The two things you need to know about Homeopathy

Since this is World Homeopathy Awareness Week, I thought I would point out the two things you should know about homeopathy.

The first is the story of its origin. Homeopathy owes its existence to a Doctor Samuel Hahnemann, who in 1789 was interested in the effect of cinchona bark, from a South American tree, known to be effective in the treatment of malaria. Hahnemann ingested the substance, and found that it gave him nausea, and other symptoms that he felt were consistent with those experienced by those infected with malaria. It occurred to him, I presume, that there was some kind of poetic validity in the idea that a substance could produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those it could treat in a sick person; in any case, he made that 'principle of similia' the core principle of homeopathy. This one observation lead to the entire business of homeopathy, with all manner of substances being used to treat all kinds of conditions, following this principle. It also became necessary to dilute the substances beyond all measurement, but that’s another story. The point here is that the whole operation started from an observation of the effects of a known, effective, existing malaria treatment, which was extrapolated to cover virtually any substance and any condition. The work of Hahnemann is still considered extremely important, and ground-breaking, by homeopaths today.

The second thing you need to know about homeopathy: Today -- more than two hundred years after the invention of homeopathy, inspired by Hahnemann’s work with a known, effective, existing malaria treatment -- homeopathy cannot cure malaria, it cannot treat malaria, it cannot prevent malaria to any measurable degree. 

And the only conclusion one can reasonably come to, after considering these two points? It's pretty obvious, but it does not seem to bother homeopaths at all.

There’s more to know about homeopathy than that, of course, but if you just want to know if it has any value as a system of medicine, it seems to me that those two facts should suffice.

Cinchona bark is still effective as a malaria treatment, since it is a natural source of quinine, a substance of which Hahnemann was not aware. There are now better treatments.

Given malaria’s direct role in the origins of Homeopathy, it is unsurprising that homeopaths very much want to believe that it really works for malaria. In 2006, Dr Simon Singh conducted an undercover 'sting' - in which a woman approached ten practising homeopaths, telling them she was planning to travel to Central and Southern Africa, and that the anti-malarial drugs her doctor had provided made her queasy. All of them offered homeopathic remedies as 'alternative' protection. You can read about it here.

In this video, Melanie Oxley, representing the British Society of Homeopaths, in a debate discussing the situation, demonstrates the lack of responsibility and accountability in the homeopathic community. But I want to draw your attention to her comments at 3:35 in the video, as the debate is coming to a close.

She manages to get these in right at the end, so there's no time for Dr. Singh to answer. But, after a long, defensive posture of making excuses for homeopaths who tell customers their 'remedies' can prevent malaria, and making even worse excuses for why they won't be held accountable in any way -- she attempts to justify their actions. By pointing out that

"Indeed the first remedy ever proved -- as we call it -- discovered -- was a remedy for malaria. You have to remember that traditional medicines have effects."

An utterly jaw-dropping but very revealing utterance, in which she is undoubtedly referring to Hahnemann's work with cinchona. A remedy which is efficacious for treatment (complete with side effects), in its natural form, but has no effect, prophylactic or therapeutic, (beyond placebo) when prepared by homeopaths. A remedy which was presumed to work via similia -- 'like cures like', but which actually works through a non-magical biological mechanism unknown to Hahnemann. And through the twisted, backward, superstitious, self-deluding logic which pervades almost all of their thinking, homeopaths have somehow managed to believe its beneficial effect as due to homeopathic principles, whereas in fact, the preposterous homeopathic core principle of 'similia' is originally based on a false conjecture of the mechanism of this particular substance. The cart is squarely before the horse. And thus, to the homeopathic view, the effect of the cinchona bark is presumed to imply, without need for evidence, the effect of the diluted-to-nothing homeopathic preparation of the bark.

(the subject of homeopathic 'proving' I would like to leave for another time; it's more of the same kind of logic.)

So, Oxley appears to be telling us this:  because this horrible fallacy is the keystone of the origin story of homeopathy, that's enough to justify believing that homeopathy works on malaria, and enough to justify selling it to credulous clients to protect them for this serious disease. It doesn't seem to make any difference that it doesn't work, that people will come back from Africa suffering from multiple organ failures. To recognize that would to be to put the entire foundation of homeopathy in question, wouldn't it now?

