[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Assuming the placebo actually contains nothing harmful. There have been quite a few instances of actual active ingredients making it into homeopathic and herbal 'remedies' because they are completely unregulated.

...in America. We have different laws over here, which mean that you can't sell unregulated stuff (there's absolutely no culture of "buyer beware" here, except in private cash sales, because all commerce is protected by law - if it doesn't do what it says on the tin, you can't sell it). But you can still OD on multivits.

[Phileas]

Who regulates sales in the UK these days? Is it EU wide?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The study is pretty suspect and about as far from conclusive as you can get.

As are all of them.
Do any of your studies include a control of non-vit taking vegetarian rock stars? I bet they don't. Do they include a control of ex-USAF forum admins? No? So they're pointless then.

Do you actually know how regulated multivits are in the EU? Obviously not. Most of the arguments you're coming out with are extremely US-centric. Your "not FDA-approved" arguments don't work here, since multivits are highly regulated in the EU.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...in America. We have different laws over here, which mean that you can't sell unregulated stuff (there's absolutely no culture of "buyer beware" here, except in private cash sales, because all commerce is protected by law - if it doesn't do what it says on the tin, you can't sell it). But you can still OD on multivits.

And yet the NHS sells homeopathic 'medicine'... Excuse me if I lack confidence in your chaperones.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Who regulates sales in the UK these days? Is it EU wide?

Yeah, it's EU-wide. Food Supplements Directive 2002, I believe.
Plus then we've got the usual Trading Standards laws under that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And yet the NHS sells homeopathic 'medicine'... Excuse me if I lack confidence in your chaperones.

...which has been found to work in instances when the practitioner is doing it properly and isn't a money-hungry charlatan from the colonies.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...which has been found to work in instances when the practitioner is doing it properly and isn't a money-hungry charlatan from the colonies.

No. It hasn't. I absolutely guarantee that there is no credible evidence of homeopathy working. Either you're thinking of something other than homeopathy, or something that isn't homeopathy is being marketed as such. Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Phileas]

The entire foundation of homeopathy is based on a mistaken observation.

Hahnemann came to his famous "like cures like" conclusion after taking chinchona bark extract which caused him to develop fever-like symptoms similar to those caused by malaria.

Chinchona bark extract was a known treatment for malaria and so Hahnemann devised the like cures like hypothesis from this observation. Chinchona, however, does not generally produce these symptoms, so it has been suggested that Hahnemann was simply allergic to one of the compounds in the extract.

This means that a key aspect of homeopathy is based on a false conclusion.

The law of similars' is an idea based on something called sympathetic magic: where the similarity between things is believed to allow a non-physical interaction between them.

Familiar examples of this idea are Voodoo (where the likeness of an effigy doll to the target person means it can affect the targeted person) and Asian men with erectile dysfunction using Rhino Horn in an attempt to cure their problem.

There's no good reason to believe that there's any truth to sympathetic magic - it is a form of superstition.

It gets better:

The theory of infinitesimals.

Hahnemann used many dangerous ingredients in his research and realised that such compounds needed to be diluted to be used. The system he developed became known as the theory of infinitesimals. It is obvious that diluting a substance weakens its effects so in order to preserve the effects of the remedy despite the dilution, Hahnemann developed the dilution process known as 'potentisation'.

Homeopaths start with a mother tincture (the remedy to be used dissolved in water or alcohol) and then normally dilute the remedy by 1 part in 100 (known as a C dilution) - although 1:10 dilutions (X potencies) and 1:1000 dilutions (M potencies) are also used. In order to retain the properties of the mother tincture the diluted remedy is shaken vigorously (known as succussion) and banged ten times against a solid object. This process is believed to transfer the 'spiritual essence' of the remedy to the water it is diluted in. This is a 'potentised' 1C solution.

That is just the beginning of the process however. Another dilution is then done to produce a 2C potentised solution (1 part mother tincture in 10,000 of water). Then again to produce a 3C solution (1 part mother tincture in 1,000,000 of water) etc.

Hahnemann thought that he had discovered a unique property of potentisation: he believed that the more times the remedy was diluted the more powerful it became. This finding, however, is invalidated by pharmaceutical dose-response studies which show that increasing dosage increases the effect of a drug (whether good or bad) and vice versa.

