Young Australian Skeptics

Time, presently, is rather short for me; what with the million and one things I’m currently trying to organize since uni has finished for the year. As such, I’ve been hard pressed to write articles, and with the biggest news of the past few weeks being the revelation that Sarah Palin is a creationist (seriously, is anyone surprised?) I’ve taken the slow news time as an excuse to focus on the little things in life. Like finding a place to live.

Today, however, while searching for interesting news articles, I came upon an article so packed to the brim with stupid I just had to do a write up about it. More than that, it gave me an excuse to use the delightfully alliterative title you see at the top of this post; an opportunity you couldn’t pry from me without a crowbar and ten litres of industrial strength lubricant.

The article is an FAQ on homeopathy written by one Dr Rajesh Shah, who is,

“MD of Life Force, a Homeopathy portal & editor, Homeopathy Times.”

I’m not exactly sure what an MD of Life Force is, but I imagine it’s something like a PhD in Fairy Dust, or an MBA in Intergalactic Trade. Thankfully, Dr Shah is also a ‘Homeopathy portal’ (whatever that means) and an editor for the Homeopathy Times, so we can be sure that he will be giving us a completely unbiased opinion. And radioactive squirrels might fly out of my butt to form a mariachi band with the ghost of Harold Holt.

The FAQ (pronounced, in this case, as it is spelled) begins:

“Is homeopathy indigenous? How does it cure illnesses?

Homeopathy has been around for about 215 years. Its origins are German. It was brought to India in 1810 when a few German physicians and missionaries came to Bengal. Its popularity got a fillip after Maharaja Ranjit Singh (the then ruler of Punjab), who had lost his voice due to paralysis of vocal cords; got cured using homeopathy. Today, India boasts of having the highest number of homeopathic organisations in the world.”

One can only imagine what they used to treat paralysis of the vocal chords. Minute doses of polio perhaps? The essence of a really scary ghost? Diluted gay porn stars?

The comment about the number of homeopathetic organisations in India, if true, is sadly unsurprising.

“Homeopathic remedies are nano-​​medicines administered in micro doses to stimulate the body’s healing powers. These remedies contain potent energies, which treat the symptoms and cure the diseases at a deeper level.”

In scientific terms, this is what is known as ‘complete bullshit’. Note, however, how scientific sounding terms have been co-​​opted to add credibility to the therapy — ‘nano’, ‘micro’, and ‘energies’ all making an appearance. For the purposes of this article they are little more than meaningless drivel.

To take ‘nano’ as an example, there is absolutely nothing ‘nano’ about homeopathy. In everyday parlance, ‘nano’ is often used to refer to things that are very, very small. Given that homeopathy deals with extraordinarily dilute solutions, you might be tempted to say that ‘nano’ is a fair descriptor; the truth, however, is that in terms of homeopathy, ‘nano’ far, far too large.

One nanometer is equal to 10^-9 metres, or 0.000000001 metres. That, to put it mildly, is small. Atoms are generally measurable on the order of angstroms, equal to 10^-10 (0.0000000001) metres. So far so good. Now, here’s the fun bit — many homeopathic remedies, called 30C, are diluted to the point where, in order to find a single molecule of substance you would need to have a container bigger than the Earth. How much bigger? 3 x 10^10 times bigger. You remember when we were talking about really small things? This is the opposite of that. For a 100C preparation, the container required to ensure finding a single molecule of active ingredient (which is on the scale of angstroms or nanometres) would have to be larger than the estimated number of molecules in the universe — about 10^100. For space reasons, I’m really not going to write that number out here.

“Is homeopathy a scientific theory? How does it differ from herbal medicine or Ayurveda?

The major difference is that homeopathy does not use any material substance.”

Except for water.

“It treats underlying causes of illness rather than addressing outward symptoms. Herbal medicine is based on the use of pure constituents from plants and the biological response varies directly to the dose or concentration of the remedy. Ayurveda, a more traditional (and older) treatment, uses various alternative forms of healing such as herbs and chemicals alongwith physical elements such as yoga and massage.”

“Neither of them work either, thus making our comparison appropriate.“

“Many believe homeopathy is quacks’ theory but FYI, it’s supported by WHO and practiced in over 100 countries. It is approved by the US, European FDA and the Indian DCGI.”

Nice one, Dr Shah. When in doubt, lie out of your arse.

“So does homeopathy cure it all? For what ailments would you NOT recommend homeopathy? Diseases can be divided into two categories to understand the scope of homeopathy:”

Profitable and unprofitable?

