. How many people die in hospital and how many diseases there is NO cure for. How many so called
cures have terrible side affects and and the very methods used as cures. e.g cutting out disease, poisoning parasites and radiating all else. I don't consider cutting to be a cure, even if the condition does not return. The
problem I have with doctors is that they see only the disease and want to supress the symptoms. This is not a cure. The symptoms may disappear, only to reappear as something else When you go to a Naturapath. They treat the whole person. ie the whole of the body, the mind and emotions and the spirit or soul. Most scientists don't even know what the soul is, and can not identify with it. Am I not correct here?

When I said that I thought it was too good to be true that I could successfully communicate with scientists; I did not mean that scientists were not good communicators. I meant that I probably would not have the ability to communicate with them.

Steve Van Zed wrote:

I agree whole hardly with you about not treating the "whole body". Symptoms may disappear and reappear as something else. Treating symptoms only is not the - total - answer. Try to tell that to a hard pressed GP who is critisised for spending too much time per patient!!.

If you find some one, herbalist, doctor, naturopath, able and willing to listen, stick to that person. But use common sense, try to - how difficult it may be - identify quacks.

Personally I don't believe in dilutions in the order of one thousands of a milliliter or even less, but I have seen remarkable results of applying some substances. On the other hand I remember going with my mother to a herbalist who prescribed some awful tasting herbal drinks. I don't remember any benefits, but I am sure it made my mother feel good! Sorry I can't be more supportive, but equally I am convinced that there is so much more to medicine than just science.

Ian Musgrave responded:

Answering Sandras answer to David first, I'll have the other email finished
later tonight.

At 01:14 5/09/03 +1000, Sandra wrote:

>Well David, I think science flounders, founders frequently. You only have to
>look at how many people science has not cured.

For a proper answer, you have to express it as a ratio to the people science has cured. As little as 50 years ago high blood pressure was a death sentence. It is not now, because of a combination of simple and effective drugs and diet and behavioral changes discovered by medical sciences. As little as 20 years ago childhood leukemia was incurable, now the cure rate is around 90%. 5 years ago Chronic Myeloid Leukemia was virtually incurable, with the advent of the drug Glivec, there is a better than 80% cure rate. TB was one of the commonest causes of death in my grandfathers generation, now it is almost unheard of. If you look at childhood death over the last 20 years alone, it has continually fallen due to improved techniques and improved medicines from science.

Just think of all the things we don't die from now, due to science (tetanus, whooping cough, strep throat), and the disease that have virtually vanished from the planet (small pox, rickets) due to science.

>How many people die in
>hospital

Quite a few, but far fewer than used to.

>and how many diseases there is NO cure for.

Quite a few, usually rare diseases like Neimann Pick disease (which we now have a treatment for, thanks to scientists at the Royal Adelaide Hospital), gene diseases like childhood onset diabetes (for which we have effective treatments, thanks to science), and diseases of poor people, like malaria (and Australian scientists have been hammering away at malaria for ages, some preliminary vaccine trails seems hopeful, but Big Pharma isn't interested in diseases of the poor, this isn't the scientists fault though, and the WHO may be able to do something in this area)

>How many so called
>cures have terrible side affects

Very few.

>and and the very methods used as cures. e.g
>cutting out disease,

Works well for acute appendicitis (which we very rarely see these days because of better childhood health and anti-biotics). Works fantastically for fontal lobe epilepsy, where a microscopic cut can save a person from a
life of severe seizures every 10-15 minutes or so. Works reasonably well in early intervention in skin cancer, breast cancer and so on where we can get to the tumor before it has spread to other sites.

>poisoning parasites

You would prefer death by diarrhea/malaria/guinea worms blocking your heart muscles? Selective poisoning is the basis of anti-microbial/protozoal therapy. By ALL treatment modailities.

>and radiating all else. I don't
>consider cutting to be a cure, even if the condition does not return.

Why not? The whole point is to stop the disease process, and save a persons life.

>The
>problem I have with doctors is that they see only the disease and want to
>supress the symptoms.

No they want to cure it. Some things, like Rheumatoid arthritis, we can't cure yet, but can suppress the disease process for long enough to provide a decent quality of life. Some things, like the flu, we can make people more
comfortable with while their body fights it off (we have actual anti-flu drugs, but they are a bit expensive and work best if you get them before the flu). Other things we can cure.