By making this statement just before running out of time, she also manages to avoid answering the one question she had been brought in to answer, the question of what, if anything, the Society was planning to do about homeopaths who endanger their clients in this way. Also, she refers to 'traditional medicines', another fallacy - this reference brings to mind various plant-derived remedies, which can indeed be effective, in an attempt to claim that goodwill for homeopathy. I fail to see what's 'traditional' or 'natural' about an extreme dilution of Berlin Wall or Mobile Phone, etc.

So, have a good World Homeopathy Awareness Week. 

Further reading:

World Homeopathy Awareness Week: All your questions answered
http://blog.anarchic-teapot.net/2012/04/10/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-all-your-questions-answered/

HPA issues winter malaria warning
http://www.nursingtimes.net/home/clinical-specialisms/infection-control/hpa-issues-winter-malaria-warning/5039467.article
"It has also stressed the importance of having proper certified anti-malaria medication, highlighting the fact there is no evidence that homeopathic remedies are effective at either treating or preventing the disease."


Homeopathy: what does the "best" evidence tell us?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610
“The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.”

Homeopathy for Malaria
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/homeopathy-for-malaria/

"We can say with confidence that homeopathic products are worthless in general, and specifically for malaria prevention or treatment."

"Homeopathic Resistant Malaria"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9815426
"We therefore urge the readers to stand up against the dangerous use of homeopathic drugs and instead motivate travelers to use protective malaria prophylaxis."

Alarm as homeopathic treatments are free to make health claims without trials
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-412818/Alarm-homeopathic-treatments-free-make-health-claims-trials.html
"The Society of Homeopaths said its members are bound by a code of ethics designed to protect patients."

A Condensed History Of Homeopathy

http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.aspx?Id=860


History of Homeopathy
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_info/history.html

Proof By Induction

This is, I believe, a first year algebra topic; I find it rather interesting since it's a way of performing a mathematical proof which appears, at first glance, to rely on circular reasoning, but in fact does not. When this topic is first presented in an algebra course, extra care needs to be taken to show what's going on, and why it's not circular.

Apologies for the bad 'text-based math'.

Let's use the usual example, which is the expression S(n), being the sum of all the integers 1 through n, with n being an integer ≥ 1.

Generally, for an inductive proof you need to know beforehand exactly what you intend to prove.

So first, we'll find S(n) with an informal discussion:

Make a table with n rows and 2 columns.

The first column has the values 1 through n.

The second column has the same values in reverse order (from n down to 1).

So, each row adds to n+1; there are n rows; the total of all the numbers in the table is thus n(n+1). The table contains two copies of the list, so

S(n) = n(n+1)/2

Now, we'll prove that by induction. To avoid making an error of deduction, we're going to define these two functions:

S(n) = the sum of the numbers from 1 to n

H(n) = n(n+1)/2

H(n) being a 'hypothesis' function; and we will forget that we already know that they are the same. I.e. we won't rely on that knowledge in the proof.

So, to prove by induction that S(n) = H(n) for all integer n ≥ 1:

1. first prove that this is true for n=1
2. then, prove that if it's true for n=j, then it must also be true for n=j+1.

If we manage to prove both of these, we will have proven it's true for n=2, since we can set j=1, and then the second step says "if S(1)=H(1), then also S(2)=H(2). And, thus, by setting j=2, it's proven for S(3)=H(3). And inductively -- not circularly -- we prove S(n)=H(n) for all higher integers.

The first part is easy:

S(1) = sum of { 1 } = 1

H(1) = n(n+1)/2 for n = 1, which is (1)(2)/2 = 1

So, we have proven it for n=1. We will step carefully through the second part of the proof, to avoid making any circular inferences.

Let 'j' be any value of n for which we know that S(n) = H(j).

