Good one! Protest against selling of homeopatic remedies in pharmacies

It's a shame it's gonna fall on deaf ears, why would pharmacists want to get rid of a cash cow? There are enough of stupid people who will buy the homeocrap.

Plea for pharmacists to ditch stock

Organisers of a planned "overdose" of homeopathic remedies hope to encourage pharmacists to stop stocking the treatments.

New Zealand Skeptics chairwoman Vicki Hyde said today's Cathedral Square protest was organised in conjunction with similar events around the world to protest against pharmacists who stock homeopathic remedies.

Participants would exceed the recommended dosage of homeopathic treatments to show they had no effect.

Hyde said homeopaths admitted there was little in their remedies, which were diluted several times until only the "memory" of the original ingredient was left.

"All they are is a pinch of sugar in an Atlantic Ocean of water."

People who used homeopathic remedies usually did so instead of conventional medicines. Hyde said that could have deadly consequences.

She said it was unethical for pharmacists to sell homeopathic remedies when there was no proof that they worked.

New Zealand Council of Homeopaths spokeswoman Mary Glaisyer said she was "exasperated" by the planned protest.

"The idea of overdosing is ridiculous, the premise is ridiculous – these silly protesters actually will deter some people who could benefit from seeking treatment."

Glaisyer, who has worked as a homeopath for 25 years, said it was impossible to overdose on homeopathic medicines because they did not contain any "material substances".

"What happens is that the remedy is diluted and then shaken, so that there's not one molecule of the original substance remaining," Glaisyer said. How the remedies worked was "a mystery to everyone", she said.

The protest will be held at 10.30am today.

A mystery to everyone? Nah, the placebo effect is not mysterious.

But what I want to know is how can they know that the bottle you buy doesn't contain just one molecule of active ingredient? I understand with dilution and shaking you could be certain a product wouldn't contain two or more molecules, but surely one in several bottles must contain one.

More importantly, homeopathic crap doesn't get tested in the same as real medicine. I have heard of cases where people have been taking homeopathic crap that contains Arsenic.

Also: People who deny medical treatment in favour of homeopathic treatment should be allowed to...if they die, who cares.

master5o1 wrote:homeopathic crap that contains Arsenic.

The theory that like cures like can hold true for some diseases. For example, recent allergy research (sorry, reference not at hand, but it is early days anyway, and this is just an example) is showing that nut allergies can at least sometimes be cured or lessened by treatment with traces of nuts (as far as I know though, you wouldn't call that homeopathy - the level of nut exposure would increase as the body was able to take it, until normal levels are okay). I can understand this when it comes to allergens and the immune system.

Heavy metal poisoning is an extreme example of where like could not cure like. Heavy metals are accumulative. Oh, you have too much in your system? Don' worry, we'll remind your body of what the heavy metal is like with the memory of a molecule.

Blank

Diaz wrote:I have just purchased a packet of Boots-brand 84 arnica homeopathic 30C Pills

What on earth for?

Diaz wrote:Their in-store advice tells me that arnica is good for treating “bruising and injuries”

Sure. But it should be illegal to put such information on a homeopathically diluted arnica bottle, since it is neither arnica-containing cream, ointment, liniment, salve, or tincture.

Diaz wrote:If you don't understand the principles, it's easy to think that but it's not like cures like in the way you are thinking.

My writing wasn't clear. I did not mean to imply the (still-experimental?) nut allergy treatment was similar in method to the homeopathic 'principle' - only illustrate that examples where a substance can help as well as 'cause' disease in the same person are very different.

I wish Woman would come in here and explain by which process homeopathic remedies neutralise the zillions of energies in the diluent. Considering the difficulties in getting perfectly pure water, and making a process that eliminates contamination from even new, unreactive plastic or glass vessels, I would have thought that homeopathic remedies would need to be very expensive just to recover costs. Or do all the existing contaminants in the diluent cancel each other out until a deliberate substance is added?

And how long can a diluent hold a memory for?

