ST Nov 13, 2007
Herbal sex pill alternatives pose hidden dangers
LOS ANGELES - MANY of the pills marketed as safe herbal alternatives to Viagra and other prescription sex medications pose a hidden danger: For men on common heart and blood-pressure drugs, popping one could lead to a stroke, or even death.
'All-natural' products with names like Stamina-RX and Vigor-25 promise an apothecary's delight of rare Asian ingredients, but many work because they contain unregulated versions of the very pharmaceuticals they are supposed to replace.
That dirty secret represents a special danger for the millions of men who take nitrates - drugs prescribed to lower blood pressure and regulate heart disease.
When mixed, nitrates and impotency pharmaceuticals can slow blood flow catastrophically, leading to a heart attack or stroke.
An investigation shows that spiked herbal impotency pills are emerging as a major public health concern that officials haven't figured out how to track, much less tame.
Emergency rooms and poison control hot lines are starting to log more incidents of the long-ignored phenomenon.
Sales of 'natural sexual enhancers' are booming - rising to nearly US$400 million (S$ 582 million) last year. And dangerous knockoffs abound.
At greatest risk are the estimated 5.5 million American men who take nitrates - generally older and more likely to need help with erectile dysfunction.
The all-natural message can be appealing to such men, warned by their doctors and ubiquitous TV commercials not to take Viagra, Cialis or Levitra.
James Neal-Kababick, director of Oregon-based Flora Research Laboratories, said about 90 per cent of the hundreds of samples he has analyzed contained forms of patented pharmaceuticals - some with doses more than twice that of prescription erectile dysfunction medicine.
Other testers report similar results, particularly among pills that promise immediate results.
An elderly man in a retirement community north of Los Angeles took an in-the-mail sample and landed in the hospital for four days.
Tim Fulmer, a lawyer representing Spontane-ES, said the pill did not contain any pharmaceutical and was not responsible for the stroke.
Mark B. Mycyk, a Chicago emergency room doctor who directs Northwestern University's clinical toxicology research program, said he is seeing increasing numbers of patients who unwittingly took prescription-strength doses of the alternatives, a trend he attributes to ease of purchase on the Internet and the desperation of vulnerable men.
He said he wouldn't be surprised if there'd been undetected deaths from bad herbal pills.
Some herbal labels warn off users with heart or blood-pressure problems if they have taken their medicine within six hours; some doctors say 24 hrs or more would be safer.
The AP often couldn't determine from records whether incidents reported to tracking systems of the federal Food and Drug Administration and state poison control centers involved mixing herbal alternatives with nitrates.
Some men in their 30s who went to emergency rooms after taking herbal sex pills were presumably otherwise healthy, but they showed the transitory side effects of the active ingredients in regulated impotency pharmaceuticals, such as difficulty seeing clearly or severe headaches, records show.
While public health officials don't know the extent of the problem, they agree that incidents are vastly underreported, with national tracking systems capturing perhaps as little as 1 percent of them. Victims may be embarrassed, and doctors rarely ask about supplements.
Since 2001, sales of supplements marketed as natural sexual enhancers have risen US$100 million to US$398 million last year, including herbal mixtures, according to estimates by Nutrition Business Journal.
Some legitimate herbal mixtures claim to work gradually over weeks; it's the herbals marketed for immediate trysts that often are the problem.
Tight budgets, weak regulations and other priorities limit the FDA's ability to police the products, often promoted via blasts of e-mail spam and fly-by-night websites.
Linda Silvers, who leads an FDA team that targets fraudulent health products sold online said, ' a website can look sophisticated and legitimate, but actually be an illegal operation.'
In many cases, the ingredients used to alter herbal pills come from Asia, particularly China, where the sexual enhancers are cooked up in labs at the beginning of a winding supply chain.
The FDA has placed pills by two manufacturers in China and one from Malaysia on an import watch list.
Spiked pills have turned up in Thailand, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the United Kingdom and the United States, according to testing done by Pfizer Inc., the New York-based pharmaceutical giant that developed Viagra.
The company said that 69 per cent of 3,400 supplements it purchased in China contained sildenafil citrate, the main ingredient in Viagra.
Pfizer didn't check for the patented ingredients of its rivals.
While herbal alternatives often contain exact copies of the patented drugs, some makers tweak the molecules to keep the effect of the original pharmaceutical while avoiding the scrutiny of the FDA and outside testing labs.
During the past year, the FDA has orchestrated eight recalls of 'herbal' pills that contained the ingredients found in Viagra, Cialis or Levitra, or their unregulated chemical cousins. -- AP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A perfect example to illustrate why "herbal" remedies that are marketed as natural and safe can be the exact opposite of what they are suppose to be. How did the manufacturers of these remedies know that their products are safe? Did they run tests on them? Maybe Pfizer did so on their behalf.
To add insult to injury, the herbal sex pills were not even "natural". There were in fact pirated versions of the real thing.
Seems like the lines between alternative medicine, quackery and fraud is starting to blur. Oh, was there even a distinction between them in the first place?
Showing posts with label alternative medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alternative medicine. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
IMBS's War on Everything: War on pots and kettles (Alternative medicine)
Nov 11, 2007
No cane, no gain?
Many flocked to Jurong West last week for an offbeat treatment for aches and pains: caning
By Debbie Yong
THEY sat on red plastic stools in a loose circle at an HDB void deck in Jurong West, waiting for their turn to be caned.
They pointed, whispered to one another and occasionally cringed as they watched an elderly man in the middle use a slim wooden rod to repeatedly strike at a bare-bodied man until his flesh turned red and raw.
Some passers-by stopped to stare before continuing on their way with a shudder.Mostly middle-aged and complaining of backaches and muscle soreness, the crowd of about 25 who had gathered at Block 987C in Jurong West Street 93 on Thursday afternoon believed caning to be a form of physiotherapy.
'My shoulders used to be very stiff but after my first caning session four days ago, I feel much better,' said bus driver Chua Cheng Hui, 55, who was on his third visit.
'I want to catch Master Goh one last time before he leaves,' he added, referring to physiotherapist Goh Seng Guan, 72.
Mr Goh, a Malaysian, was on a one-week trip to visit friends in Singapore from last Saturday to Friday.
But he ended up working throughout his holiday after a Shin Min Daily News report on Monday on his unusual form of therapy sent readers knocking on the door of his Singaporean hosts, Mr Png Peng Siah, 60, and Madam Qui Em, 56.
He promptly set up a makeshift shop outside their ground- floor flat, with Mr Png and Madam Qui taking turns to record customers' names and issue queue numbers.
Over the next three days, he whipped a steady stream of about 50 to 70 customers a day, working from 10am to 10pm with short breaks in between for meals.
He charged about $20 per person. The cash was discreetly pocketed at the end of each five-minute caning session.
Mr Goh, who runs two orthopaedic centres in Betong, southern Thailand, and Penang, Malaysia, with his wife, said he learnt the skill from a Tibetan lama when he was 20 and has been doing it for the last 50 years.
