chemistry thingie man, "Water memory"... appearantly something about water retaining some sort of ionic/subatomic structural changes based on chemicals suspended or disolved into the water? Heard it mentioned in a discussion on homeopathy. What's the textbooks say about this?
Never heard of it, its seems a bit of a buzzword. Could be to do with solvent packing around charged particles, that is for several water molecules distance around a charged particle water molecules can be orientated in a fashion that they can add to the electrostatic repulsion interactions with other similar particles when they approach closely. Basically if two particles are going to collide and there is water in between them it has to be moved and work needs to be performed to move it out from between the particles. But then I don't know why they wouldn't have called it solvent packing in that case. Note by particle I mean bigger than a molecule but smaller than bulk material not anything like quarks or photons or that kind stuff.
hmm. thanks, Pepster. I *think* i could understand most of that I'll see if i can get a more clear explaination of what 'water memory' is supposed to be to run by you.
I didn't gather that it was a gel, but what's an 'ionic gel'? The situation described to me, in the context of homeopathic remedies, was something like follows: Homeopathy is based on the principle of building up a tollerance to things, like one can build an immunity to snake venom or antibodies to a virus? (may be dead wrong there, thats just how I took it on board) The standard homeopathic remedy for any given ailment is so highly diluted that, in terms of molarity, it is unlikely to contain more than a few atoms, much less molecules, of any given compound in any given dose. This assumes an even blend of the solution, too! The defense of homeopathy I heard was that water can retain a memory of the stuff that was in it. so, even though there may only be a few atoms, if any, of the stuff you're taking in the water, the water retains the memory of the whole thing, thus allowing you to still build up the anti-body equivalents. There was also a mention of using alcohol to 'preserve' the water and keep the water memory intact. There may have also been mention of alcohol as a solvent for the initial compound being taken for the rememdy, i can't recall. (And on a side issue, why isn't alcohol the universal solvent? It'll disolve anything water will, and many things water won't. Does it break things down further, beyond forming a solution?) And since water and alcohol are completely misciable (sp?) with each other, wouldn't water memory disolve into the alcohol? Anyway, I recall something else being said, i don't think it was still about homeopathy at this point, but something about water being cryastalized, reduced somehow to hydrogen and oxygen crystals rather than frozen into ice, I assumed, and that in that state it will retain the shape of the compounds disolved into the water. Now, I'm not sure what this crystaliation process would be (other than evaporation, or maybe that old dehydrated water joke), but I have to ask if that wouldn't mean that the water crystals would retain the shape of the compounds disolved into the water BECAUSE the solute was percipiated OUT of the water! Anyway, I realize this is probably grossly unfair to the pro-homeophathy folks I was listening to, because I can't remember their evidence worth a damn, but maybe this will ring some bells with you Pepster?
A gel with charged components in it, it would be possible to make one from a pair of ionic liquids (this should get some google hits, an ionic liquid is a liquid that contains only ions) or a ionic liquid and water. Basically a gel is liquid-liquid dispersion, that is liquid particles in a liquid (think really tiny droplets of one liquid in a other liquid). Hah, no scientist would guarantee an even blend at that sort of dilution. But that’s just me being pedantic about measurement error. This sounds like bullflop, specifically as it is it is the homeopathic agent (the venom or whatever) that would have biological activity, not the hole it leaves in water (note this itself is a little absurd). Whether of not the water molecule retain some orientation that they had around the homeopathic agent should make a difference for three reasons 1. Its the homeopathic agent that does the work not the water. 2. Water molecules move in random direction based off their thermal kinetic energy (they go faster when hotter) so any 'memory' shape the water has would be lost very quickly. The movement of water can be described by the kinetic theory of gases (small particles in random motion banging together in a fashion) but they move much much much slower but still in a random motion that would destroy any kind of ordered orientation of water molecules. 3. Lets same you could make water in a glass on a desk retain memory of a homeopathic agent, this if you were to pick up said glass and drink it you have just added kinetic energy to the random motion of the molecules in a apparent ordered system*. Those water molecules must be mighty forgetful by the time they reach the stomach. *Note a ordered system which is what they are suggesting breaks/bends the 2nd law of thermodynamics: processes that result in disorder happen spontaneously (requires no energy) where those that result in order are non spontaneous (requires a whole crapload of energy). 70-30 ethanol/water mix best stuff in the world. Sidenote most modern cleaning products work from tiny abrasive particles the soapy feel is added for customer expectations. ICE, the process of crystallization of water results in ice I'll concede to this as preserving water memory. Strangely I don't thank many people are fed homeopathic agents in ice cubes though Specifically speaking if the solute was to precipitate out of it would happen during the freezing process as the temperature is lowered, but this doesn't say much. I suppose the solute could leach or bleed out of the solid gas but its stretching it a bit. I say bullflop, sounds more like something that is masquerading as science. I'm going to bed, night all.
