Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 11

"Known" Laws of Physics
Under the heading "Criticisms differ for the various branches" I prefaced the phrase 'laws of physics' with the word 'known'. If all the laws of physics are already 'known' as appears to be the case in the minds of the skeptics, please feel free to remove this. I expect that if it is removed I will read in newspapers about all Universities cancelling their science subjects and all physics research labs closing their doors.


 * Are you seriusly suggesting that avogadro's constant is wrong? If not then there are some laws of physics that forms of alt med break. we are talking about stuff that breaks the first law of thermodynamics not amount of changes in the laws of physics is going to get around that.Geni 00:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment Geni. I have not made any suggestion about any particular 'law' or 'constant'. I am questioning the perception on these pages that the Laws of Physics are a fixed and closed set. I personally hope that the set of the Laws of Physics is not fixed and is open to research and analysis of events, properties, and outcomes that we do not understand and appear to contravene known laws. Is that not the purpose of science?

Whilst once excited about the prospective value of the Wikipedia, there are too many closed minds contributing only what they know and stating that what they don't know does not exist. Does the Wikipedia exist to support the 'norm', the majority, or only commercial interests? Many scientific minds contributing here appear to be as open as their funding or sales of the products they designed. Thus, again, money and commerce disrupts another opportunity to learn and discover.


 * we have a no personal attacks rule here. I can't of course speak for anyone else but I'm 100% certian (for a very obvius reason) than you can't show any payments to me by commercial bodiesGeni 00:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Geni. No this is not intended as a personal attack,  however taking it as such is your perogative. I'm sorry, but your 'very obvious reason' is not obvious to me. My statement comes from the fact that within these comments there appears to be no acceptance of anything other than what we think we know. This is both an ancient and modern phenomenon. I understand and observe that money is a key part of society and the key ingredient for research and development. Money flows most freely throughout commercial enterprises. It flows to government based organisations via governments and budgets. In my experience, money flows fastest where there is a prospective return. This applies to most R&D. 'There is no such thing as a free lunch' is another law of physics not obvious to many. I wonder what the annual revenue of the vaccines industry is worth. Anybody know?

And on the subject of Homeopathy and 'similia similibus curentur', perhaps someone scientific would care to write detail about how immunisation works and why it appears equally as ineffective as effective? ReL


 * See homeopathy's talk page and the page on immunisation. At present your question makes no sense since it makes at least on false assumptionGeni 00:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Geni. Please describe my one false assumption, I would appreciate your time on this.

Why has this section been put in the middle of the page rather than the bottom? I don't have a problem with the word "known". There probably are some laws of physics that we don't know yet, which some forms of AM may or may not violate. As for the anon's question. Immunization works because some material is injected that the immune system can get to work on. It may be a harmless form of the pathogen, or just the part of it that the immune system needs to recognise, but the point of it is, that some of it is injected. With homeopathy, dilutions are so great that none of the original ingedient is left. User:Theresa knott


 * Thanks for the comment Therea. Anon = ReL as per bottom of comment. Newbie, hence in the middle - which will be fixed upon my next commenting visitation. Yes, there is a 'theory' of immunisation. But please would you extend your answer to explain why immunisation fails as much as it appears to work. As an example, why do some children, whilst immunised against Whooping Cough still contract Whooping Cough?

Yes, with Homeopathy, the dilutions are mathematically challenging. (As an aside, I dispute that 'none' of the original substance remains. Across the set of resultant dilutions, the subset of original atoms must still exist. Dilution does not automatically take these atoms out of existence - it just distributes them greatly. Perhaps 'none' may be replaced with 'unlikely' for greater accuracy.) During naturally contracted infections viral or bacterial antagonists cross particular barriers, e.g. mucus, saliva via particular orifices, e.g. nose, mouth. The immunisation approach is to go directly to the bloodstream via an artifical barrier. I cannot find any research about the action of pathogens when crossing naturally occuring barriers, compared to direct insertion into the bloodstream. I think this is a critical difference. If you know of any, would you please direct me to it. Thanks. Can anyone describe the 'Laws of Physics' that govern the supposed action of immunisation?