It wasn't known in Hahnemann's day but there is a limit to how far a substance can be diluted. Once the 12C dilution is reached there's only a 60% chance that one single molecule of the original mother tincture remains in the solution.

Modern homeopaths are aware of this fundamental flaw but they still go on diluting past the 12C potency. One of the most common potencies used is 30C. i.e. once the 12C limit has been reached they dilute the remedy by 1:100 a further 18 times. Of course this means that all that is being done is that water is being dissolved in more water - there's none of the original mother tincture left in the solution.

Homeopaths have an answer to this however. They believe that water has a 'memory' - through the process of potentisation, the water remembers the 'essence' of the mother tincture that was once dissolved in it.

Once the remedy has been obtained in the required potency, sugar pills are dipped in the remedy and allowed to dry. The essence of the original mother tincture is now believed to have been transferred to the pill. If a pill with the essence of the remedy is allowed to come into contact with other sugar pills (such as placing them all together in a jar), it is believed that the other pills will also acquire the essence of the mother tincture. This process is known as 'grafting'.

Bold added by me to highlight the more ridiculous points.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

There's no good reason to believe that there's any truth to sympathetic magic

Other than the concept of quantum entanglement, you mean?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Other than the concept of quantum entanglement, you mean?

No. Those are completely unrelated.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

No. Those are completely unrelated.

How so? Please explain.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Other than the concept of quantum entanglement, you mean?

Seriously? I mean, you're not pulling my leg here?

Many of the "quantum promoters" use "entanglement" as an explanation of how everything in the universe is "connected". This supposedly explains how we can influence objects and "draw energy" from them.

This is about as far from real quantum entanglement as it could possibly be.

Quantum entanglement occurs when two particles (usually photons) are emitted from an atom in a singlet (or neutral) state. Because of the conservation laws, the photons (for instance) will have the same polarization [the identical polarizations cancel out because the photons are heading in opposite directions - for a much better explanation, see Victor Stenger's "The Unconscious Quantum"]. No matter how far they travel, these two photons will have the same polarization - they are considered to be "entangled".

What entangled photons have to do with "quantum healing" or "remote viewing" or anything of that sort is unclear - and probably imaginary. The basic problem is that the "interesting" quantum effects average out as you get more and more particles together. This is referred to as "decoherence" and explains why we don't see footballs ("soccer" balls, to those raised in the US) changing into waves during the World Cup.

And:

Mind reading, distant viewing, therapeutic touch, etc. all make use of jargon that includes liberal use of the word “quantum”. This does not mean that they are quantum effects any more than repeatedly saying a cat is a dog will turn it into a Labrador Retriever. What they are describing is not quantum physics but magic, and magic does not exist outside of storybooks.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Seriously? I mean, you're not pulling my leg here?

Yep. Seriously.

Edit (since you added the bottom quote): Magic does exist outside of storybooks - anyone who says it doesn't simply doesn't understand how the universe works.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Other than the concept of quantum entanglement, you mean?

Unfortunately, they cancelled that show. I actually like it, more so than V.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How so? Please explain.

There is simply no connection between the two...

Quantum entanglement refers to an aspect of quantum physics that relates to the quantum state of particles. Two particles which are entangled will share certain observable quantum properties such as spin. So, for example, if you happen to have to entangled photons, they will always have the same spin. This allows for interesting things like the quantum teleportation of information which could, theoretically, allow for instantaneous, completely secure transmission of information between two points. It is an actual, observable phenomenon.

Sympathetic magic is a fairy tale belief. It is neither actual, nor observable.

While it might seem that quantum entanglement could result in phenomena which might, in an earlier age, have been described as sympathetic magic, that conclusion would be unjustified. Two macroscopic objects sharing similar properties is not the same thing as two sub-atomic particles being entangled. There is simply no similarity between the two relationships. Even if there was, the kind of information that is transferred through quantum entanglement would not be useful, it would be like saying that magic wands work through IR data transmission.