He claimed to be a certified Chinese physician in Thailand, but did not have his certificate with him.
His work tools: home-brewed medicated oil with his portrait on the label and 11 wooden rods of varying lengths and thickness laid out on a small wooden table.
The caning helps to loosen up muscles and improve blood circulation, he explained, as he pointed out black bruises that had appeared on clients' skins, indicating 'toxins that were being purged from the blood circulation system'.
Madam Qui, a cleaner, first met him in 1996, when she sought treatment for a pain in her shoulder at his Thailand centre, on a friend's recommendation.
His first visit here was with his wife last December, when Madam Qui invited them for a holiday.
Many of his customers, an equal mix of men and women, said they were trying it out of curiosity.
One resident of the same block, painter Ramdan Sardon, 45, who complained of a chronic backache, said: 'I see so many people here queueing from morning to night, maybe it works.'
Maintenance officer Vincent Loh, 35, said the pain was bearable, but acknowledged that he would have to wait a few days to know if the caning was effective, by which time Mr Goh would have left.
Insurance agent Raymond Goh, 53, said he came because the acupuncture treatment he had received for his sore calf in the past year was not working.
'It's more painful than death - this is the first and last time I'm doing it,' he said as he hobbled away with a swollen calf.
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners interviewed were sceptical about the effectiveness of this treatment.
Physiotherapist Simon Toh, 55, said there used to be a shop specialising in caning therapy at People's Park Complex run by a Taiwanese woman, but it shut after less than a year.
He said: 'Singaporeans prefer to play safe with conventional methods of treatment. People might try it only as a last resort, after taking Western medicine or seeing TCM physicians.'
Retired TCM practitioner Liang Ming Na, 60, said it was a 'very ancient practice' which originated from rural villages and is not orthodox.
Thye Shan Medical Hall's Madam Tang Eng Hua said: 'It does not have any scientific basis. The bruises could be a result of repeated hitting and anyone can rub a sore muscle to make it loosen up and feel better.
'Furthermore, it must be done with skill and care. If not, you could end up hurting someone, especially when it's the elderly.'
One passer-by at the scene, interior designer Wendy Goh, 41, saw the queue and quipped: 'Why should I pay someone to beat me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! 50-70 "patients" per day at $20 each, nets Master Goh $30,000 a month at least if he works on weekends as well. T_T I DON'T WANT TO STUDY ANYMORE ALREADY!!!!!! I might as well go cane someone as well!
On a more serious note, can the caning treatment work? Apparently, it could very well "work", according to the Gate control theory of pain and depending on your definition of what is considered effective. An simple explanation, without all that jargon on wikipedia of how caning is supposed to help relieve your pain goes like this: If you hurt your foot, pinching you arm will "distract" your attention from the pain of your foot, thereby making you feel less pain from your foot. This means that you might was well go cane yourself. You don't need a "Master" to cane you. You could even pay me $10 to cane you!!!
But this is not the main point of this post.
This is the main point
"Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners interviewed were sceptical about the effectiveness of this treatment. "
What were the reasons given by TCM practitioners?
"Retired TCM practitioner Liang Ming Na, 60, said it was a 'very ancient practice' which originated from rural villages and is not orthodox. "
"Thye Shan Medical Hall's Madam Tang Eng Hua said: 'It does not have any scientific basis. The bruises could be a result of repeated hitting and anyone can rub a sore muscle to make it loosen up and feel better. "
Orthodoxy has got nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment. A treatment is effective because it works, not because it is orthodox. By the way, I sure the rest of the TCM practices are damn orthodox. :) As for Madam Tang's claim that caning doesn't have any scientific basis, I would say caning is likely to have as much scientific basis as acupuncture. :) Talk about pot calling kettle black!
No cane, no gain?
Many flocked to Jurong West last week for an offbeat treatment for aches and pains: caning
By Debbie Yong
THEY sat on red plastic stools in a loose circle at an HDB void deck in Jurong West, waiting for their turn to be caned.
They pointed, whispered to one another and occasionally cringed as they watched an elderly man in the middle use a slim wooden rod to repeatedly strike at a bare-bodied man until his flesh turned red and raw.
Some passers-by stopped to stare before continuing on their way with a shudder.Mostly middle-aged and complaining of backaches and muscle soreness, the crowd of about 25 who had gathered at Block 987C in Jurong West Street 93 on Thursday afternoon believed caning to be a form of physiotherapy.
'My shoulders used to be very stiff but after my first caning session four days ago, I feel much better,' said bus driver Chua Cheng Hui, 55, who was on his third visit.
'I want to catch Master Goh one last time before he leaves,' he added, referring to physiotherapist Goh Seng Guan, 72.
Mr Goh, a Malaysian, was on a one-week trip to visit friends in Singapore from last Saturday to Friday.
But he ended up working throughout his holiday after a Shin Min Daily News report on Monday on his unusual form of therapy sent readers knocking on the door of his Singaporean hosts, Mr Png Peng Siah, 60, and Madam Qui Em, 56.
He promptly set up a makeshift shop outside their ground- floor flat, with Mr Png and Madam Qui taking turns to record customers' names and issue queue numbers.
Over the next three days, he whipped a steady stream of about 50 to 70 customers a day, working from 10am to 10pm with short breaks in between for meals.
He charged about $20 per person. The cash was discreetly pocketed at the end of each five-minute caning session.
Mr Goh, who runs two orthopaedic centres in Betong, southern Thailand, and Penang, Malaysia, with his wife, said he learnt the skill from a Tibetan lama when he was 20 and has been doing it for the last 50 years.
He claimed to be a certified Chinese physician in Thailand, but did not have his certificate with him.
His work tools: home-brewed medicated oil with his portrait on the label and 11 wooden rods of varying lengths and thickness laid out on a small wooden table.
The caning helps to loosen up muscles and improve blood circulation, he explained, as he pointed out black bruises that had appeared on clients' skins, indicating 'toxins that were being purged from the blood circulation system'.
Madam Qui, a cleaner, first met him in 1996, when she sought treatment for a pain in her shoulder at his Thailand centre, on a friend's recommendation.
His first visit here was with his wife last December, when Madam Qui invited them for a holiday.
Many of his customers, an equal mix of men and women, said they were trying it out of curiosity.
One resident of the same block, painter Ramdan Sardon, 45, who complained of a chronic backache, said: 'I see so many people here queueing from morning to night, maybe it works.'
Maintenance officer Vincent Loh, 35, said the pain was bearable, but acknowledged that he would have to wait a few days to know if the caning was effective, by which time Mr Goh would have left.
Insurance agent Raymond Goh, 53, said he came because the acupuncture treatment he had received for his sore calf in the past year was not working.
'It's more painful than death - this is the first and last time I'm doing it,' he said as he hobbled away with a swollen calf.