Homeopathy is bullflop simply because it doesn't work. In trial after trial, homeopathy has been disproven time and time again. It has been relegated to the realms of pseudoscience for well over a hundred years, and for good reason. The idea, by the way, isn't building up a tolerance. The idea is this: If one dilutes, say, snake venom, it becomes less potent. It has less of an effect. Homeopaths argue that if one keeps this up long enough, not only will it stop having that effect entirely, but it will begin to have the opposite effect. So, if someone has a fever, one should give them a homeopathic solution of something that causes a fever. Homeopathy rejects germ theory. According to homeopaths, bacteria and virii do not cause disease. They are, at best, simply effects of disease, so they don't believe there's any point in treating them. Diseases instead have spiritual causes. Modern homeopaths generally look to "psoras," which literally means itches. Homeopathy is dangerous quack science. It kills people who take it, because they're encouraged not to seek mainstream medical care, care that might actually help them. People who sell homeopathic cancer cures should be locked up for attempted murder. Unfortunately, they're allowed to keep up these"alternative" medicines at the cost of their patients lives.
You can purchase homeopathic remedies over the counter at the drugstore. (Well, you could in the US. Haven't really paid attention in the UK yet.) edit: In many homeopathic remedies, the diluent is not water, but alcohol. Which explains why people often feel better after taking them.
I don't think any proper homeopathic doctors suggest ignoring conventional doctors, they usually suggest that you use both conventional medicine and homeopathic medicine side by side.
Sadly, that is not correct, Mal. Many, if not most, homeopathic doctors tell their patients that mainstream medicine doesn't work. It's a large part of their salespitch. Come to us, other medicine won't cure you. Also, according to their "science," mainstream medicine can't work. Only theirs can. Or, if they don't actually say that mainstream medicine can't work, it doesn't work as well as theirs. So, if someone has only enough money for one, they'll be encouraged to take the homeopathic option. Of course, there's really no such thing as a proper homeopathic doctor in any case. Homeopathy is not real medicine. People who endorse it aren't doctors. They're quacks. At best, they're willfully deluded. At worst, they're knowing frauds.
You know I wonder how many homeopaths get addicted to their 'medicines' over time. Given that potentially anything that shows bioloical activity can be considered a drug (for better or worse*) taking a poison in a dilute fashion over a long period of time till you get positive beneifits would probabililly be due developing a chemical dependance on it (or the alcohol mixture its in). *You would be surprised how many drugs are designed from poisons. eg captopril was designed from snake venom. Actually the logical drug design of captopril was the first sucessful process structure-based drug design.
AN old flat mate of mine was a homeopath (I've lived with nealry every type of person in the world, even the nutters) she saw homeopathy as a supporting thing with traditional medicine not as a substitute and it can work. Another flat-mate after a long story managed to hit a speed hump at 60km/hour while riding a skateboard being towed by a car... Needless to say he was very badly scraped and tore a lot of skin off his legs and arms and was lucky not to crack his skull open. Anyway with thraditional doctors and homeopathy administered by my friend the doctors were amazed at how quickly the wounds healed. It didn't 'cure him' but it helped quite abit. In terms of water memory what was described sounds more like mercury than water and I know they aren't (or better not be using that) to treat people with...