 * User:Theresa knott wrote: There probably are some laws of physics that we don't know yet, which some forms of AM may or may not violate.
 * That's an... interesting contribution: some forms of AM may violate the laws of physics that we don't know yet. A law of physics surely cannot apply before it has been discovered, now can it? That would be so unreasonable.
 * Herbee 12:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Herbee. Tell me, did Pluto exist before it was 'discovered'? Did the Law of Gravity apply before it was 'discovered'?


 * I don't quite see how Pluto is involved, but the law of universal gravitation certainly applied (even to Pluto...) before Newton first wrote it down. Similarly, the laws of physics certainly apply to AM, even those that have not been discovered yet. The problem may be that your fingers wrote a silly sentence while your brain wasn't paying attention. Why don't you go and change it?
 * Herbee 11:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Herbee and thanks for your reply. My fingers do have a minds of their own, and often get confused with themselves, but I am still sure I wrote mainly questions above, not sentences. I read your statemment of "a law of physics surely cannot apply before it has been discovered, now can it? That would be so unreasonable", followed by the above statement "the laws of physics certainly apply to AM, even those that have not been discovered". What are the laws of physics that have not been discovered? Pluto was used as an example of my trying to determine if something exists before it is discovered based on your statement that "a Law of Physics surely cannot apply before it is discovered." I just wanted to check this line of reasoning with something other than a Law of Physics. ReL 203.26.24.216 13:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One last question, not aimed at anyone, not being a personal attack, just trying to balance understanding in a very emotive world. Have any people here who are strongly objecting to Homeopathy ever been to a competent homeopath and experienced a homeopathic remedy? Please understand that I was a skeptic. But three years of 'modern medicine' failed to treat a serious condition of mine, multiple doctors, specialists, opinions, tests (there are aliens and we know what they do!), more tests, samples, more samples. (One analysis from a laboratory was that I had commenced menopause early. I could even see the look on the face of the laboratory manager when I announced I was male - and I was on the telephone!) After about $28,000 worth of 'science' and in frustration, and with some luck I was directed to a competent homeopath. After two separate interviews I was given 5 drops of a remedy at 1000m dilution (Avogadro's number goes past at about 12c I think). Within one week, my medical condition was gone. I mean gone, as in 'not there anymore', 'the law of something that no longer happens' was in action. The one week period between being dosed and realising a cure, was quite 'hellish'; emotional, physically restrictive, painful, just 'weird' (i.e. the law of I didn't understand). That was seven years ago. The 'scientists' response; "you must never have had it". If I never had "it", why was everybody sticking things into me, taking things, and the old "Really must you do that", for THREE YEARS with the same prognosis by each 'specialist'. I had it, I saw the x-rays. Do I suppose my body simply and spontaneously threw off the condition? Do I suppose that the same film or developing process error manifested across several geographically separate occurrences of being x-rayed and left a perfect replicate of the previous processing error each time? Perhaps passing blood and being unable to stand or walk correctly were my illusions? Perhaps having exactly 50 needles in 14 days was also an illusion? Perhaps I never went to the doctor, perhaps I am a woman after all, perhaps medical science can't actually address some issues regardless of the amount of fluids extracted from a person. Funny though, I'm still $28,000 down and a bunch of 'experts' are $28,000 richer for telling me that I had something; then insisting that I must not have had something. (Still, to the day I cannot get this in writing - perhaps someone has something they want to hide or not admit too?) The homeopath charged $50 for the first visit and $40 for the second. I've not seen or heard from them since.

And today's challenge is "get your GP to fix your dandruff". A simple, non life threatening condition. And I don't mean make it go away temporarily by dousing your head with zinc based compounds. I mean fix it.