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners interviewed were sceptical about the effectiveness of this treatment.
Physiotherapist Simon Toh, 55, said there used to be a shop specialising in caning therapy at People's Park Complex run by a Taiwanese woman, but it shut after less than a year.
He said: 'Singaporeans prefer to play safe with conventional methods of treatment. People might try it only as a last resort, after taking Western medicine or seeing TCM physicians.'
Retired TCM practitioner Liang Ming Na, 60, said it was a 'very ancient practice' which originated from rural villages and is not orthodox.
Thye Shan Medical Hall's Madam Tang Eng Hua said: 'It does not have any scientific basis. The bruises could be a result of repeated hitting and anyone can rub a sore muscle to make it loosen up and feel better.
'Furthermore, it must be done with skill and care. If not, you could end up hurting someone, especially when it's the elderly.'
One passer-by at the scene, interior designer Wendy Goh, 41, saw the queue and quipped: 'Why should I pay someone to beat me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! 50-70 "patients" per day at $20 each, nets Master Goh $30,000 a month at least if he works on weekends as well. T_T I DON'T WANT TO STUDY ANYMORE ALREADY!!!!!! I might as well go cane someone as well!
On a more serious note, can the caning treatment work? Apparently, it could very well "work", according to the Gate control theory of pain and depending on your definition of what is considered effective. An simple explanation, without all that jargon on wikipedia of how caning is supposed to help relieve your pain goes like this: If you hurt your foot, pinching you arm will "distract" your attention from the pain of your foot, thereby making you feel less pain from your foot. This means that you might was well go cane yourself. You don't need a "Master" to cane you. You could even pay me $10 to cane you!!!
But this is not the main point of this post.
This is the main point
"Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners interviewed were sceptical about the effectiveness of this treatment. "
What were the reasons given by TCM practitioners?
"Retired TCM practitioner Liang Ming Na, 60, said it was a 'very ancient practice' which originated from rural villages and is not orthodox. "
"Thye Shan Medical Hall's Madam Tang Eng Hua said: 'It does not have any scientific basis. The bruises could be a result of repeated hitting and anyone can rub a sore muscle to make it loosen up and feel better. "
Orthodoxy has got nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment. A treatment is effective because it works, not because it is orthodox. By the way, I sure the rest of the TCM practices are damn orthodox. :) As for Madam Tang's claim that caning doesn't have any scientific basis, I would say caning is likely to have as much scientific basis as acupuncture. :) Talk about pot calling kettle black!
Friday, November 9, 2007
IMBS's War on Everything: Homeopathy
After reading about Angrydr's self-imposed fight against alternative medicine, I felt inspired by his quest and so I've decided to give him a hand in fighting the rubbish that alternative medicine is, even though I am stupid :(.
So for today, I shall pick an easy target =======> Homeopathy. I shall launch a preemptive strike against homeopathy before it gains popularity in Singapore, like how USA bombed the daylights out of Iraq just in case..............
What is homeopathy?
Homeopathy is a form a alternative medicine conceived by Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician who lived between 1755 to 1843. The follow excerpt from wikipedia describes how Hahnemann "discovers" homeopathy
"After giving up his practice he made his living chiefly as a writer and translator. While translating William Cullen's A Treatise on the Materia Medica, Hahnemann encountered the claim that Cinchona, the bark of a Peruvian tree, was effective in treating malaria because of its astringency. Hahnemann realised that other astringent substances are not effective against malaria and began to research cinchona's effect on the human organism very directly: by self-application. He discovered that the drug evoked malaria-like symptoms in himself, and concluded that it would do so in any healthy individual. This led him to postulate a healing principle: "that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms." This principle, like cures like, became the first of a new medicinal approach to which he gave the name homeopathy."
In essence, homeopathy is the idea that if eating shit can make you sick, eating shit will also cure your sickness?! What?! Don't ask me how that is going to work, go ask Hanhemann.
Alright, to be fair, that's not all that there is to homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are diluted. The more dilute the remedy is, the more potent it is apparently.
Here's how homeopathic remedies are created
"In producing treatments for diseases, homeopaths use a process called "dynamization" or "potentization" where the remedy is diluted into alcohol or water and then vigorously shaken by ten hard strikes against an elastic body in a process called "succussion". Hahnemann thought that the use of remedies which present symptoms similar to those of disease in healthy individuals would only intensify the symptoms and exacerbate the condition, so he advocated the dilution of the remedies to the point the symptoms were no longer experienced. During the process of potentization, homeopaths believe that the vital energy of the diluted substance is activated and its energy released by vigorous shaking of the substance ..............................
Three potency scales are in regular use in homeopathy. Hahnemann pioneered and always favored the centesimal or "C scale", diluting a substance 1 part in a 100 of diluent at each stage. A 2C dilution is one where a substance is diluted to one part in one hundred, then one part of that diluted solution is diluted to one part in one hundred. This works out to one part of the original solution to ten thousand parts (100x100) of diluent. A 6C dilution repeats the process six times, ending up with one part in 1,000,000,000,000. (100x100x100x100x100x100, or 1006) Other dilutions follow the same pattern. In homeopathy, a solution is described as higher potency the more dilute it is. Higher potencies - i.e. more dilute substances - are considered to be stronger deep-acting remedies."
In other words, your homeopathic remedy is just a very, very, very, very dilute solution of the substance that causes your illness.
"Hahnemann advocated 30C dilutions for most purposes (a dilution by a factor of 1060) and a common homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, called Oscillococcinum in homeopathy."
Does homeopathy work?
Ok, so the cure for the common flu is a dilution of duck liver. A 200C dilution to be precise, which is 1 part of duck liver in 100^200 parts of water. Now assuming that there is 1 molecule of duck liver, how much water would you need to achieve that degree of dilution?
No. of mols of water required = 100^200 / 6.02 x 10^23
= 1.66 x 10^376 mols
Weight of water required = 1.66 x 10^376 x 18g
= 3.00 x 10^377g
= 3.00 x 10^374kg
How much space would that amount of water fill?
Answer: 3.00 x 10^371 metres cube of space
That's the amount of water needed to fill a sphere with the radius of 4.15 x 10^123 metres. To put things into perspective, the greatest distance possible between the sun and Pluto, our furthest planet (or ex-planet) in the solar system is 5,906,376,272,000 metres. That's 5.92 x 10^12 metres. Wow! A sphere the size of our entire solar system is not sufficient to hold the amount of water needed to create a 200C homeopathic remedy for the common flu! Essentially, this means that there's no duck liver in your homeopathic remedy at all! Not even a single molecule of duck liver.
And for those who still attempt to defend homeopathy by appealing to have an open mind, how's this for a dose of reality from The Lancet?
"110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed...............
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects. "
So dear readers, it should be obvious to you by now that the only claim homeopathy can live up to is the claim that it is safe and has no side effects. This is because a homeopathic remedy is actually water. Do not think that just because a form of alternative medicine is very popular, has a long history, or is endorsed by the government means that it's effectiveness for in the UK, homeopathy is funded by their National Health Service.