Wound healing is easy; clean up the wound and don't let it get infected. And the young heal much faster than the elderly. Traditional medicine has merit; midwives were giving mouldy bread to women in labour long before Flemming's cultures got infected. Willow bark was used before aspirin hit the markets and digitalis was used for heart problems as part of traditional medicine. This, though, is completely different than the reasoning behind homeopathy. And I advise against using traditional medicine because the occasional arnica ointment won't kill you but taking digitalis purpurea instead of digoxin pills, can. Oh, and as a surgeon, I won't have to deal with homeopathy, hopefully, because there is no medication for an open wound that, well, causes an open wound. And I stand by everything Pepster and Ba said.
Okay, that's just not the case around here; perhaps it's an American thing where people are always vying for your money? Perhaps a hundred years ago they might have said it's better than conventional medicine, perhaps due to the law of averages it may have been about the same at the time? But I've never seen a homeopath's literature that doesn't talk about working in conjunction with conventional medicine. I don't know whether or not it works, I'd personally choose my usual doctor every time, at least until they can't do anything for me, until I gave something else a try.
Edit: crossposted with Mal. I can accept scientific arguments about why homeopathy shouldn't work, but I'm a bit surprised that you feel able to state what is or is not correct about how complementary therapies are treated in other countries. I have known a couple of homeopaths and a lot of people who have used homeopathic remedies, and I have never come across this type of behaviour. I have certainly never known anyone suggest that homeopathy can cure cancer or that it should be used instead of proprietory drugs and a doctor's medical care when there is an actual illness or trauma involved. Nor have I come across a homeopath who rejected germ theory. Homeopathy in the UK is considered a complementary therapy, ie used alongside conventional medicine, and is generally used in assisting with ongoing minor irritances such as eczema, frequent nosebleeds or an irritable digestive system. Arnica is also often used for when someone has had a shock (although I imagine there is a placebo effect here that is more important than anything the tablets can actually do). And most people I know find homeopathy works reasonably well. I don't know about any clinical trials in the UK, but doctors here now often recommend use of homeopathy and other complementary therapies, and I assume they have grounds for doing so.
Grace, if anyone held a trial, and it showed that homeopathy did consistantly better than placebo, then everything, everything science has learned about chemistry and biology in the past hundred and fifty years would be thrown out the window. Homeopathic medicines are placebos, nothing more. The only reason that homeopaths are less prone to making those sorts of claims in England is that they can get into a lot of trouble by doing so, where their less likely to get in trouble in America. Let's put something out here now. If homeopathy worked, then mainstream medicine wouldn't. Antibiotics couldn't cure diseases, since germs don't cause diseases. That is one of the founding principles behind homeopathy. Let me say this again. According to homeopathy, bacteria and virii don't cause disease. They're only symptoms caused by the spiritual causes of disease. There's a prize. It's offered by the JREF, and it amounts to one million dollars. It's offered for any show of the paranormal, or things that break the rules of science as we know them. Homeopathy is one of these. If anyone can show homeopathy does better than placebo in double blinded tests, they would win a million dollars. So far, no one has managed to do it. Every now and again a group of skeptics somewhere around the world commits "suicide." They ingest large quantities of homeopathic solutions. If these solutions had the effects the homeopaths suggest, then these people would surely die. And yet each year, they all come out of it none the worse for wear. Virtually every test of homeopathy done by a neutral party has come out negative. The few promising studies could not be reproduced, which means either their methodology was flawed or they were statistical anomolies. Do the research. Don't just look at the homeopaths information, look at third parties. Look for the research. Some people believe in homeopathy, but that has no bearing on whether or not it's real. Some people believe in scientology, and that's complete and utter bullshit. Or astrology, which has been known to be nonsense for even longer than homeopathy. And yet people flock to them. But people's beliefs do not change reality. Thinking something is true does not make it true. Supporting this nonsense will only make more people believe it, and that's a tragedy.