In the same way that the existence of a remote control for your television doesn't prove that magic wands exist even though they superficially share some similar characteristics, quantum entanglement doesn't prove that sympathetic magic exists.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. Seriously.

In which case I am leaving this conversation with a last quote. I respect your right to believe anything you like, but I can't possibly take those beliefs seriously.

As homeopathy has great trouble in showing any effect above placebo in trials, homeopaths will often state something like this quote from the Society of Homeopaths:

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." Added:

This is known as special pleading - a hallmark of pseudoscientific reasoning. In science, if something cannot pass a properly controlled trial the logical conclusion is that it doesn't work. With homeopathy (and other alternative medicines) the supporters tend to start with with the conclusion (i.e. homeopathy works) and when it fails in properly controlled trials they conclude that homeopathy works but properly controlled trials are not the way to prove it!

In reality, homeopathy is ideally suited to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) as the remedies can be given in pill form. Homeopaths say that each remedy needs to be individually tailored to the patient so it cannot be tested in RCTs, but in reality, this merely adds a level of complexity to the trial design. It can still be done.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This allows for interesting things like the quantum teleportation of information which could, theoretically, allow for instantaneous, completely secure transmission of information between two points. It is an actual, observable phenomenon.

So, this only works for specific data then? Couldn't possibly work for, say, the properties of a herb? Good show - nice to see we've got that cornered.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, this only works for specific data then? Couldn't possibly work for, say, the properties of a herb? Good show - nice to see we've got that cornered.

Even if it did theoreticaly (and it doesn't), it wouldn't matter because regardless there are and have never been any measurable effects of homeopathy.

Frankly, your faith in this nonsense kills any credibility you might have had on other issues. If you'll believe in this, you are far more gullible than I thought.

[Doofy]

I give up.

And I'll leave you with a quote:

Originally Posted by Schopenhauer

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

[Phileas]

And delusional tries to hit a target that doesn't exist.

(Sorry, sorry, sorry - couldn't resist. Nothing personal, no hard feelings, etc, etc)

[olePigeon]

Well, I was gonna post this quote:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No you can't.

You may be able to pull out a few studies, but the body of evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

The "body of evidence" also does not take into account relatively good diets that are inconsistent. Such as mine. All the studies I've read were based on either consistently good or consistently bad diets. A person eating a consistently good diet doesn't need supplements, while supplements won't be enough to help someone eating a consistently bad diet.

For people like Doofy and myself who eat "at least OK," those studies are only interesting, not directive. The studies say "supplements are not enough to fix a bad diet," and that "supplements are not needed if you eat a good diet." That's all. They simply do not address the effect or utility of supplements for a person who eats an inconsistent, yet fairly healthy diet.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, this only works for specific data then? Couldn't possibly work for, say, the properties of a herb? Good show - nice to see we've got that cornered.

Yes, it only works with specific data: the quantum properties of particles. And it only works with pairs of particles that were already entangled when they were created. We can created entangled particles in lab, and they also exist naturally, but it is not the case that all particles are entangled with others nor is it the case that we can assume that the particles in any two objects are entangled which would be necessary in order for these sorts of magic to be even vaguely reasonable.

As for the properties of an herb, it would only work for those if they are determined entirely by the quantum properties of the particles making up the atoms making up the molecules making up the herb. Which they aren't.

The only reason quantum entanglement is useful for us to transmit information is that we're able to take arbitrary data and encode it into changes in quantum spin in the same way that we take arbitrary data and encode it into changes in voltage potential in a circuit. At the quantum level, the attributes of particles affect things like what sorts of larger particles they might form; we're talking individual photons here, not even things on the scale of electrons, neutrons, and protons. At this level of reality, there is simply no meaningful connection with larger scale phenomenon such as the properties of a herb.

[olePigeon]

Many Supplements Said to Contain Toxins, Make False Health Claims - US News and World Report

A new bill being proposed to enforce quality control over food supplements. It's most likely not going to be passed because the sheer amount of lobbying going on. Millions of dollars being funneled into political coffers to keep the bill out, or at the very least, neuter it to the point of uselessness.

The problem? One of four food supplements have unsafe amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, etc. Many, many of them make false claims such as curing Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, lower blood pressure, etc.