So for today, I shall pick an easy target =======> Homeopathy. I shall launch a preemptive strike against homeopathy before it gains popularity in Singapore, like how USA bombed the daylights out of Iraq just in case..............
What is homeopathy?
Homeopathy is a form a alternative medicine conceived by Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician who lived between 1755 to 1843. The follow excerpt from wikipedia describes how Hahnemann "discovers" homeopathy
"After giving up his practice he made his living chiefly as a writer and translator. While translating William Cullen's A Treatise on the Materia Medica, Hahnemann encountered the claim that Cinchona, the bark of a Peruvian tree, was effective in treating malaria because of its astringency. Hahnemann realised that other astringent substances are not effective against malaria and began to research cinchona's effect on the human organism very directly: by self-application. He discovered that the drug evoked malaria-like symptoms in himself, and concluded that it would do so in any healthy individual. This led him to postulate a healing principle: "that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms." This principle, like cures like, became the first of a new medicinal approach to which he gave the name homeopathy."
In essence, homeopathy is the idea that if eating shit can make you sick, eating shit will also cure your sickness?! What?! Don't ask me how that is going to work, go ask Hanhemann.
Alright, to be fair, that's not all that there is to homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are diluted. The more dilute the remedy is, the more potent it is apparently.
Here's how homeopathic remedies are created
"In producing treatments for diseases, homeopaths use a process called "dynamization" or "potentization" where the remedy is diluted into alcohol or water and then vigorously shaken by ten hard strikes against an elastic body in a process called "succussion". Hahnemann thought that the use of remedies which present symptoms similar to those of disease in healthy individuals would only intensify the symptoms and exacerbate the condition, so he advocated the dilution of the remedies to the point the symptoms were no longer experienced. During the process of potentization, homeopaths believe that the vital energy of the diluted substance is activated and its energy released by vigorous shaking of the substance ..............................
Three potency scales are in regular use in homeopathy. Hahnemann pioneered and always favored the centesimal or "C scale", diluting a substance 1 part in a 100 of diluent at each stage. A 2C dilution is one where a substance is diluted to one part in one hundred, then one part of that diluted solution is diluted to one part in one hundred. This works out to one part of the original solution to ten thousand parts (100x100) of diluent. A 6C dilution repeats the process six times, ending up with one part in 1,000,000,000,000. (100x100x100x100x100x100, or 1006) Other dilutions follow the same pattern. In homeopathy, a solution is described as higher potency the more dilute it is. Higher potencies - i.e. more dilute substances - are considered to be stronger deep-acting remedies."
In other words, your homeopathic remedy is just a very, very, very, very dilute solution of the substance that causes your illness.
"Hahnemann advocated 30C dilutions for most purposes (a dilution by a factor of 1060) and a common homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, called Oscillococcinum in homeopathy."
Does homeopathy work?
Ok, so the cure for the common flu is a dilution of duck liver. A 200C dilution to be precise, which is 1 part of duck liver in 100^200 parts of water. Now assuming that there is 1 molecule of duck liver, how much water would you need to achieve that degree of dilution?
No. of mols of water required = 100^200 / 6.02 x 10^23
= 1.66 x 10^376 mols
Weight of water required = 1.66 x 10^376 x 18g
= 3.00 x 10^377g
= 3.00 x 10^374kg
How much space would that amount of water fill?
Answer: 3.00 x 10^371 metres cube of space
That's the amount of water needed to fill a sphere with the radius of 4.15 x 10^123 metres. To put things into perspective, the greatest distance possible between the sun and Pluto, our furthest planet (or ex-planet) in the solar system is 5,906,376,272,000 metres. That's 5.92 x 10^12 metres. Wow! A sphere the size of our entire solar system is not sufficient to hold the amount of water needed to create a 200C homeopathic remedy for the common flu! Essentially, this means that there's no duck liver in your homeopathic remedy at all! Not even a single molecule of duck liver.
And for those who still attempt to defend homeopathy by appealing to have an open mind, how's this for a dose of reality from The Lancet?
"110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed...............
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects. "
So dear readers, it should be obvious to you by now that the only claim homeopathy can live up to is the claim that it is safe and has no side effects. This is because a homeopathic remedy is actually water. Do not think that just because a form of alternative medicine is very popular, has a long history, or is endorsed by the government means that it's effectiveness for in the UK, homeopathy is funded by their National Health Service.
Friday, October 26, 2007
ST forum letter promoting Quackery? Decide for yourself
Letter from ST forum
TCM centre at SGH a boon to cancer patients
THE news on '$2.8m TCM centre at SGH from Nov'' and 'Meeting of East and West in research'' (ST, Oct 20), moved me to tears.
The great moment - my hope for the day when our local public medical institutions/hospitals can support the use of both Chinese and Western medicine in the treatment of cancer is likely to come true.
As the founder of Cancerstory.com, a volunteers' initiative, I strongly feel that cancer patients should not be deprived of a chance to survive if medical science cannot help them.
In reality, there are some patients who are already 'sentenced to death' by their medical doctors but who have survived cancer after receiving some form of safe and reliable complementary treatment such as TCM.
TCM treatments have been shown to help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life by lessening the side effects of conventional treatments and providing psychological and physical benefits to the patients.
Many cancer patients feel that no doctor will be pleased to learn of alternative life-saving antidotes that may threaten the 'supremacy' of Western medicine. When things go wrong, the doctors are also likely to put the blame on any form of complementary methods that their patients might be receiving alongside conventional treatment.
As a result, some patients decided to hide the fact that they were taking Chinese medicine even in instances when they were coping and progressing well during conventional treatment. Some doctors were amazed at the good results, but failed to discover the truth - that is, the efficacy of Chinese medicine.
However, I always encourage cancer patients to be truthful to their doctors. Lack of communication about TCM treatment and dietary supplements creates an information gap between doctors and patients that may result in poor cancer management.
Let's hope that the collaboration goes smoothly. To me, it will be the greatest gift to people living with cancer in the Remaking of Singapore - receiving true comprehensive cancer care and equal opportunities to fight cancer in their own stride.
If this happens, cancer patients no longer need to be concerned if TCM clashes with conventional treatment when treated by the 'East Meet West'' specialists in SGH.
Many cancer patients will no longer need to fork out hefty sums to consume expensive 'healing mushrooms'' such as lingzhi, yunzhi, maitake and agaricus.
A competent TCM practitioner/specialist is unlikely to treat cancer using an expensive single herb prescription.
Lee Soh Hong (Miss)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In reality, there are some patients who are already 'sentenced to death' by their medical doctors but who have survived cancer after receiving some form of safe and reliable complementary treatment such as TCM. "
Erm...... claiming credit for the efficacy of real medical treatment for cancer? How did you know it was the TCM herbs that sent the cancer into remission and not real medical treatment that was doing the job?