Blank

Diaz wrote:It should be illegal, but if a product is deemed a supplement they don't fall under the same rules as real medicines which have to prove effectiveness, that it has the ingredient in it at the stated doses and purity. Actually, to think of it they are being honest and stating the dilution on the bottle, but they don't tell it means there is almost a zero chance of any active ingredient there.

I don't object too much to homeopathic arnica being sold; I would object to them writing on the label that arnica is good for bruises, if it contains only a trace. Many people would see the word 'arnica' first, then compare the price to the real creams etc, and notice it was the cheapest, and accidentally buy it for external application.

Diaz wrote:Homoeopathic arsenic is ... claiming to help "anxiety and fear caused by an underlying insecurity and oversensitivity." In addition, it's claimed to help digestive disorders and children suffering from fever and dehydration as well as headaches, fluid retention, tiredness, eye inflammation and that's not an exhaustive list.

I remember being surprised (back when I was young) at some Americans drinking diluted seawater, sold at much profit for the purpose of health, because of all the wonderful minerals it contained. When I asked how all the toxic trace elements, such as mercury, found in seawater could be healthy, they gullibly repeated that they were healthy at the trace levels, totally balanced as nature intended. Um, 'nature' never intended for us to drink sea water! And many metals are accumulative, so drinking it regularly would eventually cause toxicity. Of course, they could not answer when I asked about the biochemical pathway that used those minerals.

Blank

So awesome.

Blank

well....er....The 'memory of sugar'...

classic

Many people are convinced of the effects of homeopathy due to personal experience or the experiences of those they know and trust. While discussing this on SC with michelln she referenced a paper which proposed a model by which ineffective medicines or medicinal practices propagate at greater rates than effective ones do. I personally have no problem with people creating and selling homeopathic remedies, given the prescriber does not recommend the patient not take traditional medicines when serious illness is present.

Your arguments that homeopathic remedies do not contain any of the active ingredient is a null point. Homeopathists do not claim that there is anything left, they claim the "memory" effect. So points made about how many pills would be necessary to get a single molecule of the ingredient become pointless, this is not the claim. If you were taking a remedy using arsenic would you want there to be any of the active ingredient left? Obviously the technique they describe requires the removal of the original ingredient, the effect left behind is the desired result.

As for the contaminants argument, I put forward two counter arguments. The first is that at an initial concentration of 1% this should be sufficient to be higher in concentration than any other contaminant unless the quality of the water is questionable. Once the original process is completed then the entire volume of water has taken on the "effect" purported by the homeopathists. Further dilution at 1% ratios could conceivably propagate this effect, each time having a high enough concentration to allow the entire solution to gain the memory. While this effect is not supported by any science, the logic is sound. For an example of where this could happen naturally take radiation. Put a radioactive material into an inert material and (depending on the materials selected) the radioactive material can cause the inert material to become radioactive too. Take the newly radioactive material and combine it with inert material again and this effect can propagate. While I don't know enough about radioactive materials to know if there are any examples of this, it is technically feasible.

The second counter argument is this, that water holds the "memories" of all substances it has contained. Possibly this effect reduces over time, but it could be theorised that the memory of the active ingredient is stored along with any other contaminants in the water. Given that it has been shown that homeopathic remedies do not cause ill effects by the skeptics protest. It could be deduced that contaminants would have no ill effects either. The only effect that really happens is when something in the water memory matches the illness you have. This is a fairly loose argument here, but it is one nonetheless and makes general sense. If you have a chlorine contamination in your homeopathic remedy maybe it will cure your sensitivity to going to the public pool without you realising it, who knows.

Basically at this point in time homeopathic remedies are unproven, studies are not looking promising but people still seem astounded by their effects. With this in mind I agree with the premise that homeopathic remedies should not be sold in pharmacies. Pharmacies are generally seen as a place you can get reliable medicines, items which have proven effects in the areas they claim. If you buy an item from a pharmacy that says it helps cuts and bruises then you expect that this fact has been proven or has some scientific support. By selling unproven homeopathy in pharmacies we give consumers the impression that they are well documented to work, which is a lie.