So:

S(j) = H(j) [ given ]

but:

S(j+1) = S(j) + (j+1) [ adding the next integer to the sequence]
S(j+1) =H(j) + j+1 [ since S(j) = H(j) ]

S(j+1) = j(j+1)/2 + j + 1 [ substitute H(j) ]

S(j+1) = ( j*j + j + 2*j + 2)/2 [expand and collect terms over 2 ]

S(j+1) = ( j*j + 3*j + 2 ) /2 [collect terms]

S(j+1) = (j+1)(j+2)/2 [ factor the quadratic ]

S(k) = k(k+1)/2 [ substitute k = j+1 ]

S(k) = H(k) [ substitute H(k) ]

So, we are back where we started with S(j)=H(j)? No, because j is not just a parameter, it's the specific value for which we (by premise) know that S and H are the same. Since k=j+1, we've proven something we didn't have before. Let's eliminate k to make this clearer:

S(j+1) = H(j+1)

So we've shown, using only specific knowledge of S(n)'s properties, and the definition of H(n), that if S(n)=H(n) for n=j, it must also hold for n=j+1

So, we've proven this for all integer n ≥ 1.

If you don't like having to do the factoring to 'come up with' H(j+1) -- in a sense it seems like this requires you to anticipate the result -- you can finish like this instead:

S(j+1) = ( j*j + 3*j + 2 ) /2 [as before]

.. and note that

H(j+1) = (j+1)(j+1+1)/2 [ sub n=j+1 into H(n) ]

.. thus the difference between these is

H(j+1)-S(j+1) = ((j*j + 3*j+2) - (j*j + 3*j+2))/2 [expand, subtract, collect over 2]

H(j+1)-S(j+1) = 0 [ since all terms cancel]

Thus, again, H(j+1) = S(j+1). Somewhat less satisfying, but more amenable to 'brute force' algebra.

If these seem too 'magic' or self-fulfilling - "Can't you just do that with any function?" a good way to assure yourself that it really works is to try 'proving' something else, something which isn't right (because no, you can't just do that with any function). I'm going to replace H(n) with this 'wrong' hypothesis function

W(n) = n(n-1)+1

So, as before, we start by trying to prove W(1) = S(1):

W(1) = (1)(0) + 1 = 1 = S(1)

Hey, that works! In fact it works for n=2 as well: W(2)=S(2) = 3, I've deliberately chosen a good 'wrong' function to make it more interesting.

So, on to the second part of our (hopefully doomed-to-failure) proof. We want to show that if W(j)=S(j), then W(j+1) = S(j+1).

S(j) = W(j) [ given ]

but:

S(j+1) = S(j) + (j+1) [ adding the next integer to the list]

S(j+1) =W(j) + j+1 [ since S(j) = W(j) ]

S(j+1) = j(j-1)+1 + j + 1 [ substitute W(j) ]

S(j+1) = (j*j - j +1) + j + 1 [expand ]

S(j+1) = ( j*j +2) [collect terms]

Note, there's no error in this; it's perfectly valid; if S(j)=W(j) then S(j+1)= (j*j+2), and we know that the premise is true for j=1 and j=2 at least. But how to work this towards S(j+1)=W(j+1)? I'll use the second approach above and subtract:

W(j+1) = (j+1)(j+1-1) + 1 [substitute]

W(j+1) = j*j + j + 1 [ expand and collect terms]

... thus the difference is

W(j+1) - S(j+1) = (j*j+ j + 1) - (j*j+2 ) [difference]

W(j+1) - S(j+1) = j - 1 [simplify]

Again, this is all correct, no errors, but we have simply failed to show that W(j+1)=S(j+1) for all j. In fact, we've shown that is only true for j=1. So from this, and from W(1)=S(1), we can indeed conclude that W(2)=S(2), but from there it goes no further, the inductive proof has failed.

This amounts to testing our method of testing things; if I had been able to prove the W(n) function using a methodology - and we know W(n) is wrong - I would have no choice but to conclude that my methodology of proof was flawed.

To a mathematician, this exercise with W(n) is utterly superfluous, and you are thus unlikely to find it any textbook. Because the 'proof-by-induction' is simply a strategy for applying the general method of mathematical proofs - any particular use of it will stand (or fail) on that basis -- and of course, showing that a particular methodology fails to prove one non-true hypothesis doesn't mean it will fail to prove all others. But I'm primarily an engineer, we sometimes like to deliberately test faulty things just to be sure that the test will in fact find them to be faulty. And often the way in which things fail gives you insight into how they are supposed to work.

