jamesp on Feb 2, 2014 at 12:37 AM on Unthreaded:
"Would it be worth opening a discussion thread on homeopathy?"

Yes, and here is the thread! I have tried to come up with a thread title with a neutral tone and I will copy in a few posts from Unthreaded, so that we can start from where where we have already arrived.

Please remove this duplicate thread.

I received an error message, so I tried again and then found that the first attempt had worked!

I asked if THIS thread could be removed, not the other one! It was the other one that I had added some posts!

Can the other one be replaced?

michaelhart on Feb 4, 2014 at 2:25 PM

"Lest you think that not "neutral""
I was commenting on the title, so you need to explain yourself as I don't understand this comment.

The "zero concentration" problem does hint that there is another mechanism at work. This has been in the case when ever a Scientist comes across the unexpected, from firing elections at a nucleus and have some returning to the source to working out how photographic plates were affected by a radioactive source. It is what makes Science so exciting!

The "zero concentration" problem might make for a difficult explanation, but it does NOT encapsulate one of the most fundamental objections to homeopathy. There is also the 'problem' that, the more dilute the remedy, the more deep seated the problem than can be treated. It definitely is a puzzle!

When a Homeopathic treatment is found to be successful, as it usually is, the practitioner and patient have no need for any more proof. As trials are expensive and time consuming, there is little reason for Homeopaths to interrupt their current work. Their focus is on their patients, as they usually work in private practice, and not on those who are dismissive and probably wouldn't accept anything as proof.

In my post under Unthreaded, which I had copied into the initial thread, I explained that in conventional clinical trials many people are treated with the same 'medicine' but this is not usually how Homeopathic treatment is conducted. It is done by treating the patient's symptoms. This does not lend itself to the mass treatment that drugs are famous for. Patients with the same infection may be treated differently, depending on how they react to the infection. This does not go down well with those who want proof so, rarely the twain shall meet! Also, those that want proof invariably want to be in charge but they do not understand what is needed and how treatment should be conducted so, again, there is an insurmountable problem to be overcome, but everyone is happy! the Homeopaths have a job, their patients have improved health and the unbelievers are protected from discovery and so can carry on in their allopathic jobs!

A main reason for drug trials is so that the fatality rate can be 'managed'. This is not death due to the illness, but death due to the side effects of the drugs concerned. This is not applicable with Homeopathic treatment as there are no long lasting side effects: the dose is too dilute to have a long term effect.

What is needed though, for each remedy, is a proving. This where the substance, sometimes a very poisonous substance, but not always, is diluted and given to a well person to see what symptoms appear. Given in a more dilute dose, these are the symptoms that it will treat. It is a very rigourous procedure and is not just bunging a bucket of water on a sliver of material! LOL!

"Yuri Geller spoon-bending types" anecdotal reports are not to be dismissed. There have been many amazing reports of drugs clearing up infections, but that does not mean they didn't happen! There are fewer now, as bugs have started to gain immunity, but that is another story!

Also, anecdotal reports are very important because, without them, many studies that have lead to new discoveries would not have started.

I only saw his post AFTER I submitted my last post, so I have!