Blank

My guess... Diaz = michelln.

There is a problem that continues beyond not just being recommended for serious illness, and it's that sometimes apparently minor illnesses are not or they may be minor but if not treated can lead to a chronic condition developing. Delaying treatment can be just as bad, and given that many people self-diagnose and may or may not get it right it remains an issue.

I can't really argue too much with that. That can be an issue, the same thing happens when doctors misdiagnose, although doctors have better training and regulation to try avoid that and allow them to be liable. I think if they allowed for the liability of homeopathic doctors then either the practice would destroy itself, or grow on its own merits.

I think that Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes may not have considered the reverse logic. While the 3 effects described may be unconnected they could be theorised at the same time if it is the overall effect that was discovered first. Take the aurora borealis and related effects. Caused by a combination of different apparently disconnected reasons. While I am sure not all were discovered simultaneously, it is likely that a number of different disconnected reasons could be theorised as the cause of the phenomenon. The distinct difference here is that it would be highly unlikely he came across this method by chance. But still possible he was just messing around with some theories as people do, tried it and noticed an effect. Despite this, there are some examples of archaic medicine based on incorrect theories that worked, and have found their way into modern science. An idea that works, however badly formulated, still works and should not be disregarded because of its formulation.

The lack of potential for overdose is not necessarily contradictory. The fact that the water holds a "memory" could be seen as the remedy sending a "message" to the body. There are a few alternative medicines based on his concept, just letting your body know what is wrong so that it can sort itself out. Why it doesn't know itself, I don't know. In this way though overdose would be impossible. If you tell someone they have a cold, they now know, telling them over and over again won't change this. It might annoy them a little though . If that is the case then it really isn't comparable to conventional medicine.

Just because radioactivity has an explicable mechanism doesn't make it not applicable. Before 1896 the mechanism was not explicable at all. Diluting radioactive substances to save concentrations would hold true in the case of homeopathy also. Otherwise they would just mix 0.1% mixtures and do this only 15 times, or even lower concentrations. If radioactive material was only partially diluted, allowed to permeate and contaminate then further diluted to only a low degree, while you may eventually remove the original radioactive material, the remaining material would be more radioactive than if it had been diluted completely to start with. Again the same with the fall-out zone, this is not a controlled spread of radioactivity.

Oh and the succussion on a leather bible can really be seen as a artefact of religious belief at the time.

Diaz has never disguised that her SC nick is Michelln. Doesn't mean her points viz Homeopathy are not valid.

Roger, you spend a lot of time trying to muddy the water concerning Homeopathy. Makes me think perhaps you peddle it.

There is no scientific evidence that supports it. It is a fraud, perpetuated by quacks and thieves, on the vulnerable and stupid.

And as for the so-called 'memory effect.' The charlatans never address the 'memory' the water must have of all the other things it has come into contact with. Say feces or urine. I suppose it only remembers what the 'practitioner' who concocts it wants it to.

As for those who say you only have to believe in it. Well that is true of Religion or Magic. And as about as credible.

Scientific Medicine has to prove its effects. Those who advocate other forms of 'healing' have to also.

Roger, you spend a lot of time trying to muddy the water concerning Homeopathy. Makes me think perhaps you peddle it.

I think he just likes to stir the pot, an entertaining form of procrastination.


There is no scientific evidence that supports it. It is a fraud, perpetuated by quacks and thieves, on the vulnerable and stupid.

In your own words, absense of evidence does not equal evidence of absense.


And as for the so-called 'memory effect.' The charlatans never address the 'memory' the water must have of all the other things it has come into contact with. Say feces or urine. I suppose it only remembers what the 'practitioner' who concocts it wants it to.