Exactly, just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they are wrong. How many people do you know that have tried homeopathy with positive results? How much actual research have you done that doesn't involve reading stuff that other people have written? If it is such a crock why are a lot of conventional doctors using it alongside their conventional medicines; people here aren't exploiting people because they can't, they're not exploiting people because they don't want to, and because there is no need to, people can make up their own minds on whether something works or not. You don't have to throw theories out of the window for other theories to work; there could be a million reasons why these things might work that wouldn't effect what we currently know about chemical and biological theories.
I think there is some confusion about just what homeopathy is. I have heard the word used in the sense of "ultimate dilution", where the active ingredient is diluted so that the molecules don't exist anymore, which is the silly, useless type of homeopathy that Ba is referring to. I have also heard the word, in books on homeopathy, in the "building up a tolerance" sense. It has to do with taking advantage of the rebound reaction. The rebound reaction is what happens when your body adjusts to your use of the medication. For example, suppose you take a laxative for a while. When you stop taking the laxative, you become constipated, because your body has come to accept your taking the laxative as being your body's normal state. So, according to homeopathy, the laxative has 2 effects, one after the other: Step 1--the laxative makes you go to the bathroom, step 2--the laxative makes you constipated. This is where "like causes like" comes in. I believe the idea of homeopathy is that by reducing the dose, you create the rebound effect. The rebound effect is accepted in normal medicine. For example, it is considered dangerous to use asthma inhalers frequently because people who do this sometimes have fatal asthma attacks due to a rebound effect, because their body has become used to breathing with an inhaler. As a personal experience, when I drink tea or coffee, it makes me fall asleep, because in me, the stimulating effect of the coffee isn't as strong as the rebound effect of my body trying to get back to normal. I know I am not the only person who caffeine affects this way. Also, some people have a reverse reaction to tranquilizers-becoming excited and agitated. I think this is because their bodies are trying to fight the effects of the tranquilizer and do too good a job of it. The idea of quitting smoking by using patches or gum which successively contain lower doses of nicotine also involves this idea. As an example of this type of homeopathic remedy: suppose you have very oily skin. A conventional dermatologist would prescribe a harsh cleanser and tell you to wash your face frequently. Your skin would respond to this by producing more oil, because it is "set" to have a certain level of oiliness, because the purpose of oil on your skin is to protect it. So your skin would just get red and irritated from all the treatment, but not one bit less oily. In fact, it might even start producing more oil. On the other hand, a homeopathic-type treatment would be to treat you skin very gently and moisturize it slightly. Your skin would produce less oil because it doesn't need that much oil for protection. So you are curing oily skin by adding oil, which doesn't make sense unless you look at the whole body as being a system which tries to keep itself in balance, rather than just seeing "oily skin" as a symptom that needs to be cured. edit: This is also why effective weight loss programs like Weight Watchers make you eat a minimum number of calories each day (some people on WW have trouble eating enough food). Because when you eat too little your metabolism slows up and you can actually start to gain weight.
A few words on placebos. In clinical trials in experimental drugs for terminal cancer and AIDS or other terminal diseases used when a patient no longer responds to conventional drugs, 50% of the patients get placebos (the doctors administering the drugs don't know which the patient is getting). This is done to evaluate if the drug really provides a significant theraputic effect or to see if any positive effects are just in the patients heads (the placebo effect). What is rather sobering is the positive results that the patients who are given placebo's somethings get. Some have even been known to make a full recovery. Power of the human mind to lie to itself eh.