>This is not a cure. The symptoms may disappear, only
>to reappear as something else

A concrete example please.

>When you go to a Naturapath. They treat the
>whole person. ie the whole of the body, the mind and emotions and the spirit
>or soul. Most scientists don't even know what the soul is, and can not
>identify with it. Am I not correct here?

No. No scientist knows what a soul is, NOBODY knows what a soul is (or even if one exists). We have almost 40,000 years of investigation into the soul by some of the finest minds on the planet and nobody, but nobody knows what the soul is (or if it exists). On the other hand, quite a few scientists (eg Keith Miller, Francis Alya) believe they have souls, they just don't pretend they know what they are.

>When I said that I thought it was too good to be true that I could
>successfully communicate with scientists; I did not mean that scientists
>were not good communicators. I meant that I probably would not have the
>ability to communicate with them.

You are. It's hard, because we think in differnt ways, but keep at it and we can go places.

Ray posted:

Sandra,

The problem is (for Homeopathy) there is no proof and devotees tend to have the same kind of 'faith' attitude to the field as creationists.

Whatever proof negative to homeopathy, 'devotees' simply refuse to accept the cold logic of scientific testing.

If you want to make a valid comparison between arguments pro and con, then I suggest that you contact NATA. (National Association of Testing Authorities) and see what they have to say.

http://www.nata.asn.au

My bet is that whatever they say, because they have a tradition of not accepting that 1+1=3, you won't accept their answer anyway.

And Sandra, whilst there are ample anecdotal tales of extraordinary cures for cancers extending from meditation to herbalism to inexplicable snake oils, as well as sheer good luck, the potential for disaster of failure in treatment by what amounts to little more than tap water is a cold reminder that ignoring science for unproven alternative medicines can amount to malpractice by neglect.

That Sandra, is precisely why simple prayer to your god of choice is scary....

Ray

PS If it works for you, fine, but equally so, it is the right of others to object on rational grounds to your evangelism of an unproven panacea. Mind you, I am prepared to accept the medical efficiency of herbalism and even meditation, but I would still be wanting barium X-rays or CAT from authentic, and proven, scientific medicine for diagnosis. Before I have a 20 kilo tumour to worry about....

and:

I might add that, as much as there have been deaths in hospitals due to incorrect or excessive doses of pharmaceuticals, there have also been more than a few cases of litigation where parents have been charged with causing the death of infants through use of alternative medicine and failure to consult traditional medical authorities.

and:

>>A doctor has only cured me of one thing, and that was amoebic dysentery,
which was poisoned. I was poisoned, with arsenic no less.

When and where was this Sandra?

Arsenic, I believe, is a cumulative poison like lead, and toxicity of the element is a matter of sustained consumption over time. Small, short term dosage I generally not poisonous.

I may be wrong, but doubtless, you'd prefer not to have a colony of amoeba in your gastric system.

There are probably better treatments for amoebic dysentery than arsenic in any case.

Paul Williams added:

> >>A doctor has only cured me of one thing, and that was amoebic
dysentery,
> which was poisoned. I was poisoned, with arsenic no less.

>
> When and where was this Sandra?
>
> Arsenic, I believe, is a cumulative poison like lead, and toxicity of the
> element is a matter of sustained consumption over time. Small, short term
> dosage I generally not poisonous.
>
> I may be wrong, but doubtless, you'd prefer not to have a colony of amoeba
> in your gastric system.
>
> There are probably better treatments for amoebic dysentery than arsenic in
> any case.

I think that prescribing arsenic would be somewhat unusual...

I used to carry tetracycline, 'Fasigyn' (Tinidazole) and 'Flagyl' (Metronidazole) This was in places where there was no medical help. Tetracycline would cure most bacterial dysentery and some amoebic dysentery. Flagyl was more thorough though. With Giadia infection, only Fasigyn and Flagyl were effective.

Amoebic dysentery if left untreated is life threatening. The amoeba can migrate to vital organs. There may be periods of months or even years when there are no symptoms.

The usual disclaimers apply to the above and one must emphasise that to take these drugs merely on speculation is foolish. Whenever good medical help was available I availed myself of it. It really is best to get the all clear from a doctor.

Amoebic Dysentery:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/travel/diseases/amoebic_dysentery.htm

David Martin wrote:

Hi again Sandra,

Glad to see you're still on the list.