“Chronic and recurring: Homeopathy is very effective in these cases and has had considerable success in their treatment (asthma, vitiligo, psoriasis, migraine, eczema and so on).”

Otherwise known as ‘things that are likely to remit and recur all on their own without proper medical attention’. Except for serious asthma, which is likely to kill you if you try treating it with water.

“Acute and critical: Homeopathy is less effective in cases requiring urgent attention. Also, the critical nature of conditions such as a heart attack, high fever, severe attack of asthma, severe infection would warrant allopathy.”

Otherwise known as ‘things that will kill you dead’.

“Also, I do not prescribe homeopathy in cases such as malaria, typhoid, and TB as these diseases take long to be treated and usually, allopathy fares better. Homeopathy has its own set of limitations, as does allopathy.”

Luckily, there is an extremely clear dividing line: Homeopathy can’t treat real diseases, and actual medicine (‘allopathy’ being a term used to try and divert attention away from that annoying little fact) can’t treat imaginary diseases. I do think it’s sweet, however, that this quack is willing to cover himself legally by recommending people not effectively kill themselves.

“I want to take other medications while my homeopathic treatment is underway.

Absolutely. Homeopathy, in some cases like diabetes, asthma, arthritis, ulcerative colitis, can be married to allopathy and help in successfully managing the ailments. It is a wrong notion that homeopathy cannot be used in conjunction with other therapies.”

In fact, it works even better…as you’re actually getting treated. Why not screw the homeopathy in the first place and just drink a glass of water?

“In our unregulated homeopathy market, how do I trust homeopathic products from my local health food store? How do I even trust a doctor?

The Government of India currently manages over 200 homeopathy medical colleges, but fails to regulate the thousands of homeopathic manufacturing units. Regarding the products, one needs to look out for properly labeled products. The chances of them being phony these days are low, if it is a reputed health food store.”

I’d ask how it’s even possible for homeopathic medicine to be untrustworthy…and then I remember Zicam.

“A homeopath is just like any other doctor. His qualifications would be the same as those of an allopathic doctor. So, the way one chooses their allopathic doctor (referrals, word of mouth, qualifications, etc), is the same for the manner in which one would choose a homeopathic doctor.”

Bullshit. A homeopath is not ‘just like’ an actual medical doctor, and they certainly do not have the same qualifications. In fact, the difference is pretty startling — one group, you understand, has given up a significant portion of their life to study medicine in enough generality that they can then spend an equally significant portion of their life specialising in a particular field of medicine, to the ultimate benefit of the human race, just in time to realise that the other group finished their degree after two to three years of ‘learning’ fairy tales, and for the remainder of the time have been making money by not actually treating people.

Allopathy would give me a quicker solution, right?

That homeopathy takes long to cure an ailment is not completely true. Since the science is popular for treating chronic (long standing) diseases, they obviously take time to be cured. For a given nature of the disease, for instance asthma, homeopathy may take a year-​​and-​​half to give lasting results. However, this period is too small  compared to many years of suffering if homeopathy is not opted for.”

Or, you could go to a real doctor, get real treatment, and experience a real improvement in your quality of life in much quicker than a year and a half.

“For quick solutions, one must opt for homeopathy in the early stage of diseases such as allergies, asthma, eczema, urticaria, ankylosing spondylitis, migraines, etc. If you approach homeopathy as a last resort, it might take longer to take effect because your already weakened system.”

Oh, I like that — a nice get out of jail free clause: “If you come to us because real medicine wasn’t able to solve your problem, it’s not our fault if we can’t either, it’s your fault for not coming to see us sooner.” Classy.

What precautions do I take and which side-​​effects do I consider while taking homeopathy?

Homeopathy has no side-​​effects, if professionally prescribed.”

Not true. It’s a well reported fact that many people every year die as a result of a homeopathic overdose. It’s called ‘drowning’.

“Contrary to myths, it is extremely rare that a disease intensifies before getting cured.”

True — because if your disease is really getting worse and all you’re taking is homeopathy, it’s unlikely you’re going to get better.

My relative tried homeopathy once, didn’t see a cure and gave up on it. Would it fail on me too?

No system of medicine works all the time. The success or failure of any medicine (including homeopathy) depends largely on the nature of the disease, body’s response to medicine and the strength of medicine.”

Too true. So, for example, if you gave someone a medicine so dilute that there is no active ingredient left in it, one would imagine that the medicine would fail pretty badly, hey?

Remind me again what the definition of homeopathy is?

Tags: faq, Homeopathy, mumbai mirror, Richard Hughes

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 29th, 2009 at 10:00 am and is filed under Homeopathy, Richard Hughes, Skeptic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.