Rampant Homeophobia
I thought 'homeophobia' might catch on - there's a Guardian piece today with the word in its headline. First thing to point out is the author:
Rustum Roy is Evan Pugh professor of the solid state, and research professor of materials at Arizona State University
Research professor of materials. Got it. He spends a couple of paragraphs going on about closed-minded scientists who don't think water has a 'memory', and then comes this:
As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong. Proof? Diamond is the planet's hardest material; graphite one of the softest. They are absolutely identical in composition, and they can be interconverted in a millisecond with zero change of composition.
I think this paragraph should win some kind of award. The whole thing is a complete non sequitur, for starters: how do carbon compositions translate to 'proof' that water has a memory? Not that the diamond thing makes sense. Graphite and diamond are not, as far as I'm aware, 'absolutely identical in composition', or my pencil pot would be worth a fortune. They sure as hell can't be 'interconverted in a millisecond', or de Beers would be out of business, not to mention how it's apparently possible to convert something with zero change of composition. This is from a 'research professor of materials'?
It's not like the next paragraph continues this argument - that's it. I find it difficult to take the guy seriously after this. But here's some more:
But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns.
Afaik the placebo effect is much more subtle than he's suggesting. It's not just about public awareness, it's about time spent with the patient, the type/colour/dose of 'medicine' and plenty of other factors - placebos are complex. But even if he's right, so what? Is he suggesting that 'orthodox' medicine is all placebo effect?
Goldacre is accurate in pointing out the high rates of positive v negative outcomes in many of the homeopathy studies. But there are enormous discrepancies in any set of randomised controlled trials on the same orthodox pills.
Only if you include all the crappy trials. Once you remove the poor methodologies you tend to find a convergence of outcomes, and there's plenty of statistical analysis to help figure it out. What's this meant to prove, anyway? That trials aren't indicative of anything? Why does he think homeopathy works, then?
Ben Goldacre must be doing a good job - the homeopathy proponents are increasingly desperate, and increasingly rubbish.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
December 20th, 2007 - 00:35
Andrew, I was thinking the same thing as you, what the hell is this guy going on about? Diamond and graphite are both solid carbon (he is right on that), but with diamonds the atoms are all aligned (something to do with sharing electrons), with graphite they are all over the place (graphite is the more stable chemical form). What this has got to do with water memory is anyone’s guess though. He is however quite right that graphite can be changed to diamond in seconds (by a volcanic eruption) or can be man made through extreme compression (very costly and gives poor results – hence why diamonds are still valuable when found).
December 20th, 2007 - 00:42
Is a decidedly weird thing to say, if he really is some kind of materials expert as the byline suggests. From GCSE chemistry I think graphite has layers of loosely-connected carbon atoms, right? As you say, I can see how you could compress this to diamond, but is it possible to go the other way?
December 23rd, 2007 - 14:31
Homeophobia is the right word for the critics who suffer from this problem. It appears of late some modern medicine establishments are having unfounded worries about the growth of popularity of Homoeopathy. Thats why they instead of directly cross verifying the facts with the patients who are cured of Homoeopathy go on beating about the bush by asking certain questions to Homoeopathic Doctors which in fact are required to be answered by Scientists. A doctor runs his clinic and not a physical laboratories which basic sense eludes these critics. What they attempt is take some paras from Homoeopathic literature mix it with some studies on presently known physics and chemistry and try to prove a point which basically they can not understand. Unless they know why Homoeopathy works if they start their study with a blind biased approach they get some articles as above. First learn the subject, verify the facts with the proven track record of Homoeopathy then some sense will prevail on such people!!!
December 23rd, 2007 - 14:37
Right then. Can you point me towards any non-anecdotal evidence that homepathy actually has an effect above placebo, please?