You seem to have misunderstood my original email on this topic, or confused me with someone else. I made no mention of "traditional" medicine and was in no way supporting or defending it; I leave that to others on the List who are far better qualified to do so.

I was trying to point out what seems to be a logical inconsistency in the homeopathic claim that potency increases with dilution. As a consequence, distilled water would be cure for all ills. You have yet to respond.

I'm well aware, of course, of the homeopathic claim that water has a memory. If that claim is correct then there is a great deal wrong with our present understanding of physics and chemistry; I'm certainly prepared to support
and defend that.

Some other points from your email:

I think it unfair to claim that "science flounders, founders frequently" on the basis that medicine doesn't have a 100% success rate. Medicine makes no such claim; nor should such a claim be expected. Even the simplest
biological systems are far too complex to be understood in anything but the broadest terms. There are, as yet, no "laws of medicine" in anything like the same sense that there are laws of physics.

You also criticise cures which are successful on the basis that some of them have terrible side effects. This is a rather one sided view, since you fail to mention that some diseases also have terrible side effects: death, for
example.

In any case, even if "traditional" medicine gets things wrong, that is not an argument in favour of any alternative.

You mention the "soul". I can't speak for "most scientists", but it's true to say that Science doesn't recognise such an entity. Science doesn't recognise fairies either, and for much the same reasons: although many
people are convinced they exist, no-one has been able to provide any evidence.

Finally, I have to say that I think your hostility towards science comes from a misunderstanding of what science is and how the scientific process works. I hope membership of the List will soften your attitude a little, although you should be prepared to have your ideas subjected to stringent criticism. That is part of the scientific process.

Jim Thornton added:

...pure water is a potent cure for all ills.

I would like to add these observations:

1. Everybody to date who has drunk water, hot, cold, distilled, mixed with whisky or otherwise has died or will die. ;-(
2. A pie chart of how people die may change colours and the size of individual wedges, but so far there is no missing wedge.
3. The fridge had a major impact on increasing life expectancy by reducing the amount of salted meat consumed.

Gerald Cairnes commented:

Hi Jim,
I haven't been able to participate in this thread but to add to your comments people should also be reminded that water is regarded as a suspected carcinogen. Water is radio active, granted this is low, but water is not innocuous as are many substances we tend to take for granted simply because they tend to be generally accepted as safe.

Ian Musgrave wrote in reply to Donald:

At 04:58 4/09/03 +1000, DEE wrote:

>G'Day All & specially
>Ian.
>

>As you will see below, I have snipped much leaving a statement about half a
>billion dollars. I have heard or read it before, and I get a need to quote a
>number like it occasionally. Please could I have a confirmation that the
>word is "billion" and not "Squillion"? If it is not too large an order,
>could you supply URL for a place with a breakdown of the figure, a case in
>point or alternatively a few components off the top of your own head?

The TGA website has the figure lurking around somewhere, and it's the standard estimate for run of the mill drugs. I can dig it up journal references from my lecture notes (ie the lectures I give).

But, for example, a two year toxicology trial in mice alone can cost around $50,000 to run, with personnel ( a single half time technician will cost $30,000 over two years minimum, and then there's the costs of running
tests, documentation etc). A large, multicenter trial in patients that runs for 12 months will easily cost $200,000 with costs of patient recruitment, tests, documentation etc. Anticancer trails, where you have to follow the
patients for 5 years, will cost more. Preparing the documentation for TGA approval alone, runs to around a 100 volumes of clinical and preclinical data, of which there has to be multiple copies.

In a standard dug application, there will be multiple tests in preclincial trials, at least two long term toxicology trials in animals, drug distribution trials, tests in disease models, tissue culture etc. In the clinical side there will be short term, medium term and at least one large multicentre trial. These things add up.You won't get much change from half a billion dollars for developing a new drug.

and to Sandra:

At 12:59 5/09/03 +1000, Sandra wrote:

>Ian,
>I have written several letters to the NCI of USA and have not received one
>reply.

Did you include and addressed reply envelope with international postage? The US NCI is an American organisation, and they are swamped with enquires from US citizens, and are hard pressed to answer them, let alone Australian citizens, whom they are not obliged to reply to by their charter.