Etymology

I don't know exactly why this is called 'by induction'; the word seems to generally refer to something causing something else ("How can fire induce stone?"- Wormtongue), electrical e1ngineers talk about magnetic fields inducing current in conductors. in the mathematical sense, each proof 'induces' the proof of its neighbor, but there's definitely an implication that this process carries on to an infinite -- or at least arbitrarily long -- extent, and this element is not present in other uses of the word.

We are all taking homeopathic "medicine"

Last week's 10:23 events got me looking at this again. People don't seem to understand the sheer craziness of a "20C" dilution used in preparing homeopathic "medicines"- here's a random example from helpful gambler Mason:

Gelsemium is the preferred craps anxiety remedy at 20C dilution. This dilution will see to it that you should receive a single molecule of Gelsemium for every 100 molecules of water since it is prepared by a 20C dilution of Gelsemium.

"Craps anxiety"? Yes, this preparation will calm your nerves specifically in the situation where you are gambling with dice. Because a placebo could never do that.

Anyhow, the writer is completely wrong about the "1 molecule in 100", not even anywhere close. it's really "incredibly, absurdly unlikely, that there is even one single molecule of 'Gelsemium' in the dose -- after 20 sequential dilutions of 100:1 each" (which is what 20C means). Here you will find a sales page describing 'Gelsemium', and towards the bottom, a recommendation for a 30C preparation.

Well, the oceans of the Earth contain about 1.4 billion cubic km of water. Which is about 10 to the power 20, times 4 gallons. What that means, you could chuck 4 gallons of water containing a bunch of Gelsemium into the ocean, and mix it all up, through all the oceans of the world, and that would be a 10C dilution of the original 4 gallons. For a 20C dilution, you would need to do it again: remove 4 gallons from the mixed-up ocean (from any part of it), put that aside, drain the oceans, fill them all up again with clean water (free of Gelsemium, anyhow), throw the 4 gallons back in, and then mix all of that up again. For 30C you'd need to do it all a third time. That's not the prescribed procedure, of course, but it's the same dilution ratio overall.

Homeopaths (except for Mason the crap-shooter, anyway) are aware that there can't be a single molecule left after such dilutions. (in fact, even after a 10C dilution you're down to a few molecules per gram at best);. To escape the obvious 'placebo effect' explanation, they've come up with a 'water memory effect': the substance imprints itself on the water molecules, and the imprint is passed amongst all the molecules to each other. So you don't need a molecule of Gelsemium in the result to have an effect (or tiger pee, or Berlin Wall, or whatever. See list here).

But, the water molecules on earth have almost all been around for a very, very long time, and have collectively been through the water cycle many times; many were ingested and excreted by Tyrannosaurus Rex, for instance, and we can only assume that the imprint of T Rex colon has been passed to all other water molecules by now. Likewise for Lourdes Water, Rabbit's blood, Sea Urchin, umbilical cord, T Rex fossil, and basically all the 2500 items on that list.

So, every time you take a drink of water (or anything) you are imbibing a rich, natural homeopathic cocktail of, well, everything! Including bonus items such as Australopithecus Armpit, Neanderthal Nose, and Archaeopteryx Eyeball.

I don't see what difference homeopaths expect to make by adding a bit of some specific thing to the vast collective memory of the Earth's water. Unless -- wait a minute -- unless we are supposed to believe that water molecules somehow know that a qualified homeopath is doing the stirring (and shaking; this is important, they say), so that they know to forget all the previous memories they have, of substances which were not prescribed (and in any case, the homeopath is not being paid for) and instead focus on passing around this memory of Gelsemium or Squid Ink or Tobacco Smoke so that the label on the front of the resulting package has some meaning.

Again -- and quite aside from the fact that we know of no way for water molecules to retain a memory of anything : the water molecules are supposed to know when you are mixing a homeopathic preparation, so that they can forget all previous memories and focus on the new one (and meanwhile, ignore any stray contaminant molecules, and the container material).

Far more plausible things are taught at Hogwart's.