"TCM treatments have been shown to help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life by lessening the side effects of conventional treatments and providing psychological and physical benefits to the patients. "
That's a pretty big claim. But I wondered why you did not cite the research studies that suggests that TCM treatments can do all of those.
"Many cancer patients feel that no doctor will be pleased to learn of alternative life-saving antidotes that may threaten the 'supremacy' of Western medicine. When things go wrong, the doctors are also likely to put the blame on any form of complementary methods that their patients might be receiving alongside conventional treatment.
As a result, some patients decided to hide the fact that they were taking Chinese medicine even in instances when they were coping and progressing well during conventional treatment. Some doctors were amazed at the good results, but failed to discover the truth - that is, the efficacy of Chinese medicine. "
Doctors would be delighted if Chinese medicine were really efficacious for this would mean that the active ingredient in the herbs can be isolated, adding to the repertoire of anti-neoplastic drugs they have. The question is where is the evidence that demonstrate the efficacy of Chinese medicine?
This was what one study published by the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology said:
In conclusion, Chinese cancer patients, willingly, rampantly and non-selectively seek out and consume alternative medications, with almost total ignorance of the medication consumed, oblivious to any potential side effects, and with little subjective benefit.
Personally, I feel it is absolutely irresponsible of ST to publish such a letter that might skew the decision of a cancer patient towards using TCM rather than real medicine. All this letter is, is really an advertisement for TCM with misleading/dangerous/unsubstantiated claims. I mean where the hell are the studies that demonstrates the efficacy of TCM for cancer?
TCM centre at SGH a boon to cancer patients
THE news on '$2.8m TCM centre at SGH from Nov'' and 'Meeting of East and West in research'' (ST, Oct 20), moved me to tears.
The great moment - my hope for the day when our local public medical institutions/hospitals can support the use of both Chinese and Western medicine in the treatment of cancer is likely to come true.
As the founder of Cancerstory.com, a volunteers' initiative, I strongly feel that cancer patients should not be deprived of a chance to survive if medical science cannot help them.
In reality, there are some patients who are already 'sentenced to death' by their medical doctors but who have survived cancer after receiving some form of safe and reliable complementary treatment such as TCM.
TCM treatments have been shown to help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life by lessening the side effects of conventional treatments and providing psychological and physical benefits to the patients.
Many cancer patients feel that no doctor will be pleased to learn of alternative life-saving antidotes that may threaten the 'supremacy' of Western medicine. When things go wrong, the doctors are also likely to put the blame on any form of complementary methods that their patients might be receiving alongside conventional treatment.
As a result, some patients decided to hide the fact that they were taking Chinese medicine even in instances when they were coping and progressing well during conventional treatment. Some doctors were amazed at the good results, but failed to discover the truth - that is, the efficacy of Chinese medicine.
However, I always encourage cancer patients to be truthful to their doctors. Lack of communication about TCM treatment and dietary supplements creates an information gap between doctors and patients that may result in poor cancer management.
Let's hope that the collaboration goes smoothly. To me, it will be the greatest gift to people living with cancer in the Remaking of Singapore - receiving true comprehensive cancer care and equal opportunities to fight cancer in their own stride.
If this happens, cancer patients no longer need to be concerned if TCM clashes with conventional treatment when treated by the 'East Meet West'' specialists in SGH.
Many cancer patients will no longer need to fork out hefty sums to consume expensive 'healing mushrooms'' such as lingzhi, yunzhi, maitake and agaricus.
A competent TCM practitioner/specialist is unlikely to treat cancer using an expensive single herb prescription.
Lee Soh Hong (Miss)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In reality, there are some patients who are already 'sentenced to death' by their medical doctors but who have survived cancer after receiving some form of safe and reliable complementary treatment such as TCM. "
Erm...... claiming credit for the efficacy of real medical treatment for cancer? How did you know it was the TCM herbs that sent the cancer into remission and not real medical treatment that was doing the job?
"TCM treatments have been shown to help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life by lessening the side effects of conventional treatments and providing psychological and physical benefits to the patients. "
That's a pretty big claim. But I wondered why you did not cite the research studies that suggests that TCM treatments can do all of those.
"Many cancer patients feel that no doctor will be pleased to learn of alternative life-saving antidotes that may threaten the 'supremacy' of Western medicine. When things go wrong, the doctors are also likely to put the blame on any form of complementary methods that their patients might be receiving alongside conventional treatment.
As a result, some patients decided to hide the fact that they were taking Chinese medicine even in instances when they were coping and progressing well during conventional treatment. Some doctors were amazed at the good results, but failed to discover the truth - that is, the efficacy of Chinese medicine. "
Doctors would be delighted if Chinese medicine were really efficacious for this would mean that the active ingredient in the herbs can be isolated, adding to the repertoire of anti-neoplastic drugs they have. The question is where is the evidence that demonstrate the efficacy of Chinese medicine?
This was what one study published by the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology said:
In conclusion, Chinese cancer patients, willingly, rampantly and non-selectively seek out and consume alternative medications, with almost total ignorance of the medication consumed, oblivious to any potential side effects, and with little subjective benefit.
Personally, I feel it is absolutely irresponsible of ST to publish such a letter that might skew the decision of a cancer patient towards using TCM rather than real medicine. All this letter is, is really an advertisement for TCM with misleading/dangerous/unsubstantiated claims. I mean where the hell are the studies that demonstrates the efficacy of TCM for cancer?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Alternative medicine
What exactly is western/conventional medicine? Why do i trust it so much? Why do i oppose Chinese and alternative medicine so much? Am i biased against alternative medicine because of my training in western science?
First of all, i am not specifically against alternative medicine treatments for diseases. I couldn't care less what type of medicine is used as long as it works. Before advocates of alternative medicine jump at this opportunity and point out that certain treatments under alternative medicine are indeed efficacious, let me say that while certain type of alternative treatments do work, this does not mean that alternative medicine as a whole is effective. It's like saying all dogs are animals and since all dogs have four legs, all animals have four legs. That's a logical fallacy known as Hasty Generalization.
The reason why i am opposed to alternative medicine is because it is used without sufficient evidence to prove it's safety and efficacy. By proof, i do not mean anecdotal evidence. That in itself is also a logical fallacy know as Proof by Example. An example of that would be by saying
When one tries to use anecdotal evidence as proof such has knowing people who have been cured by alternative medicine or hearing stories about such beneficiaries, even if we play the devil's advocate and assume that the people who told such stories did not lie, one should consider the following:
1) Would they have recovered without any treatment in the first place?
2) Could it be the placebo effect which has been proven to be pretty powerful indeed?
3) How about those who died and hence were unable to tell you how "effective " those treatments were?
4) Is there a biased that enhances the circulation of such sucess stories? Eg. Those that benefited from alternative medicine seeking out others who have similar experiences and then spreading such stories together?