>All my letters were concerning natural treatments and cures. I asked
>them to comment on Hulda Regehr Clark's two books The Cure for all Diseases
>and The Cure for all Cancers. I also sent copies of the letters by fax. When
>Hulda Clark was arrested and thrown into jail for advocating that she could
>cure cancer.

She was arrested for fraud. Fraudulently claiming you can cure cancer is one of the more unpleasant types of fraud.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html

Here is Hulda Clark's explanation of cancer

"All cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, you must have this parasite. . . ."

And we know this is wrong. If it were true, the we couldn't culture cancer cells, the minute cancer cells were taken out of the body and away from the influence of the parasite, they should revert to normal. In my lab I have cancerous nerve cells that I have been growing for years, that have never reverted to normal, despite being years away from any alleged parasite influence.

Cells in the body go through co-ordinated cycles of growth and death. Cancer is caused by mutations to the genes that control cell growth and cell death, with the result that the affected cells grow uncontrollably. The cells have several backup, so you need several mutations usually (which is why cancer is generally a disease of old age, as it takes time to accumulate multiple mutations in the growth machinery. The mutations are mostly spontaneous, although is some cases, they can be induce by viruses (eg Feline Leukaemia virus).

An example is Chronic Myelid Leukaemia (CML), it is fairly unusual in that a single (rather than multiple), recurrent mutation is responsible for it. In CML there is a cross over mutation between chromosomes 9 and 22, one of the chromosome 22's is truncated (and its distinctive appearance is diagnostic of CML, it is known as the Philadelphia chromosome), and has a bit of chromosome 9 fused to it. The chromosome fusion fuses two genes BCR and ABL, that code for growth controlling genes. The fused gene, known somewhat imaginatively as BCR-ABL, produces a hybrid growth control gene that is permanently switched on, leading to uncontrolled growth of white blood cells.

Now we can demonstrate the Philadelphia chromosome in CML pateinst, find the mutant BCR-ABL gene in their cells, grow the mutants cells effectively forever in cell culture. Furthermore, when we inhibit the mutant BCR-ABL gene product, the cell growth stops, and a synthetic drug, glivec, which blocks the BCR-ABL gene product is wildly successful at stopping CML in humans, with greater than 80% success. Those that don't respond have mutant BCR-ABL's that don't bind the drug, or have secondary, downstream mutations. (At this point, I should link you to my lecture handouts on CML and BCR-ABL, but copyright considerations prevents me from doing so)

In contrast, in western societies intestinal fluke infection is virtually unknown these days (and, as an ex clinical biochemist, we can diagnose the presence of flukes quite easily, it's something I used to do).

Now contrast the two explanations, in one, the conventional explanation, we can demonstrate the mutation in all cases of CML, and we can predict that attacking the mutation stops the disease in the test tube and real humans and we can demonstrate the prediction in careful scientific trials. We can predict that cancerous cells will remain cancerous when taken outside of the body, and they do. In the Hulder Clarke explanation we have a causative agent that is not found in the vast majority of cancer victims, and a prediction that cancer cells taken outside the body will revert to normal cells, which we know is wrong. We have no careful clinical trails of the
supposed treatment, and no follow up of any treated patients.

Which explanation has evidence behind it?

>I wrote again and asked them if there was something they could
>do for her. No reply!

The NCI is an organisation for funding research into cancer, and providing information about cancer, what did you expect them to do, they have no legal powers.

>After visiting their Website, I realised that they are not the least
>interested in natural cures.

Simply not true, there is quite a bit of information on "natural" cures
http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancerinfo/treatment/cam

And descriptions of trials NCI researchers are conducting into "natural" cures
http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/9_14.htm

>If it is not radiation, chemo therapy,
>MammoSites and the like or drugs, they don't want to know about it.

So why are they conducting trials of "natural" therapies? If you search through the site, you will find information about Taxol, for example, a natural product from Yew trees which is improving cancer survival in breast
and other cancers.

They also conduct research into cancer prevention
http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancerinfo/prevention-genetics-causes

>This is
>a very narrow view. How can drugs ever be superior to natural?

First off natural products ARE drugs. Anything administered to the body that causes a change in function is a drug. What conventional medicine administers as drugs are purer, and given in known doses, than natural
products but quite often they are just purified natural products (eg digitalis from foxglove, taxol from Yew trees), or modified versions of them (pseudoephedrine vs ephedrine for colds).