 * A law of physics is something that is always true. It is perfectly possible that is is a law that we haven't discovered. It would still hold though, even though we didn't know it was holding. (remember a law is always true, if not then it's not a law).Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Some responses to the anon contributor (sorry, I'm being lazy and not trying to put each response after the appropriate comment):
 * If you put four tildes ( ~ ) after your comment, it will automatically sign and date-stamp the comment, which makes following a conversation easier.
 * Immunization works by providing a weakened or killed form of the virus, sufficient to spark the body's natural defenses against infection, but not strong enough to cause the disease. Then, when a "real" virus shows up, the body's defenses are already in place.  I don't know about whooping cough, but I suspect it's the same as with polio, which I do know about -- the live-virus vaccine (developed by Sabin) can occasionally not be quite weakened enough, and therefore cause the disease, a risk not present with the killed-virus vaccine (developed earlier by Salk).  Another issue is that there can be different strains of a virus.  The flu is notorious for this.  The current vaccine shortage arises in part because vaccine can't be stockpiled in advanced; a new vaccine is created each year to guard against the strain(s) considered most likely to be a danger.  Here again, I don't know about whooping cough, but it may be the same, that immunization against one strain doesn't help against another.

Hello James, thanks for your comments. You are able to make sense about an interesting topic. I wonder why I cannot get a similar response from my Government Health Department. I understand that the genus Bordetella contains the species B pertussis and B parapertussis, which cause pertussis in humans. The condition 'whooping cough' results from infection by B pertussis. B parapertussis causes a similar, but rarely severe condition. The common vaccine is for B pertussis of which there are many strains. Some interesting reading may be found on the reemergence of Pertussis within some countries where the vaccination rate for this virus are very high. Check the CDC web-site for details. ReL 203.26.24.216 13:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your recovery! The fact is that for even serious illnesses, a certain number of cases do show inexplicable spontaneous remissions.  If such a remission happens to occur immediately after some unorthodox attempt at treatment, it can well give the appearance of causation.  The way to distinguish genuine causation from lucky coincidence is through controlled studies.  I hope it doesn't sound hard-hearted to dismiss your life-changing medical progress as "anecdotal evidence", but, frankly, that's all it is.

No, I don't see it as 'hard-hearted' at all James, scary yes, but not hard-hearted. I hoped the Wikipedia was a place where the NPOV would be such, and that people can communicate about 'knowns' and 'unknowns' with the view of improving knowledge. Instant dismissal of observations as 'anecdotal evidence' defeats any potential for progress. Was it George Bernard Shaw who said 'The reasonable man adapts to the ways of everybody around him, while the unreasonable man expects everybody to adapt to his way. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man'. "Inexplicable spontaneous remissions" (Note to self; could be good name for a band?) - where would they be defined in a controlled study. Would they completely defeat a controlled study or is there a standard deviation acceptable in 'controlled studies'? Had the recovery happened after treatment with 'orthodox' medicine would that also give the appearence of causation? Would it have been a lucky coincidence or genuine causation? Given that I am only one member of the set of people, but the only member of the set of people who are me, how does a controlled study of orthodox medicine cater specifically for me? From another perspective, not all people contract contagious diseases even during epidemics. Within the set of people exists the subset of infected by an antagonist and the subset of those not affected by the same antagonist. Given this most common scenario, I'm loosing site of the 'control' applied to studies. Orthodox medicine is, at present, a generic solution, aimed at treating an 'average' person. I'm interested to know how a 'controlled study' of a vaccine is conducted. Some of the people not contracting a condition would never have contracted it anyway, but how is this indicated in a 'controlled study'. That a human life generally exceeds sixty years, do "controlled studies" of vaccination continue throughout these sixty years. I don't think they do. How is it possible to understand any long term effects of vaccination? We only have the anecdotal evidence that some people do not contract a condition after getting a vaccination.

