Alternative medical Therapies: science or pseudo science?
India was/is one of the fertile grounds for alternative medicines. Even though we have very age old medical system of our own (Siddha, Ayurvedam), we had accepted new range of conventional and non-conventional medical systems from many countries and cultures. One of the highest controversial medical systems, that Indians commonly use, is homeopathy. Even though it has lost its grounds in its origin (Germany), it has flourished in India. Many state governments have Homeopathic medical colleges and hospitals with qualified Homeopatic doctors (with approved BHMS degree). India is one of the countries where every one is nearly half doctor and easily recommends medicines and consumes medicine on their own. Since homeopathic medicines are nearly harmless (whether it has any positive effect or not, that is the second question) to the patients, many quacks easily pick up this medical system and flourish with wealth. Such quacks are similar to astrologers discussing sophisticated civil engineering in the name of vaastu sastra. Any one can pick up and deceive the people.
Before discussing this alternate medical system in scientific point of view, I have to accept that many of my honest friends had told me that they had got cure using this system. So, at this moment, I am not able to reject this system entirely as placebo effect. In this thread, I am indenting to explain how this medical system does not confirm to proven science and why the patients should not fully depend on this system in case of serious illness. Any way, after all accepting or not accepting the above facts is highly depends on individuals experience and belief.
First, let me consolidate how homeopathy differs with basic science principle. I hope that most of you might be already aware…
Homeopathy medicine follows the following three basic philosophies..
1. an item which create similar symptoms of illness can cure the illness (like cure like)
2. Vigorous shaking during dilution more effective
3. Theory of infinite decimal (more dilution is more better)
Let me explain first about the dilution process…
30x: a substance were to be diluted 30 times (means one part medicine to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts water)
200C: one part medicine in 10 ^^400 molecules of water (or 1 followed by 400 zeroes).
What is the meaning of "like cure like". Let me explain with two simple examples.
If Cobra’s poison lead to bleeding through skin other symptom like plague, then dilute the snake poison to 30X or 100X and give it to the Plague patient.
If Arsenic creates white patches in skin like Vitiligo(Lukoderma), then diluted arsenic solution (30X or 100X) may help the skin to restore the color.
This concept is the fundamental concept of Homeopathy.
Avogadro’s number: equal volume of any two gas under same temperature and pressure will have same number of molecules. If we accept conventional law, one single molecule can be found in 6.0221367x10^^23. That means any dilution beyond 12C or 24X may not have any original molecule at all. If we have to take even 1 molecule of real medicine in 30x medicine, really we have to drink 7,874 gallons of the solution. This would be roughly equivalent to a container 30 million times bigger than the Earth. (Mathematics below)
The above numbers are really threatening and make me skeptic about homeopathic medicines. There was a scientific verification program conducted by BBC using samples of homeopathic medicine and normal water. The tests were conducted on human tissues by two scientists who were not informed before about the nature of liquid they are testing (medicine or water). You will find the results are astonishing…
For more information…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...meopathy.shtml
Mathematic below:
Avogadro number 6.022*10^^23 mole in gram scale or Loschmidt’s Constant LC=2.686x10^^23 per m^^3.
1 molecule in n th centi-decimal dilution can be written as follows.
C(n) = (1 mol / 100 mol)^^n
So, to find one particle in 1000 particle of C30 homeopathic medicine (!), the volume of gas/liquid required can be written as
C(30)^^-1 / LC * 1/1000 = 3.722 x 10^^34 liters
So gallons of water required to make such medicine = 7.874 x10^^33
Dilution Factor Decimal Scale(1:10) Centesimal Scale(1:100)
1: 10 1x
1: 100 2x 1c
1: 1000 3x
1: 10000 4x 2c
1: 100000 5x
1: 1000000 6x 3c
1: 10000000 7x
1: 100000000 8x 4c
1: 1000000000 9x
1: 10000000000 10x 5c
1: 100000000000 11x
1: 1000000000000 12x 6c
1: 10000000000000 13x
1: 100000000000000 14x 7c
1: 1000000000000000 15x
1: 10000000000000000 16x 8c
1: 100000000000000000 17x
1: 1000000000000000000 18x 9c
1: 10000000000000000000 19x
1: 100000000000000000000 20x 10c
1: 1000000000000000000000 21x
1: 10000000000000000000000 22x 11c
1: 100000000000000000000000 23x
1: 1000000000000000000000000(Avogadros Number) 24x 12c
Beyond this dilution ratio, even one molecule of the original medicine, in 1 lit of diluted solution is nearly impossible. If we accept this dilution as medicine, all the water in oceans and lakhs can be considered as some kind of medicine.