So proponents of alternative medicine might be tempted to attack western medicine by using the same arguments as i have put up above. To answer the question of how scientists determine if a particular drug is useful indeed, scientists frequently use a method of testing called a Double Blind test. The following description of a Double Blind test is taken from Wikipedia:
DR ANDY Ho, in his article, 'The metaphysics of existence' (ST, May 25), has confused the whole issue between science and religion.
First of all, to describe the difference between them as an adverbial one - between a 'how' and a 'why' - is very superficial.
All 'how' questions finally lead up to the 'why' question. Science is ultimately interested in the 'why' questions, the biggest of which is, 'Why is the universe the way it is?' In the broadest sense, this includes the question, 'Why does it exist at all?'
Both science and religion try to find answers to these same questions. There can be no comforting division of labour by which the areas of enquiry of the two endeavours can be kept nicely separate.
Because all the big questions are ultimately interrelated, the answers to the questions of value, meaning and purpose can only be glimpsed at through a proper understanding of how and why things are the way they are.
Science and religion differ on how they approach these questions. The processes they follow are diametrically opposite to each other.
Science follows a particular methodology for explaining the reality around us - the methodology of induction and deduction. Induction is based on data, and deduction on logic, which is formalised in the language of mathematics.
In fact, science is defined by this methodology, and not by the subject matter it studies, nor by its specific findings. As the scientist, John Casti, puts it in his book, Complexification, science is more of a verb than a noun.
Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with data or logic. Its approach to explaining the reality is based on speculation, dreams, mythologies, visions and subjective mysticism.
Dr Ho has got it completely wrong when he suggests that science defines reality by what can be studied by its method, that anything that cannot be so studied is denied existence, that all religious claims about transcendental non-material reality are 'defined away' and are 'not allowed' to exist.
This is a bad distortion of the scientific approach. In fact, Dr Ho turns the scientific epistemology on its head.
Science does not compartmentalise reality into that section which is amenable to its method, and that which is not and then 'define' away the latter. There is no reality, as experienced by human beings, either directly or indirectly, that cannot be studied by science. But it has one dogma. It will only follow the method of induction and deduction - data and logic - in trying to understand this reality.
But, why this dogma? What is so great about induction and deduction? Well, it is the only method that works. We survive in the real world (and have survived throughout the whole history of our existence on this planet) by applying consciously or unconsciously a myriad of technologies ranging from the simplest, such as a twig from a tree to scratch my itching back, to the most complex, such as the computer on which I am writing this.
All of these technologies are the result of understanding the nature of reality by applying the methods of induction and deduction, sometimes, almost intuitively, as in the case of the twig, and sometimes more deliberately, as in the case of the computer.
In contrast, there is not one single evidence of an alternative explanation of reality, through, mysticism, the supernatural, et cetera, actually working in the real world. There are millions of anecdotes, brilliant myths, evocative literature, but not one piece of verified evidence.
Now, in applying the principles of induction and deduction, there are many speculative hypotheses about the existence of various entities which do not pass the test - entities such as ghosts, angels and transcendental supernatural beings.
In this list could also be included things like unicorns and aether. Science does not believe in ghosts and spirits and God, not because they are not amenable to the scientific method, but because there is no evidence, empirical or logical, of their existence.
Science does not believe in unicorns and aether (any more), not because they are outside the scope of science, but there is no evidence of their existence. The supernatural is not 'ruled out by fiat', as Dr Ho says, but by lack of evidence.
Actually, the protagonists of religion and the supernatural are acutely conscious that they cannot stand up to the scrutiny of induction and deduction. So, they make out as if they are playing a different game, where the rules of induction and deduction do not apply; where a different epistemology rules.
They just postulate the existence of the supernatural and go on to build elaborate, but vague, speculative structures of concepts, not needing to be constrained at all, either by the demands of data or logic.
They package all that up in some obfuscating verbiage and call it a special kind of reality which science cannot penetrate, thereby hoping to gain legitimacy for their unbridled speculation. Dr Ho's article is another exercise towards that end.
Now, anybody has the right to withdraw from the real world and create an artificial construct for his own pleasure. It is like playing Monopoly with its make-belief currency and special rules of property ownership based on the throw of a dice.
Everybody is entitled to such indulgence. Enormous trouble would arise, however, if the player attempted to use the Monopoly money for real-world transactions. Unfortunately that is what happens when religion claims to have explanations for the real world phenomena and thereby provide answers to questions of values, morality and purpose.
A quick word about the Anthropic Principle that Dr Ho touches on. It is only the Strong Anthropic Principle that hints towards a purposeful universe created by an ultimate 'first cause' with a purpose of its own.
But, hardly any scientist of note believes in the Strong Anthropic Principle. Most recognise the Weak Anthropic Principle, which does not require the postulation of a God-like being. There are various interesting attempts to solve the riddle of the fine-tuned 'cosmic constants' which make us, human beings, possible. Current 'Inflationary' theories are also attempting to answer the first cause question using the rules of quantum fluctuations. But the moot point is that all of these theories are subject to the harsh scrutiny of induction and deduction. Only those that pass will have a claim to reality.
Dr Ho ends his piece by advocating humility on both sides of the debate. Here also, let us take a reality check. Science is the most humble and humility-generating human endeavour. Since it relies on data which are ever changing, all scientific truths are 'contingent' - till such time as contrary data do not overthrow current truths.
There are no absolute truths which are unquestioned for all times to come. No matter how exalted the position of Einstein, one verified evidence of contrary data, no matter how lowly the student or research worker who generates it, will overthrow the theory of relativity, and replace it with some other that is better able to explain the new data.
Science is the only human endeavour that progresses by trying to prove itself wrong. It accepts a theory only if it has failed to do so - and even then, temporarily. The only absolute for science is its epistemology - data and logic.
Contrast this with the posture of religion. All religions claim absolute, universal, eternal truths which can never be questioned. Even though different religions propagate different wisdoms, they all claim that their truth has come directly from God. How much hubris is required to claim that a book that was written 2,000 years back has the answers to the problems of life today! There is no humble egalitarianism in religions. All religions arrogantly claim special dispensation from God for their adherents.
So, how should we deal with religion then? With great respect. Everybody should study religion - all religions. But only as history; as a part of mankind's brave striving to make sense of his reality.
It does not matter that the religious explanations of this reality do not hold water any more in the light of modern scientific epistemology. The subsequent invalidity of a hypothesis does not detract from the glory of exploring it in the first place.
Ptolemy and Newton are no less revered figures today, even though their schemes were overturned at a later date. The problem arises when religion is yanked out of its setting in history and is made to masquerade as an explanation of eternal reality and a prescription for modern life.
All the views expressed in this note are far better explained in Richard Dawkin's latest book, 'The God Delusion', which I strongly recommend to all readers.