Furthermore, we can modify natural products so that they are more effective, have fewer side effects (theophilleine vs caffeine for asthma, isoprenaline vs adrenaline for asthma again). We can synthesise drugs of a completely different structure that work better than the natural product (RX82102 vs Yohimbine at alpha2 adrenoceptors as vasodilators, rofecoxib vs salicylic acid from willow bark, rofecoxib will relieve pain better than
willow bark and won't cause the massive gastric bleeding that effective doses of willow bark does in some patients). Captopril is far better at controlling blood pressure than natural safortoxin. We can also administer
drugs in precise doses so that we can take into account patients metabolism.

As another example, take wormwood, the "natural" anti-helementhtic given by Hulda Clark as her "cure" for cancer (and all diseases). Wormwood is highly toxic, has components (notably thujone) that cause fairly nasty side effects, (including brain damage). Modern synthetic anti-helemintics can kill off the worms without causing brain damage (or most of the side effects of wormwood, which is banned as a dangerous substance by the
Australian TGA).

Just because a substance is "natural" does not mean that it is effective, or free from harm. A wide range of natural products can have quite nasty, even deadly side effects (eg St Johns Wort, used for depression, can cause lethal interactions with other drugs, some Chinese medicines used in influenza (eg Mua Huang) can cause life threatening hypertension).

>If a person
>has tried every natural therapy and none of them worked, then drugs etc.
>should be used as a last resort. Okay, jump up and down and scream at me, or
>be sarcastic--whatever, but nothing will convince me that unnatural is
>better than natural.

Not even evidence?

>Or that synthetic is better than organic.

There is no difference between synthetic and organic chemicals. Vitamin C is vitamin C whether synthesized in an orange or in a test tube. Their properties are identical (and we know this because of experiments carried
out with synthetic vs natural vitamins).

>The reason scientists have not got the proof they need for homeopathic
>remedies is because the persons used in the trials were not highly evolved
>(spiritually) enough for it to be of benefit.

This is a new one to me, and I have hung around a fair few homeopaths, and spent the odd idle hour in Klinikum Steglitz reading homeopathy journals on rainy afternoons during my post-doc in Germany (well, after my brain began to melt from reading about GTP-binding proteins, I needed a break). Its also completely at variance with the basic principle of homeopathy (like cures like, no mention of spiritual evolution in that pricinple)

>I believe it to be quirte true
>that a lower evolved soul can not benefit from homeopathic remmedies.

Then why do they have homeopathic remedies for dogs and cats then?

>Also
>an overly sceptical person can block the healing process and this could be
>transfered from the scientist to the patient.

This is where conventional medicine has the advantage, antibiotics, insulin and anti-hypertensives work without regard to the skepticism of the taker, or the state of evolution of their soul.

>So with a combination of a
>less than highly evolved person being trialed and a highly sceptal
>scientist, what hope have you got?

This raises an interesting question, how does one reliably detect an "evolved soul"? When glivec doesn't work, we can sequence tha patients BCR-ABL gene to se if it is glivec resistant quite reliably, but what criteria does a homeopath reliably use to evaluate the state of ones soul? If ther are so few "evolved" people, who did homeopaths find any working cures in the first place?

And when non-sceptical homeopaths do the trials, and find no effects also. what does this mean?

>A person must have reached a certain level of awareness for homeopathic
>remedies to work.

A reference to this statement please, I have never heard this from a homeopath, nor read of it in any homeopathic journal or textbook.

>Please note that lower class, uneducated people are not
>attracted to these types of remedies.

Evidence for this statement please. My observation is just the opposite.

>They run to the doctor at the first
>sign of illness and do NOT take responsibility for their health!

Again, this is not my experience, if Chris Lawson were still about, he would have been able to comment on this with more authority. Hmm, I might check if our local alternative medicine group has statistics on this.

Anne added:

> >Please note that lower class, uneducated people are not
>attracted to these types of remedies.
> Evidence for this statement please. My observation is just the opposite.
> >They run to the doctor at the first
> >sign of illness and do NOT take responsibility for their health!
>

May i just add more common sense to the the topic (thanks to the regular natterers for being polite whilst educating the anti science members of the public...) as usual its been entertaining It is the lower class that would find it hard to send themselves or other members of their family to the doctors as you see the cost is sometimes not available

Bruce Harris posted:

Seems to be a bit of discussion going on about the efficacy of homeopathy.