1: 10000000000000000000000000 25x
1: 100000000000000000000000000 26x 13c
1: 1000000000000000000000000000 27x
1: 10000000000000000000000000000 28x 14c
1: 100000000000000000000000000000 29x
1: 1000000000000000000000000000000 30x 15c
Just imagine potencies of 30c, 200c, 1M, 10M, 1MM ... it would even be difficult to count zeros !!!
(I request hubbers to write article on pseudo scientific or non conventional medical systems, like Reiki, Sakthipat or healing touch, magnetic therapies etc etc)
Re: Alternative medical Therapies: science or pseudo science
Quote:
Originally Posted by r_kk
India is one of the countries where every one is nearly half doctor and easily recommends medicines and consumes medicine on their own. Since homeopathic medicines are nearly harmless (whether it has any positive effect or not, that is the second question) to the patients, many quacks easily pick up this medical system and flourish with wealth.
True, but this is illegal. In India, you must have a recognised degree in homeopathy from an accredited college in order to be able to practice as a homeopath. I think the course has to be at least three years long in order to gain recognition. So the procedure is much more rigorous here than it is in some parts of the West, where people do a three-month course and then become homeopaths.
I have personally used homeopathy since my early childhood. I am very severely allergic to penicilin, sulpha- drugs, chloro- drugs, and most other strong medicines (and some weak ones, such as aspirin and ibuprofen), and homeopathy is quite often the only really viable course of treatment for me. It usually worked about as well against my illnesses as allopathy did against my sister's.
However, the scientific evidence for its validity is very scarce. There are two major scientific problems with homeopathy. The first is - as rk_k points out, that its theories make no sense at all in the light of our current understanding of science. Homeopathy says that water has a "memory", which is "imprinted" with the image of the molecules dissolved in it. This memory remains even after you dilute the solution so much that the molecules themselves are no longer present. The idea of this type of memory flatly contradicts modern science's understand of the nature of atoms and molecules. In addition, it begs the question of why it is only the molecules of the dissolved medicine that are imprinted in the water - water naturally has a lot of impurities and other dissolved substances present, logically, those should be "imprinted" too.
Of course, if we could prove that homeopathy actually worked, this objection would obviously become redundant. But it's here that we run into the second problem - homeopathy has never been shown to work in a scientifically acceptable way. A study published in the Lancet a month ago, analysed a large number of past experimental studies on the effectiveness of homeopathy. The authors concluded that the studies which showed a better-than-placebo result were the least rigorous methodologically, and the most rigorous studies showed nothing better than a placebo effect. From this, they concluded that homeopathy is unscientific rubbish.
This is not as clear cut as it may seem, however. It has been pointed out that the key problem with most studies (particularly the ones used by the Lancet) is that they are independent lab-based tests. As a result, they do not take into account how homeopathy is actually used clinically by its practitioners, which makes them less reliable. It is also a valid point that the subject is so emotionally charged that it is difficult to find a study which was actually conducted from a dispassionate, neutral perspective - most people studying the topic already have very strong views on the validity of homeopathy, and that's not the best way to do science.
This paper by Klaus Linde and others provides a very good overview of the studies that have been conducted (up to 2001). It gives a good idea of the problems that one faces in scientifically testing the validity of homeopathy:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...2-6882-1-4.pdf