TED Conversations

Gerald O'brian


This conversation is closed.

Should we let homeopathy be?

The biggest dilemma for me is that placebo is proven to work better if the physician also believes he's giving real medecine. In this view, homeopathy is the perfect placebo. Even the people making it, through laborious dilutions, have GOT to believe in it, or their high school knowledge about chemistry would make it tempting to skip the whole process and make more profit selling sugar.
It's even got quantum mechanics watching its back, losing the more curious ones in complexe explanations about just how complexe liquid water is.
And of course, the idea is fun. Like cures like. 1/1000000th of a molecule of ethanol to cure a hangover.
Sure it's tempting to ridicule the whole industry for the billion dollar quackery it is. But one might actually find that it's saving a lot of healthcare money, and that it WORKS! And it works because we let it, because we don't ask for double-blind tests...
So what's your view on this? Is homeopathy a cheap way to heall the credulous? Or has it gone too far and is part of what makes the transition to the age of reason so darn slow?



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 30 2013: Dana Ullman already commented on the double distilled water. It's the purest grade water available. It's pretty obvious that the research compared plain double distilled water with the same water in which ultra-diluted substances were placed. You seem to be focussed on quibbling over matters that have already been settled by actual research.
    There's no point in any further armchair quarterbacking. If you don't want to use homeopathy for whatever reason then don't.
    • Oct 30 2013: You've completely failed to address my point.
      I'm claiming that double distilled water isn't pure enough. You simply can't get 100% pure samples of anything, not with current day technology anyway. Best available does not equate sufficient--it merely means there is no sufficient to be found.

      Its irrelevant for most applications, but in homeopathy, where a single molecule supposedly makes a difference, how does it not get overshadowed by trace elements in the water? Are they also stored in the water's supposed memory?
      Because if that's the case, you ought to be aware that even the most distilled water out there still has impurities in the levels of parts per million, much more prevalent than homeopathy's supposed single molecule (assuming an impurity of one part per million, and a sample of one mole of water, 6.022 *10^17 more prevalent to be exact. Even if I'm off by several orders of magnitude, that's still pretty heavily in favor of the impurities).

      So essentially, left over impurities in the water are more significant than any homeopathic process the water underwent, despite the best distillation attempts of modern technology...
      • Oct 30 2013: It is clear that Nadav Tropp has NOT read the article on nanoparticles published in LANGMUIR or the article that I've referenced written by Iris Bell, MD, PhD.

        Until Nadav does this, s/he is simply yanking us all around with ignorance. This unscientific attitude is extremely typical of people who are skeptical of homeopathy (they are pseudo-skeptics and give skepticism a bad name). That said, I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
        • Oct 31 2013: I did read it actually. If there's something to it, it helps support homeopathy's claims, though its still far from sufficient to be called definitive. It just shows there are traces of the original material in the water, it doesn't mean they're beneficial.

          I was addressing the more commonly accepted view on homeopathy of only one molecule remaining. I'd wager a guess that you seem to agree with me that if that particular model was correct, homeopathy would have no effect what so ever.

          Also, its a "he", for anyone wondering.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.