I don't mind having the results dismissed as 'anecdotal evidence'. I see a lot of anecdotal evidence walking around in a much better state of health now then they did being pumped full of streptomyacin,  eating anti-inflammatories, or driving suppositories into the best unknown. The point of my story above is that for three years of orthodox treatment there was only deterioration, repeated failed explanations (possible based on anecdotal evidence??), then a serious and frank denial that I was not ill at all. Where were the controlled study here? I guess once something makes it through a 'controlled study' is is written up as factual, final, universally correct, and then nothing else can every change. I wonder what 'controlled study' led to the diagnosis of my 'menopause'. ReL 203.26.24.216 13:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've never been to a "competent homeopath". I have no reason to believe that such a person exists, if "competent" means "competent to treat illness".  JamesMLane 10:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No James, I mean competent homeopath. Homeopaths don't treat illness, homeopaths treat people. Orthodox medicine treats illness. It is not recommended to visit a homeopath if you are sick. By competent homeopath, I refer to someone who can correctly perform a homeopathic interview and analysis of the subject. Why dismiss something before understanding any detail of it? As soon as something unknown or unreasonable is encountered it becomes 'anecdotal' or threatens the dare-i-say, "immutable laws of physics". As I mentioned above I was a skeptic. After my experience - that is the experience of three years of what I now know was 'anecdotal evidence' from orthodox medicine, then been given a dose of 'nothing', and a week later returning to 'normal' I tried to understand what had occurred. Naturally, "they-of-the-orthodox-and-that-comes-to-$28,000-thank-you-very-much-please-come-again-soon" closed their doors, books, and journals, shoulder to shoulder in fear of litigation. That their beloved charge appeared well again after taking 'nothing' means that he was never sick. Are these people "competent to treat illness". If you recall, at one stage I had menopause ('early onset of', to be more precise). What a challenge for the doctors.... do we admit he was sick and we couldn't fix it... do we admit he was never sick and give him back $28,000....interestingly at no stage did any of them offer 'inexplicable spontaneous remissions'. And what of my challenge to get your doctor to cure, fix, make your/my/someone's dandruff go away? There will be money in it, so there's enough motivation for someone! ReL 203.26.24.216 13:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "I hoped the Wikipedia was a place where the NPOV would be such, and that people can communicate about 'knowns' and 'unknowns' with the view of improving knowledge." We do strive for NPOV but not for the purpose you state.  Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  Our practice here is to summarize and present existing human knowledge, not to try to add to the sum of human knowledge by considering the pros and cons of a particular point and deciding which is right.  There are other places for that.