I am prepared to accept scientific arguments against homeopathy, if they can be shown to be true. I found this article quite interesting in my attempt to learn more about the subject. I notice that where results are inconclusive, they err on one side rather than the other, which doesn't seem very scientific to me. They also comment that, because scientists can't think of a reason why homeopathy should work, they believe it doesn't. That doesn't strike me as very scientific either. Thinking something is false does not make it false, just as thinking something is true does not make it true. I also found this article , which seems unbiased and includes a lot of actual chemistry stuff that I don't really understand. It does talk about water memory, the original topic of this thread. Their conclusion seems to be that research into homeopathy has been inconclusive, and that the call by the Lancet to end research into it is premature. I would add that it is unscientific and shortsighted to decide that something isn't true because we can't prove it and because we don't know what reason might cause it. I am not trying to say that you can't disprove homeopathy; but when conventional tests haven't disproved it (even when as rigorously and unfavourably applied as they have been in tests where James Randi has been present), to repeat the same arguments that have just failed is insufficient. Sure. But don't confuse arguing against quacks and con artists with arguing against homeopathy or astrology or whatever it is. If a fraud purports to be an expert of some system, it is not necessarily the system itself that is fraudulent; the two should be responded to and evaluated separately. To draw an analogy, the fact that there are televangelists in America who rip off vulnerable people is shocking; but that does not mean Christianity is a big fraud. One might think Christianity is fraudulent or stupid or whatever, but it should be because of what Christianity is and one's response to that, not because televangelists exist. Furthermore, if a person is going to pursue an anti-Christianity crusade, they should have made their decision based on a full study of theology, not what they presume Christianity is; it's silly to decry something based on a simplistic and inaccurate understanding of it. (NB Please no one steer this discussion towards the subject of religion, this was only intended as an analogy.) And I say again, that is completely contrary to the explanations of homeopathy I have heard from registered homeopaths and their intellectual opponents. I don't know where you got this from, but I do not believe it is standard, by any means. I believe homeopathy was first invented in the nineteenth century, when germ theory was new and still in doubt (it may even have been invented before Pasteur, Koch etc did their research); if, therefore, early texts give such an opinion, that does not mean it is still part of the theory. I have never heard it said by anyone but you. I completely agree that it is an insupportable position, but I do not believe it is a position that homeopaths generally take. This was discussed in the first article I linked to. I think it is worth noting that the tests did not disprove homeopathy either. Randi sets out to be a sceptic, not a scientist. Scientists should not be gullible, but they should be open-minded. If a person insists that evolutionary theory is clearly nonsense because there is not enough solid proof for macro-evolution (only micro), then they have a closed mind and they are not being scientific. Now, homeopathy should not necessarily be promoted if it can't be proved (although people should be free to try it if it is not damaging), but nor should it be condemned if insufficient doubt can cast upon it through scientific testing (barring a pre-existing bias against it). That doesn't sound like a controlled study, by any means. However, I would like to hear a homeopath's argument as to why they are not affected. My reading suggests that virtually every test that was not later shown to have been biased has been inconclusive. Also, the overall results for many different tests are inconclusive, unless a non-representatively small sample of them is taken. (I am assuming that by 'negative', you mean that homeopathy has been disproved rather than that the results were inconclusive.) Also, when you say 'virtually', does that mean we can conveniently dismiss those results that don't fit in with what we would like to believe? I'm sure you don't intend that, since you are an intelligent person who tries hard to be rational; but I'd like to check if that was a slip of language or of thought. I've been doing that, and it doesn't give me the conclusion you've drawn. Perhaps if the third parties I looked at only included sceptics' information, I would be in agreement with you. Language again. I happen to agree with you about scientology, but you are just giving an opinion there. If you want to say that scientology's theories can be clearly disproved by the application of science, then say that. As for astrology, saying it is 'known to be nonsense' is an inaccurate and presumptive statement that claims that the camp you belong to has knowledge, and others only have stupidity because they disagree with you. If you think that astrology is the belief that planetary movements control our lives, or that people can be divided into twelve types whose day-to-day lives can be predicted, then all you have a handle on is what the quacks peddle, and not what astrologers actually think. As I said before, if you are trying to debunk something, make sure you are debunking what something actually is and not what you think it is. And if this is meant to be more of a debate than a personal argument, I think language such as 'known to be nonsense' is sweeping and emotive; it is given with no support or citation. It may win over those with an emotional attachment to your point of view, but it undermines the intellectual quality of your stance. If the argument for homeopathy must adhere to stringent standards, so must the argument against. Be as rigorous with yourself as you are with others. It may be true that people's beliefs do not change reality (unless you happen to have spiritual beliefs about the power of prayer or meditation or what have you), but if thinking something is true does not make it true, then thinking it is false does not make it so either. When you say 'nonsense' (more emotive language), I assume you are refering to astrology and scientology as well as homeopathy. I agree that it is tragic if people are exploited. But it is con-artistry and manipulation that damages people, and it is not clear thinking to confuse the person's modus operandi with what they claim to stand for - especially if we already know they are a fraud. I do not support fraud or exploitation, but that doesn't mean I have to close my eyes to anything I associate with them. I've met a good handful of quack scientists in my time, peddling creationism; perhaps I should label all scientific theory nonsense and decry it as such, declaring anyone who supports scientific thinking to be at fault for causing more people to believe in creationism. That would be a tragedy indeed.
