Homeopathy is a rational discipline which could easily be "officially" accepted as a Science if it wants to. But, does it want to be?

The Scientific question of Homeopathy having to explain its pharmacology before it can be accepted by Science keeps coming up but this is nothing but a red herring.

To enter Science, Homeopathy needs only to adopt "scientific method". Indeed, using Scientific method is the only way Medical Science has attained Scientific status at all. By strict Scientific criteria, (and as many Homeopaths point out) much of Medical Science is not "scientific" at all but accepted only because scientific method is generally used.

So, the question to Homeopaths is, does Homeopathy want to officially enter Science?

If so, this can be easily accomplished. How to get the ball rolling will be explained.

Tim

I agree with you that homeopathy could be tested scientifically (passing the tests is another matter ), but it seems several people here disagree. At least that is what I gather from the answers I get.

The main problem seems to be that the homeopathic definitions of both disease and cure are so different from those of mainstream medicine.

The first step would be to establish common criteria for success/failure.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Hans,

"The main problem seems to be that the homeopathic definitions of both disease and cure are so different from those of mainstream medicine."

Yes, but I do not propose that they merge, but just that they co-exist within Science. The BIG difference is that they would now be recognized as Scientific disciplines, rather than one suppressing the other. Hopefully, they would start to work together, as equals, in time...good news for the sick people!

As I said, adopt scientific method and you become a Science...that's the first step.

Tim

[ 09. October 2003, 15:55: Message edited by: Timokay ]

Hello MRC HANS,

Please just tell, what do you accept, whether homeopathic remedies work or not? You are in this field for considerable time, what you have noted, whether these remedies are effective or not?

Just a simplest & straight forward question.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Homeopathy Using Scientific method:

Scientific method means the use of Scientific "Double-blind Placebo-controlled" (DBPC) trials.

Start by performing Medicine Provings using DBPC trial protocols. This would lay the foundations of Homeopathy within Science.

The reasoning behind the scientific method is simple. The provers, and the physicians gathering the prover symptoms, must not be aware of whether the experiment involves medicine or blank (placebo). Everything recorded in a medicine experiment is therefore attributable to the medicine.

For each kind of Homeopathic medicine, the trial must be conducted with a large enough number of provers to provide statistically significant results. A statistician would need to collate all results.

Successful Scientific confirmation of the DBPC trial would be the correct identification of those taking medicine with at least 95% accuracy.

Some Typical Trial Details:

25 Provers, each doing 20 provings.

From a pool of about 70 possible Homeopathic medicines, one medicine would be randomly selected and labelled by the first trial co-ordinator so that its identity would be known by no-one else until the end of the trial. The manufacturer of the Homeopathic medicines would also need to be commissioned to make BLANK pills (placebos) by the same medicine preparation procedure.

Only the first trial coordinator would know both the medicine chosen for the trial, and which of the two containers is which (medicine or placebo), until the end of the trial.

A second trial coordinator would devise and write up test sequences for all the provers taking part, randomly assigning medicine/placebo for each of the provers, from the two containers.

The ORGANON's Proving procedure would be used in the trial. At the end of the Proving:

1. The trial results will be collated and undergo statistical analysis.

2. The "totality of symptoms" for experiments using medicine would be separated from those associated with placebo.

The "totality of symptoms" for the medicine from this kind of testing can be verified against existing Material Medicae.

That's it..Scientific method applied to Provings.

Preliminary Activities

Before any DBPC trials, some preliminaries to consider:

1. Begin with Hahnemann's classical medicine provings (i.e., medicines of the Materia Medica Pura).

2. Decide on standard preparations & potencies for all DBPC trials, e.g., 30c, Q-potencies? Which preparation did Hahnemann use in the original Provings?

3. Standard classification of symptoms. Use a common system containing all known symptoms, classified uniquely with a name or number, and computerised. This may already exist within Homeopathy?

During the provings, the physician could use this system to validate reported symptoms (though it is possible for a prover to report a completely new symptom).

I wish someone would comment on this task....there are several other preliminaries, too, that would help the transition of Homeopathy by Scientific method.

Tim

NO-- it would be the end of homeopathy, if it would sign up to a ''science'' which is stuck in definitions pre 1782.
Every other disciplin has adopted modern scientific principles since 1782 except medicine, who defines its own scientificness.
And of course according their definitions homeoapthy is un-scientific.
A scientificness which is based on methaphysical speculations is totally unacceptable to homeopathy. Such is the modern medical science.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath
homeopathy study guide: http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity....hy-study-guide

Kayveeh:
A simple and straight forward answer. No, I do not accept that homeopathic remedies work. No, I have no practical experiences with them.

My working assumption, that they do not work, is based on the following:

1) No known mechanism for transferring medical effects through diluted (potentialized) solutions.

2) No known mechanism for curing by inducing symptoms.

3) No documentation for efficiacy. Plenty of anecdotics, but no documentation.

---- And before you ask how I can refute homeopathy without having tried it, let me ask: Do you accept African shaman healing? Crystal therapy? Aroma therapy? Cranio Sacral therapy ... etc, etc,...

If not, have you tried them all?

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Hans:
Whatever you think of science (and that is actually irrelevant), what could homeopathy loose by using a fault-proof testing method? Do you not expect that homeopathic medicine will pass a DBPC proving?

And, Timokay: Yout testing scheme is very ambitious and would be quite expensive. I think less could do it. Test one type of preparation first. And select one symptom to test for, preferably an objectively measurable one. Isn't there a medicine that is predicted to raise temperature?

If your test is to convince the scientific community, it has one thing missing: We all agree that a number of substances in sufficient concentrations can induce various symptoms (I think you call this raw proving), but where you need to convince (if you want to convince, re. Hans' POV), is in the potentialization.

The scientific community will not currently accept that a potentialized preparation has the ability to induce symptoms. To prove this, you need to document that the preparation does not contain active ingredients that are measurable by normal chemical methods. Thus you will need to have an independent lab verifiy and attest that the preparation is chemically identical to destilled water or alcohol or whatever the dilution medium is.

That same lab should be preparing the final medication, making lactate tablets (or whatever is appropriate for the medicine chosen) with either the potentialized medicine or with pure dilution medium. They would then supply simply numbered tablets, and after the experiment and evaluation of observations, the tables for correlating with active group/control group.

That would be an experiment that would raise some eyebrows in the scientific community (if it turned out positive, of course).

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Hello MRC Hans,
If you have no practical experiences with homeopathic remedies then how you can decide these are not effective. If you say these are not effective then what is the harm in trying on youself and on other near & dear to you. You can atleast have practical experiences, no matter positive, negative, or nil. Your Working assumptions can be the limitations of Current Mrdical Science.
Do you believe in 'GOD','RELIGION' and 'SPRITUALS'.

Frankly, I can prove(at least logically) every other therapy/sprituals exept higher than 12C or 24X homeopathic potencies on Remedy ground. But I feel I have proved these HP remedies on Contaminations ground in my topic 'Contamination in remedies'.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

For homeopathy should be recognized at official level in the country, it should not hesitate to undergo DB test. I was listening the video lecture of George Vithoulkas. In a lecture he was in the opinion that who said I can cure cancer. No it is very difficult to cure cancer, I don't have confidence. But on the other hand one doctor said he has 80 percent curability rate then what is the hurdle in not accepting DB test for homeopathy. I think we should encourage to pass this system under DB so that what ever the result would be it should come out side. male or female it should come out