Now generally I'm as sceptical as the next bloke about most things, but it so happens that in the case of homeopathy, I have proof that it works. But to put the proof into context, I have to set the scene with a small tale.

A few years ago, my business partner from Melbourne (who I'll refer to as Neil, that being his name), and I from Qld, descended upon Sydney for a two-day directors' meeting of our small company. Being penny-pinching
tightwads, to coin a tautology, we decided to share a hotel room, having first openly and honestly each declared to the other that according to the testament of our respective families, we were both heavy snorers.

At the end of the first gruelling day of discussion and decision-making, we had a few beers, a large dinner, a few bottles of wine and a few games of chess (it was a board meeting, after all), then went to bed. Neil's family
had spoken the truth. He snored. When my Granddad was alive, he had a farm. And on that farm he had a tractor. Tractors, at least back in the 60s, were not renowned for their silence. When the need arose, my uncle would hook a belt to the tractor and attach the other end to the chaff-cutter, and would proceed to cut chaff. I cannot imagine a better impersonation of the combined sound of the tractor and the chaff-cutter than Neil's snoring that night.

At the end of the second equally gruelling day, we again had a few beers, a large dinner, a few bottles of wine and a few games of chess. But this time, before retiring, I also polished off, alone and unassisted, the outrageously expensive 5-oz bottle of whisky from the mini-bar. Neil didn't snore that night! This proves that all that is required to cure Neil's snoring is for whoever is sharing his sleeping quarters to have a few nips of whisky before bed. (His wife was singularly unimpressed when I told her of this remedy.)

So back to homeopathy. My dear wife, who as aforesaid is of the opinion that I am not a silent sleeper, is a bit of a believer in alternative medicines, herbalism etc. A few months ago, by pure chance, I saw on the shelf of a
chemist shop a bottle of homeopathic medicine to alleviate snoring. I bought it. Since then, the following conversation has been a regular part of our lives. It's not quite this blatant, but this is its essence:

Me: Did my snoring disturb you last night, my precious honey-turtle?

She: Did you take your no-snore drops?

Me: Indeed I did.

She: Actually, you didn't snore too much. It was audible, but not
disturbing.

So there you have it. Just as my whisky nightcap cured Neil's snoring, my wife's belief that I have taken some homeopathic medicine cures mine.

As a serious footnote: When I first learnt about the placebo effect a few decades ago, I wondered why conventional medicine doesn't try to harness it rather than regard it as a nuisance. And what could be a better inducer of the placebo effect than a few drops of a solution which has been diluted to such a degree that the "active" ingredient is no longer present?

Paul Williams wrote:

>And what could be a better inducer of
> the placebo effect than a few drops of a solution which has been diluted to
> such a degree that the "active" ingredient is no longer present?
>

Hi Bruce, all,

I know this would be a question for Chris Lawson or Ian Musgrave...

Neverthesless...
IMHO:

I don't think that 'conventional' medical practitioners would regard the placebo effect as a nuisance at all (or they shouldn't)

Doctors quite often prescribe anti-biotics for the common cold.
One may argue for prophylactic reasons - regarding possible secondary bacterial infections.
One may also argue that they are prescribing placebos but they (the antibiotics) do have known clinical applications.

Distilled water (or close to this) has no known clinical application - relating to disease. And no possibility of any. To prescribe something that has no therapeutic value with no possibility of helping to alleviate symptoms or slow or stop disease progress, that has no possibility of having any physical effect at all, would be ethically wrong, in my opinion.

There are many effective drugs which can be prescribed - the placebo effect will also work with these.
Where there is a theoretical chance of a treatment working for reasons not yet fully understood, I could see this being tried.
But.
If one's doctor lies to one - I believe it would definitely be time to find another doctor.

Podargus replied:

I suspect, from personal observation, that doctors probably do in some cases, such things as pain killers. But as you say deliberately prescribing a medication as a placebo does raise ethical questions.

We had a neighbour who kept MIMS beside the phone, the better to argue with her, or her kids doctor. If she didn't get what she wanted she just shopped around. After consulting a couple of Drs and MIMS she would have gleaned enough info to present with appropriate symptoms.

As an aside. I saw a reference recently, perhaps NS, which said something along the lines that placebos only work on some illnesses.