Posting again, this time on behalf of Garner. He's at work and can't look at the internet, but I've been emailing him transcripts. These are his words, as written.
Oh boy I'm so tempted to bring out the theory of scientific thought at the moment where I could go into positivism vs falsificationism etc... The short version without references (their all at work and I want to do this now before sleep distracts me). There are various schools of thought on what actually constitutes science... I will mention just 2 because its getting late and I need lots of beauty sleep... Positivism is the view that science is that which can be proved to be true kind of like Garner's second statement that you can only prove something is possible (Garner congratulations take a bow and move into the positivism corner)... However, problems with this approach arise in that you have to prove something is true in all cases. So if I put forth the hypothesis that all chairs in the world are blue, I would have to go and check every shair in the world for blueness. Impossible to do in that I need sleep and with the associated problem of how do you measure blueness? This is where the bias of science comes in, because I would also then have to prove what blue is in all cases... And you can see how it could go on and I never prove anything to be true or even that it exists... ALl chairs are blue for a given value of blue amd for the sample taken etc etc. Now the opposing view is the falsification view, where something is said to be true if it is proven not be false (Ba heres a medal and you can join the red corner of falsificationists). In this side of the argument homeopathy is not true because I can show just 1 example where it is false/ does not work... So I can make the statement that all the chairs in the world are blue but as soon as I come across a non-blue chair then it is not true and I start again. The problem from this view is that any statement can be proven false in one case ('there are always exceptions to the rule', this approach doesn't like it and you tend to go around in circles looking for a statment that can never be falisfied, eg all chairs are chairs (even this is questionable)... But what has this really added to knowledge? Another problem with this approach is that all evidence is interpretted by the viewer in some way (go see Schroedinger's cat and those bloody nuts), so I might falsify the chair being blue but maybe I suffered from temporary clolour blindness so my test needs to objective and without interpretation (which doesn't exist, their is no way to test for blue without someone looking at it and saying 'yep thats blue')... This actually happened a lot when the microscope was first invented, how do you get non-falsifiable conclusions about what you see down a microscope if you've never looked through one before, you have no knowledge on which to base the interpretation and therefore your conclusion can be falsifiable or falsely falsify something that is true (god I hope that made sense)... So in the debate of science and homeopathy...maybe the scientists just haven't phrased the question in the right way to prove or falsify the effect of homeopathic therapy, the question could have been framed wrong or the methodology used could be testing the wrong thing, and those conclusions will always be mixed and inconclusive... Its only through trial and error that you can get the first things right so you can get the truth/reality of the situation... And the scientists will have a palpitation at the term trial and error (once I get it on the slab and have a bit of poke around I can usually sort out the problem) but pure scientific approaches like positivism and falsificationism do not allow for advance, they are chicken and egg methods and somewhere along the line common sense has to put a hand and say "oops i've been in the toilet what did I miss?"
Ha, thats quite a good point garner. I put the note about placebos in clinical trials for perspective; that is through belief that their getting the good stuff patients can cure themselves of a incurable disease with only their mind. Wording this as the minds ability to lie to itself is both misleading and accurate unfortunatly. They are lying to themselves when they attribute any positive effects to the placebo but as they are unaware of it then like all good lies there is a gem of truth to the effects they are experiencing (more they may well develope a dependence on sugar pills). As to positivism vs falsificationism (I would really like to see the full theory of scientific thought spiky even if your just pointing me towards a few specific references) a middle road of iron hard common sense is needed in most cases to actually get work done. I apply myself to the K.I.S.S. principle a lecturer of mine introduced to us earlier in the year, keep it simple stupid.