Here lies my major objection to homeopathy, although Roger has also considered this below


The second counter argument is this, that water holds the "memories" of all substances it has contained. Possibly this effect reduces over time, but it could be theorised that the memory of the active ingredient is stored along with any other contaminants in the water. Given that it has been shown that homeopathic remedies do not cause ill effects by the skeptics protest. It could be deduced that contaminants would have no ill effects either. The only effect that really happens is when something in the water memory matches the illness you have. This is a fairly loose argument here, but it is one nonetheless and makes general sense. If you have a chlorine contamination in your homeopathic remedy maybe it will cure your sensitivity to going to the public pool without you realising it, who knows.

Diaz: Welcome in rogercamel, great to see you over here. See if you can guess who I am.

Me: My guess... Diaz = michelln.

If anything the fact that she is michelln makes her points all the more substantial. I think you mistake my counter-points as some kind of attack on her or her argument. I am simply taking her points and pointing out where I see the logic is flawed (IMO). Yes is probably does muddy up the waters a little but I don't believe you should discredit something with anything other than perfect logic/reasoning.

You have to understand that these "charlatans" are not scientists. They do not understand the mechanisms behind what they do, they are driven by the purported effects they see, and many of them do believe they see them. This isn't to say they are just observing placebo effects or just a selective sample because only those that are healed come back to thank them. If you can show this to be true then you have a better argument.

What I try to do is explain why scientifically simply the idea of homeopathy is not impossible. Why dose/response effects might not apply in this situation. If you can use an argument which stands the test of this kind of enquiry then you have your homeopathy killer.

Personally what I think would be interesting would be to do a study on a reputable homepathy clinic, or a selection of them and record successes vs failures based on the ailment presented. While this would not be able to prove homeopathy, it may be able to discredit it. In doing this you could find out why homeopathists believe they are so successful, and prove why their perception is false. The study would need to be designed well, but it would give a very interesting insight into why genuine homeopathists essentially fool themselves into believing they are making a positive difference (if of course it is true).

Blank

The reverse logic I mentioned was only applied to the excerpt by Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes. I just put forward that you could come up with multiple disconnected theories to try explain a single effect. The accuracy however of these theories could come into question.

If homeopathy was said to work as a "message" system, rather than an effective molecule type system then the overdose situation would not really exist. Compare it to someone telling you to get a job, or someone giving you a job. In the first case, while annoying, the repetition of someone telling you to get a job would never result in you coming back with 100 jobs. But in the second case if someone started giving you job after job after job, pretty quickly you would have more jobs than you could handle. I'm not too sure on the analogy itself, but it seems to explain what I mean. Whether or not "message" based healing exists is a whole other discussion.

Michelln, I do not deny the fact that homeopathy has questionable methods and science behind it. If you want to "debunk" it in the eyes of the believers these arguments are not enough. They believe they see the positive effects of homeopathy on a regular basis and so coming at them with reasons and figures as to why what they see is true is not just makes them not trust you more.

Imagine we were to travel back in time to America before the colonists arrived. We went to go stay with a native american tribe and possibly teach them a thing or two. Now they want rain and they perform their customary rain dance to convince the spirits to bring rain. Now you know that the dancing could not bring on the rain, and any rain that comes in the next few days is a result of luck more than anything, and not a result of the spirits being pleased. Now if you come at them with science and studies, etc. they will not believe you. They have been doing these dances for centuries and if the rain doesn't come they offer additional dances or offerings until they please the gods and rain comes. To convince them that this has no effect on the weather you would need to survey the weather patterns and dance times, basically figuring out the proportion of days that it would rain after a day of no dancing or a day of dancing. By analysing this information you get a look at something they don't. And to show them that there are equal odds in both cases would do much more to convince them that they are having no effect.

I hope that made sense. But my point is that if a genuine homeopathist (as opposed to the kind which are just exploiting the sick public) saw this information about their own clinic, or one they trusted and believed in, and saw that the reasons they saw so many success stories as opposed to failures was because of some effect like patients just moving on, then they might be more likely to see that they haven't done anything.

Blank

Blank