First of all, i am not specifically against alternative medicine treatments for diseases. I couldn't care less what type of medicine is used as long as it works. Before advocates of alternative medicine jump at this opportunity and point out that certain treatments under alternative medicine are indeed efficacious, let me say that while certain type of alternative treatments do work, this does not mean that alternative medicine as a whole is effective. It's like saying all dogs are animals and since all dogs have four legs, all animals have four legs. That's a logical fallacy known as Hasty Generalization.
The reason why i am opposed to alternative medicine is because it is used without sufficient evidence to prove it's safety and efficacy. By proof, i do not mean anecdotal evidence. That in itself is also a logical fallacy know as Proof by Example. An example of that would be by saying
"I've seen a person shoot someone. Therefore, all people are murderers. "
When one tries to use anecdotal evidence as proof such has knowing people who have been cured by alternative medicine or hearing stories about such beneficiaries, even if we play the devil's advocate and assume that the people who told such stories did not lie, one should consider the following:
1) Would they have recovered without any treatment in the first place?
2) Could it be the placebo effect which has been proven to be pretty powerful indeed?
3) How about those who died and hence were unable to tell you how "effective " those treatments were?
4) Is there a biased that enhances the circulation of such sucess stories? Eg. Those that benefited from alternative medicine seeking out others who have similar experiences and then spreading such stories together?
So proponents of alternative medicine might be tempted to attack western medicine by using the same arguments as i have put up above. To answer the question of how scientists determine if a particular drug is useful indeed, scientists frequently use a method of testing called a Double Blind test. The following description of a Double Blind test is taken from Wikipedia:
"Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.
In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data are recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
Computer-controlled experiments are sometimes also referred to as double-blind experiments, since software should not cause any bias. In analogy to the above, the part of the software that provides interaction with the human is the blinded researcher, while the part of the software that defines the key is the third party. An example is the ABX test, where the human subject has to identify an unknown stimulus X as being either A or B."
In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data are recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
Computer-controlled experiments are sometimes also referred to as double-blind experiments, since software should not cause any bias. In analogy to the above, the part of the software that provides interaction with the human is the blinded researcher, while the part of the software that defines the key is the third party. An example is the ABX test, where the human subject has to identify an unknown stimulus X as being either A or B."
So would you choose to believe anecdotal evidence or a randomized double blind test?
Have all alternative medicine treatments undergone such rigourous testing before it is deemed to be effective?
Have they been all tested for safety/toxicity?
Say if such treatments are rigourously tested and are proven to work, i would be most delighted to accept them. I'm not closed minded, taking the stand that anything unconventional is bad. But the fact remains that alot of alternative treatments have yet to be tested rigourously. Let's see what happens when those treatments are scrutinised.
According to the article Acupuncture: Nonsense with Needles (1993) by Arthur Taub, M.D., Ph.D. a neurologist and clinical professor of anesthesiology and a lecturer in neurology at Yale University School of Medicine
"In 1974, I was a member of the Acupuncture Study Group of the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People’s Republic of China. Our group visited the Acupuncture Research Institute in Peking as well as traditional medical hospitals in the Shanghai region. There I observed one patient receive acupuncture treatment beginning two weeks after a stroke. Patients of this type tend to recover spontaneously and gradually. In fact, this patient, who had received acupuncture for six months, recovered no more and no less quickly than would be expected with no treatment or with a minimum of physical therapy. Several young women I examined had monthly migraine headaches associated with nausea, vomiting, spots before their eyes, and sensitivity to bright light. They told me that monthly acupuncture treatment limited their headaches to several days per month. They apparently did not know that this is the usual state of affairs without treatment."
This is his view on anesthetic accupuncture
"Acupuncture is not widely used in China as an “anesthetic.” A reasonable estimate of the total use of “acupuncture anesthesia” is approximately 5 to 10 percent. During our visit to China, the Acupuncture Study Group was able to substantiate a number of previous reports that almost all patients operated upon under “acupuncture anesthesia” received other agents in addition. This almost always included phenobarbital (a sedative) and meperidine (a narcotic painkiller) before and during the operation. Local anesthesia was also used liberally. I personally witnessed operations in which local anesthesia was used from beginning to end, but which were nevertheless classified as done under “acupuncture anesthesia.”"
And his view on accupuncture for pain relief
"It is reasonably clear that acupuncture cannot cure any disease. Does it relieve pain? My clinical experience with acupunctured patients suggests that any pain relief following the procedure is short-lived. Formal studies have shown conflicting results. In most instances, acupuncture produced no better relief than was produced by a placebo. In other studies, acupuncture did produce some degree of difficulty in distinguishing a previously painful stimulus from a nonpainful stimulus, but this relief was minimal, of short duration, and not at all comparable with the degree of relief claimed for conventional acupuncture therapy. In 1990, a trio of Dutch epidemiologists analyzed fifty-one controlled studies of acupuncture for chronic pain and concluded that “the quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. . . . The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful.”"
And here's one of the many dangers of accupuncture.
"Stimulation of the so-called Ya-men point is recommended for the treatment of nerve deafness in children. Scientific study has demonstrated that this technique is useless. The Ya-men point is located directly above the most sensitive part of the human nervous system, the junction between the spinal cord and the base of the brain. A needle entering this sensitive area can produce instant paralysis of arms and legs, stoppage of breathing, and death."
This is a list of articles done on the subject of accupuncture with proper referencing done so that in case you dispute any more the claims made in the papers, you can refer back to the original study done that brought about that conclusion.
And a piece of news from BBC
While there are many studies suggesting alternative treatments are efficious, i can say that most of not randomised, double blind and reproducible. This is not to say that i deny accupuncture has zero benefits at all. The question is are the benefits due to inserting needles at the right acu-points? Are the benefits the same as those needles inserted at random points? Are the benefits due to the placebo effect? Are the benefits due to experiment bias?
So why western medicine? This letter to the Straits Time will explain it much better than i can.
DR ANDY Ho, in his article, 'The metaphysics of existence' (ST, May 25), has confused the whole issue between science and religion.
First of all, to describe the difference between them as an adverbial one - between a 'how' and a 'why' - is very superficial.
All 'how' questions finally lead up to the 'why' question. Science is ultimately interested in the 'why' questions, the biggest of which is, 'Why is the universe the way it is?' In the broadest sense, this includes the question, 'Why does it exist at all?'
Both science and religion try to find answers to these same questions. There can be no comforting division of labour by which the areas of enquiry of the two endeavours can be kept nicely separate.
Because all the big questions are ultimately interrelated, the answers to the questions of value, meaning and purpose can only be glimpsed at through a proper understanding of how and why things are the way they are.
Science and religion differ on how they approach these questions. The processes they follow are diametrically opposite to each other.
Science follows a particular methodology for explaining the reality around us - the methodology of induction and deduction. Induction is based on data, and deduction on logic, which is formalised in the language of mathematics.
In fact, science is defined by this methodology, and not by the subject matter it studies, nor by its specific findings. As the scientist, John Casti, puts it in his book, Complexification, science is more of a verb than a noun.
Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with data or logic. Its approach to explaining the reality is based on speculation, dreams, mythologies, visions and subjective mysticism.
Dr Ho has got it completely wrong when he suggests that science defines reality by what can be studied by its method, that anything that cannot be so studied is denied existence, that all religious claims about transcendental non-material reality are 'defined away' and are 'not allowed' to exist.
This is a bad distortion of the scientific approach. In fact, Dr Ho turns the scientific epistemology on its head.
Science does not compartmentalise reality into that section which is amenable to its method, and that which is not and then 'define' away the latter. There is no reality, as experienced by human beings, either directly or indirectly, that cannot be studied by science. But it has one dogma. It will only follow the method of induction and deduction - data and logic - in trying to understand this reality.
But, why this dogma? What is so great about induction and deduction? Well, it is the only method that works. We survive in the real world (and have survived throughout the whole history of our existence on this planet) by applying consciously or unconsciously a myriad of technologies ranging from the simplest, such as a twig from a tree to scratch my itching back, to the most complex, such as the computer on which I am writing this.
All of these technologies are the result of understanding the nature of reality by applying the methods of induction and deduction, sometimes, almost intuitively, as in the case of the twig, and sometimes more deliberately, as in the case of the computer.
In contrast, there is not one single evidence of an alternative explanation of reality, through, mysticism, the supernatural, et cetera, actually working in the real world. There are millions of anecdotes, brilliant myths, evocative literature, but not one piece of verified evidence.
Now, in applying the principles of induction and deduction, there are many speculative hypotheses about the existence of various entities which do not pass the test - entities such as ghosts, angels and transcendental supernatural beings.
In this list could also be included things like unicorns and aether. Science does not believe in ghosts and spirits and God, not because they are not amenable to the scientific method, but because there is no evidence, empirical or logical, of their existence.
Science does not believe in unicorns and aether (any more), not because they are outside the scope of science, but there is no evidence of their existence. The supernatural is not 'ruled out by fiat', as Dr Ho says, but by lack of evidence.
Actually, the protagonists of religion and the supernatural are acutely conscious that they cannot stand up to the scrutiny of induction and deduction. So, they make out as if they are playing a different game, where the rules of induction and deduction do not apply; where a different epistemology rules.
They just postulate the existence of the supernatural and go on to build elaborate, but vague, speculative structures of concepts, not needing to be constrained at all, either by the demands of data or logic.
They package all that up in some obfuscating verbiage and call it a special kind of reality which science cannot penetrate, thereby hoping to gain legitimacy for their unbridled speculation. Dr Ho's article is another exercise towards that end.
Now, anybody has the right to withdraw from the real world and create an artificial construct for his own pleasure. It is like playing Monopoly with its make-belief currency and special rules of property ownership based on the throw of a dice.
Everybody is entitled to such indulgence. Enormous trouble would arise, however, if the player attempted to use the Monopoly money for real-world transactions. Unfortunately that is what happens when religion claims to have explanations for the real world phenomena and thereby provide answers to questions of values, morality and purpose.
A quick word about the Anthropic Principle that Dr Ho touches on. It is only the Strong Anthropic Principle that hints towards a purposeful universe created by an ultimate 'first cause' with a purpose of its own.
But, hardly any scientist of note believes in the Strong Anthropic Principle. Most recognise the Weak Anthropic Principle, which does not require the postulation of a God-like being. There are various interesting attempts to solve the riddle of the fine-tuned 'cosmic constants' which make us, human beings, possible. Current 'Inflationary' theories are also attempting to answer the first cause question using the rules of quantum fluctuations. But the moot point is that all of these theories are subject to the harsh scrutiny of induction and deduction. Only those that pass will have a claim to reality.
Dr Ho ends his piece by advocating humility on both sides of the debate. Here also, let us take a reality check. Science is the most humble and humility-generating human endeavour. Since it relies on data which are ever changing, all scientific truths are 'contingent' - till such time as contrary data do not overthrow current truths.
There are no absolute truths which are unquestioned for all times to come. No matter how exalted the position of Einstein, one verified evidence of contrary data, no matter how lowly the student or research worker who generates it, will overthrow the theory of relativity, and replace it with some other that is better able to explain the new data.
Science is the only human endeavour that progresses by trying to prove itself wrong. It accepts a theory only if it has failed to do so - and even then, temporarily. The only absolute for science is its epistemology - data and logic.
Contrast this with the posture of religion. All religions claim absolute, universal, eternal truths which can never be questioned. Even though different religions propagate different wisdoms, they all claim that their truth has come directly from God. How much hubris is required to claim that a book that was written 2,000 years back has the answers to the problems of life today! There is no humble egalitarianism in religions. All religions arrogantly claim special dispensation from God for their adherents.
So, how should we deal with religion then? With great respect. Everybody should study religion - all religions. But only as history; as a part of mankind's brave striving to make sense of his reality.
It does not matter that the religious explanations of this reality do not hold water any more in the light of modern scientific epistemology. The subsequent invalidity of a hypothesis does not detract from the glory of exploring it in the first place.
Ptolemy and Newton are no less revered figures today, even though their schemes were overturned at a later date. The problem arises when religion is yanked out of its setting in history and is made to masquerade as an explanation of eternal reality and a prescription for modern life.
All the views expressed in this note are far better explained in Richard Dawkin's latest book, 'The God Delusion', which I strongly recommend to all readers.
Shyamal Ghose
Western medicine VS Alternative medicine is not simply a "my belief is better than your's" kind of debate. From molecues to cells to organs to systems to your whole body, western science provides an explanation, backed by data from experiments all the way. It does not claim to be true because it has been used for the past 3,000 years. Mankind after all believed in ghost, witches, Sun revolving the Earth, Flat Earth for thousands of years after all. Besides believers in alternative medicine ought to take this perspective : Since alternative medicine has been around for thousands of years, why is it still not the dominant form of medicine?
And if you want to compare how effective Western medicine is compared to alternative medicine, just consider the following:
1) What wiped out small pox from the face of earth?
2) What dramatically increased the life expectanty of humans
3) What dramtically decreased infant mortality rates
4) What allowed the diabetic patient to live a much longer life than in the past?
5) What allowed the mentally ill to live relatively normal lives?
So you ask me: Why is Alternative Medicine so popular?
Perhaps it is can be explained by the seer-sucker theory: No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, suckers will pay for the existence of seers.
When there are people who believe in the effects of alternative medicine, there will be others who will provide supply to such demand. Astrology, psychics, geomancers, gods, UFOs, lochness monsters etc. And speaking of geomancers, this incident illustrates why you should be taken in by unverified claims on the basis of "it might just work, no harm done"
Or perhaps most of us are gullible, unable to critically analyse the claims of others which is compounded by a lack of knowledge. After all when you know nothing, it is rather hard to refute the claims of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