Grace I like the second website you linked, however I think there working hypothesis is flawed in the respect that all scientists specialise and cannot see past that sometimes. They are effectively describing colloid science (what I'll be doing next year in my honours project) while missing the point that they are descibing colloid science. Basically they have made the hypothesis needlessly complicated when some of the intracies of the DLVO theory of electrostatic repulsion could be used to explain alot of what they are finding.
Good Offler, there is so much I have to comment on I don't know where to start. Ah well, I'll make an effort. For starters, rebound reactions are observed because the systems in our body work with a feedback. When you put an outsider, here a medicament, in the equation, the feedback systems regulate themselves. For instance, someone who is on steroids has to be weaned slowly of them, because the presense of outside steroids in the body are sending the message to the hypothalamus "listen, we got plenty of the stuff", the hypothalamus doesn't release CRH, the corticotropine releasing hormone, the pituitary gland doesn't release ACTH, the adrenocorticotropin hormone (try saying this ten times in a row) and the adrenal glands stop working. The "rebound" effect of the laxatives is because disuse causes atrophy of the nervous system of the GI tract. This is because of the 'use it or lose it' axiom. If you put a limb in a cast the muscles and bones with get atrophied. Physiotherapy is necessary in cases of severed nerves because it keeps the muscles alive and they release molecules that encourage the stump of the nerve to grow and migrate to where it is supposed to be. As for the tranquilisers making people over-excited, this is common in geriatric patients, where the cerebral atrophy caused by age is changing the loops and the positive and negative feedback neuronic systems in the brain. As for dermatoligists and oily skin, I haven't had any such experience, my dermatologist was encouraging moisturisation too. Now, on the nature of placebos. We were shown a study on painkillers for the headache. 60% of those who had the placebo said they were feeling better. Lucky for the actual medicament, those is the study group that felt better were more by a statistically significant margin. Positive outlook in life helps. But not because of any 'positive vibes' or anything of the sort. Long term stress encourages the release of the stress hormones, namely the cortisole. One of the actions of cortisole is suppression of the immune system. Which is not a good thing. What else, what else... Oh, right, before I forget. You won't believe the fight that goes on inside our own bodies. Each "system" is fighting for control, only to have ten others trying to pull it down. An example is the spinal cord. The nerves transferring the message of pain, heat, cold, pressure etc are fighting each other over who will use the line to the brain. The brain itself has its own line going down to the "phone booth" and when the sensations try to call, they find the line busy. This is why pressure, ice packs, hot bottles and putting your mind to it can make pain duller. It's the way we are made. I'll check out the articles at some later hour.
The best book I can think of is one by Chalmers called "What is this thing called science?" its thin and cheap (and written by an australian ) but I've loaned it out at the moment so I can't give you more details, but it does have a picture of a cat on the front... ANyway, its a pretty good recap of all the scientific theories that have floated around the place from positivism, falsificationism, Kuhn, Feyerbrand and others and it'll include the references to all of them too.
My sister-in-law says she cured her lupus by drinking burdock tea obtained through a homeopathic supply catalog, I hate to tell her that auto immune diseases often go into remission spontaneously and that doesn't mean forever. I think if she wants to think she's all better she might be better for a while at least. She has a 13 year old and a 7 year old and they need her as healthy as she can possibly be. Personally, I am pretty skeptical of most of the claims for those homeopathic remedies, and I am also fairly skeptical about many "main stream" medications as well. As long as they are advertised in magazines and on TV and cost many times what it actually costs to manufacture, I want to have nothing to do with them. I have heard too many times that newer prescription drugs are not always any more effective then older drugs that are available over the counter. Sleep is a very important part of healing. almost all actual healing does take place when we are asleep and not fretting about how bad we feel. At least I always feel better if I can sleep when I am sick. I have trouble sleeping in the daytime if I am healthy, but if I'm sick I can sleep for hours. Which reminds me, I have to go to bed now so I can get up in about 5 hours, so I can drive to Fargo to get my Mom home fron the hospital.