Sandra wrote in reply to Ray:

> I might add that, as much as there have been deaths in hospitals due to
> incorrect or excessive doses of pharmaceuticals, there have also been more
> than a few cases of litigation where parents have been charged with
causing
> the death of infants through use of alternative medicine and failure to
> consult traditional medical authorities.

Ray,
These children may have died anyway, even if they had been admitted to hospital. The litigation rate in these cases is very low compared to deaths in hospitals. When a baby dies from a midwife's delivery, all hell breaks out and the media floggs it to death, but thousands of babies die in hospitals and they are not even reported.

and to Paul:

> I used to carry tetracycline, 'Fasigyn' (Tinidazole) and 'Flagyl'
> (Metronidazole)
> This was in places where there was no medical help.
> Tetracycline would cure most bacterial dysentery and some amoebic
> dysentery. Flagyl was more thorough though.
> With Giadia infection, only Fasigyn and Flagyl were effective.
>
> Amoebic dysentery if left untreated is life threatening. The amoeba can
> migrate to vital organs.
> There may be periods of months or even years when there are no symptoms.
>
> The usual disclaimers apply to the above and one must emphasise that to
> take these drugs merely on speculation is foolish.
> Whenever good medical help was available I availed myself of it.
> It really is best to get the all clear from a doctor.

Paul, I was started on Tetracycline and then progressed to Flagyl. When further enema tests showed that the parasite was still in my system, I was then prescribed Arsenic. I had had the parasites for more than a year before I was diagnosed. This was the Bangkok Christian Hospital in 1972.

Margaret Gladstone wrote:

When a baby dies from a midwife's delivery, all hell breaks
> out and the media floggs it to death, but thousands of babies die in
> hospitals and they are not even reported.
> Sandra

i
I'm not a scientist nor do I profess to any medical knowledge but the last sentence could be interpreted that hospitals have some role in the deaths of "thousands of babies".

My experience of hospitals is that they are staffed by many dedicated and compassionate people who are paid peanuts. It is upsetting when a patient they are caring for dies and even more so when that patient is a baby or
child.

Sandra wrote to Ray:

Ray,
I meant to answer this some days ago, but couldn't find your post. I decided to look up my book on Homoeopathic First-Aid Here is what it says: "Tinnitus-Attend to the cause; otherwise treatment is a waste of time (same line of argument as for the treatment of Anosmia). It is logical to try to make the buzzing in the ears disappear only by curing the cause of it (impairment of such-and-such a part of the ear and the cause of that impairment); for the buzzing is just an alarm signal announcing that the ear is becoming or is abnormal. The buzzing disappears only when the ear is brought back to the state in which it was when the buzzing started; that is plain logic."

High-speed Healing says: "Just relax. Use relaxation therapy and biofeedback to reduce stress, which often exacerbates tinnitus, and to get you in better touch with your body. Seek professional assistance in alleviating
psychological results of tinnitus, such as depression or anxiety. Keep a positive attitude and assume control. If people have the attitude that tinnitus is wrecking their lives, it probably will."......."Tinnitus doesn't have one cause; many factors aggravate it. Allergies to food and other things can make tinnitus worse. Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) can also aggravate it. For more information you can write to the American Tinnitus
Association, PO Box 5, Portland OR 97207."

"Recent research has shown that exposure to loud noise in conjunction with certain chemicals in creases e.g. carbon mon-oxide or certain other chemicals that interfere with oxygen delivery to the ear are the most
vulnerable population."

My suggestion is to dry you ears with a hair-drier after every shower and washing of hair, due to the fact that fungal infection breed in dark moist places.

My book on Dr. Schuessler's Biochemistry suggests: Beating in the ears-Silicea. Humming in the ears-Natrum Mur. Noises in the head and ears with confusion- Kali Phos. Singing in the ears Nat Mur. Whizzing and ringing in the ears with diminution of hearing Magnesia Phos.

I hope some of this may be of help.

<< home < Articles

Homeopathy
Thread - Catalytic Cracker for the Pigeon Loft, Homeopathy, The Meaning of Sarcode,

Homeopathy

<< home < Articles

Homeopathy Thread - Catalytic Cracker for the Pigeon Loft, Homeopathy, The Meaning of Sarcode,

Homeopathy

Homeopathy
Thread - Catalytic Cracker for the Pigeon Loft, Homeopathy, The Meaning of Sarcode,