 * I don't think it's accurate to say "We only have the anecdotal evidence that some people do not contract a condition after getting a vaccination." A scientific study of a vaccine or any other medical treatment involves examining a large number of subjects.  There are many random events that can obscure the genuine results -- some people get better without being treated, some people who receive an effective treatment happen simultaneously to contract a different illness that has some of the same symptoms, etc.  One factor that transforms anecdotal evidence into a scientific study is the double-blind test (because otherwise people remember the inexplicable remissions that occurred immediately after homeopathy or whatever, and forget about the ones with no immediately obvious cause; double-blind also equalizes the placebo effect).  Another factor is to make the test as large as possible.  A finding that 80% of the patients got better with a particular medicine is more reliable when it's 80 out of 100 than when it's 8 out of 10.  Also, it's not correct that something once found by a controlled study can never be changed.  The scientific method depends on the ability of other scientists to reproduce the results.  Nothing needs to be taken on faith.  On many cutting-edge research questions there are contradictory studies.  Genuine scientists try to design and conduct further research to resolve the anomalies.  Homeopaths and other AM practictioners don't seem to have much interest in such procedures.  JamesMLane 17:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No Law of Physick could prevent the AM article being the POV editing sandbox of known watchdogs (aka Wikipolice) in this editor-hostile space :O) - irismeister 11:40, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC) Wikipedia has been proven to be enormously biased in "treating" Alternative Medicine and its few scientifically proven branches. Wikipedia thoughtpolice has finally put out the mask, and we have shown beyond any reasonable and even laughable doubt who are the NPOV editors on the police payroll who disrupt this originally generous business. Let Wikipolice keep their NPOV filtering jobs and their own POV agendas in the name of proven corporate criminals, and you'll not only discredit good will, good medicine, common sense, rationality, generous academic habits that took centuries to build, but you'll drag the Wikipedia in the general direction of thrash in the process. Day by day the disgust I gather in seeing the Wikipedian user hostilty could only be treated by Alternative Medicine, and homeopathic dosage of editing here :O) - irismeister 11:40, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Irismiester. Do you make a living as an irdiologist? Do you have a commercial vested interest in having AM pushed? You are accusing people of being on a "police payroll". Can you back that accustaion up with anything or is it another one of your personal attacks? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * GO NPOV! Disclosing my motives up front: I'm a biochemist and a yogi. I think the underlying issue here is not specific to alternative medicine. This is an issue of the nature of scientific knowledge and evidence. Anecdotes about a Western, scientific approach failing to provide successful treatment, do not disprove Western medicine as a body of knowledge. Futher, anecdotes about the success of homeopathy do not prove a thing. The relationship between phenomena and theoretical models is most successfully secured with the empirical method. Only this method can be used to construct scientific models. Only this method can be used to demolish existing scientific models.
 * A single, well-designed experiment could disprove the homeopathic principle. This has been accomplished. If prompted, I'm happy to expand on the state of the current evidence. Likewise, a single, well-designed experiment could disprove any of the chemical principles that invalidate homeopathy. I find it humerous that homeopaths report tons of success with their treatment, and argue passionately towards their underlying models for the technique, but fail to disprove the underlying principles of chemistry. What I'm saying is: chemistry is inconsistent with homeopathy, and chemistry has a much stronger observational, and conceptual basis. Homeopathy may actually work, but the underlying model is inconsistent with chemistry, and chemistry's been working a lot better to date.
 * Now, acupuncure is a different flavor of alternative medicine. It's based on a long-standing body of traditional medicine, and as with homeopathy, its adherents claim it works. The Chinese model for acupuncture invokes Qi, which is translated as 'energy' or 'electricity' but is nonidentical to the forces of physics. So there is no conflict, in the sense that endorsing acupuncture does not require one to suspend belief in the current models of physics. Rather, the scientifically minded repackage Qi as a) a manifestation of existing physics or b) an uncharacterized phenomenon.
 * I think this shows the way to NPOV in this article: the scientific models can be brought into doubt only when there is scientific evidence. Alternative methods that make claims contrary to the body of science are not neutral, and border on anti-intellectual. Such claims should be presented, and juxtaposed against the scientific models they contradict. Without judgement: if one chooses to believe that homeopathy works, and that science is wrong, the choice should be made in light of current human knowledge. This means that any alternative theory can and should be added to the article, but that most entries need to be re-written to remove any sense of 'pitching' the treatment. rmbh 23:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV warning?
The article is, in my opinion, fair and neutral in its point of view. Axl 21:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's quite OK now. Shall we trim the (very) long titles of some sections for readability? JFW | T@lk  10:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please disscuss the changes on the talk page first though. This article seems to attact edit wars.Geni 11:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * With Irismeister being banned and Mr-Natural-Health not being arould, it appears to have calmed down a lot. I'm about to start hacking on it again, e.g. removing the bit Irismeister (Dan Jipa) put in using himself as a reference ... - David Gerard
 * Really? I thought that it might be a good time to add a new neutral point of view to the discussion. John Gohde 07:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Project Infobox
The Wikiproject on Alternative medicine has updated it various infoboxes.

They are not redundant!

New visitors to Wikipedia are most likely to be using the default user skin. With the default skin, categories are listed at the very bottom of the web page. Hence, nobody not currently an editor would ever be likely to see any of the various categories. Ergo, showing an Index to all the CAM articles in our project infoboxes is a very good idea. In fact, it was one of the original objectives of our project: to help readers find other CAM related articles. John Gohde 08:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)