You can even get Vacuum - a dilution to nothing, starting with absolutely nothing. So, come on, we know they're just secretly laughing at you for paying for this stuff. Why pay when you get it all for free, right from the tap?

Catholic Church amps up exorcism training

Every diocese should have its own exorcism "resources", because, um, the internet. Training in the Marriot "Bell, Book and Candle" ballroom.

Personally, I blame mailer-daemons and NXD spoofing.

Story here

"He added that the number of people claiming to be possessed ... seems to have increased in the last five years or so."

Right... maybe listen more carefully... REpossessed maybe?

Earth Tilt Conspiracy - so lame.

This fellow (here) believes he has proven that the earth's tilt is massively larger than scientists are telling us. The argument is not quite explained, but I think it goes like this:

(1) Dallas, Texas is at latitude 32.8 degrees north, almost a full 10 degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer;

(2) The Tropic of Cancer marks the limit of the sun's northern travel, on June 21 (summer solstice)

(3) Therefore the sun should never appear to be to the north when in Dallas.

(4) The sun is observed to rise in a direction about 26 degrees north of east, and to set at 26 degrees north of west.

(5) Since (3) contradicts (4), something is wrong, and thus the tropic line must be further north than Dallas, which means the earth is tilted more than 23.5 degrees. I don't know how the estimated 'true' tilt is calculated, but it is alleged to be about 40-45 degrees.

In fact, (3) is utterly wrong. If you go to a far northern place (like Nome, Alaska) on the 21st of June, you will find the sun rises soon after midnight, far to the north of east, and doesn't get very high in the southern sky at noon, and then sets very late in the day, quite close to north again. By the logic of divulgence.net you would conclude that Nome must be very far south of the tropic of Cancer.

The problem in (3) appears to arise out of a simple misunderstanding of the geometry. Anybody with a globe can confirm that it's not just a question of adding angles. Photo below shows the earth as the sun is rising in Dallas on June 21st. The planet's axis is tilted to the right in the image, and the sun is exactly to the right. At sunrise, Dallas is on the 'terminator' -- this is the line between light and shadow, and appears as a vertical straight line in this photo, though of course it actually is a circle around the Earth. Where does the sun appear to be, to the folks in Dallas? The rays of the sun arrive exactly from the right in the photo, so in Dallas they appear to be coming from the direction of Boston (red dotted line) which, yes, is about 26 degrees north of geographic east.

The difference between 'east' and sunrise comes from two sources: First, Dallas, like the whole planet, is tilted 23.5 degrees towards the sun -- which means the sun is 23.5 degrees north of east -- when Dallas is at the 'front' of the globe (at point P). Second, when this occurs, the sun has already risen in Dallas; the actual sunrise occurs about an hour earlier than that, at sunrise the sun will appear to be even farther north (since it travels from north to south as it rises in the east). It is this second effect which is far more pronounced in Nome; the first is the same everywhere. The second effect is also the reason why days are longer than 12 hours in the summer and shorter in the winter, and more so the farther north you are.

At sunset, you have this situation: we have moved around to the other side to watch the sun set in Dallas, so now the sun is on the left of the image. The rays of the setting sun come from the left, from the direction of Oregon, about 26 degrees north of due west. So, those observations of the sun rising and setting that far 'north' from Dallas aren't "proof" that the earth's tilt is anything different from 23.5 degrees.

But, I guess it makes more sense to believe from "measurements and official data" that the earth's tilt has massively changed -- and that all astronomers and climate scientists are either ignorant of this, or hiding it from the world -- than to consider that maybe your understanding of the situation isn't quite right? And maybe, get out a globe and see if what you're saying makes sense?

Obama called Kanye West a 'Jackass'...

Obama called Kanye West a 'Jackass' in an informal, off-the-record conversation today; ABC leaked it. Hmm, what to do... I know, Obama should have another get-together. Invite Taylor Swift and Beyonce to the White house, have a beer and talk about what a jackass West is.

That's Redundant; In Addition, It Repeats Itself

"However, the audience for the speech appeared to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole, causing the poll organizers to warn the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in.

"In addition, the pollsters noted, the results don't reflect the the views of all Americans, only those who watched the speech"

- cnn.com