Mary,
 
You mentioned a situation in which you used a homeopathic remedy and got
relief from blood clots.
 
I just wanted to point out, though, that this is not proof in the
scientific sense.  It's testamony.  The problem with testamony is that
there are no controls.  There could have been other factors involved in
the relief of the blood clots.
 
There's something called an "error of causality" -- this is assuming that
because event B occurs after event A, that event A caused event B.  E.g.,
I stub my toe and within two days, receive a big fat check from my
mortage company.  Some people might assume that stubbing one's toe
results in a big fat check from the mortgage company and have sore toes
for /months/.  /I/ know that it's 'cause I overpaid my escrow.
 
This is the point of controlled studies.  It's to control the situation
so that we can be relatively sure that the causality error isn't creeping
in.  That's why scientific studies include a control group, for example,
and why they're double-blind (neither the test administrator nor the test
recipients know whether they're getting the medicine or a placebo).  And
a good scientific study includes a group large enough that varieties in
the individuals' reactions are averaged out.  Your situation wasn't a
controlled situation at all, and it only involved you.  It was not a
double-blind test specifically designed to test a specific hypothesis,
so there's no way to be really sure that something else (diet, other
medicine, exercise or lack thereof, exposure to sunlight, proper sleep,
your own body's ability to heal, freak coincidence, divine intervention
for all we know, etc...) wasn't the real factor in reducing the clots.
 
(Sorry if I seem like I'm talking down to you -- I don't mean to be at
all.  But I do realize that there are people out there who have even less
of a background in the scientific method than me [and I haven't been in
high school for, what, 17 years?  Ack!], and I want to be clear on their
behalf.)
 
As far as I know, there are absolutely NO substantiated studies involving
homeopathy that have borne out any kind of reliable, reproduceable
effects.  One of the reasons why there are no "real" studies involving
homeopathy is the issue of measurement.
 
For folks not familiar with homeopathy, it involves taking a substance
and mixing a little bit with water, then shaking vigorously, then mixing
a little bit of the agitated solution with more water, shaking again, and
so on and so forth.
 
My personal problem with homeopathy is that the amounts of "medicine"
involved are so infimitesimal that there can't even be one molecule of
the originial substance left in the mixture (and one molecule's presence
is required by definition of "solution", if I remember correctly).
 
The homeopathic argument is that there is some kind of mysterious
"essense" or "energy" left in the dilution, so that even though there's
/nothing/ of the original substance in there, it still has an effect.
But this can't be tested by any known means.  It can't be measured.  When
you go to the store and by a bottle of whatever, there is actually no way
to be sure that the label is correct.
 
AND I have seen no responses to questions about the water that the stuff
was dissolved in: how can it be proven to be absolutely pure, with
nothing by oxygen and hydrogen in it?  How can you be sure that some
other stuff wasn't in the water, since nothing that's in the water can be
quantifiably or reliably measured?  What if the person who was doing a
study accidentally switched up the homeopathic bottles (that NEVER
happens in testing, right?)?  Since you can't tell what's in the bottle
by testing or measurement, how can you be sure that you're using the
bottle with the right "energy"?
 
So the only way, I think, to do a proper study of this would be in a
completely sterile environment.  You'd have to make your own water
directly from oxygen and hydrogen to ensure its purity.  You'd have to
use glass contain-- heck, I don't know, would glass even be good?  Could
we be sure that a molecule or two of silicon wouldn't get into the
mixture?  Would we have to use magnetic bottling (i.e, force fields)?
I'm not sure we even have the technology to properly test homeopathy.
 
Now, a last caveat: I am NOT saying that homeopathy is without value
(though I personally don't think it has much).  Maybe there is something
to it.  But the point is that it is not a science and should not be
treated as such, because you can't apply the scientific method to it.
Some people DO come to perfectly good results through testamony, and
that's fine.  Just beware anyone coming to you and trying to give
homeopathy the "gloss" of science.
 
I highly recommend that people read through the site that Bob mentioned
(www.quackwatch.com).  Excellent site!
 
--Kat
[Posted in FML issue 3935]