Homeopathy - grrrrrr

[Twa Cairpets]

I've just has an argument with a friend of mine regarding one of my pet bugbears. Homeopathy.

His wife is suffering from some skin complaint, and after going into a natural remedy/health food place down south, has decided to go with a homepathic "cure" rather than seeing a doctor or using something with some medicinal benefit. The justification? "Last time she had a cold, she took a homeopathic pill and ta-dah! within three or four days the cold had gone and she felt much better. Perish the mere thought that maybe, just maybe she would have got better without it.

Whilst I've nothing against my friends wife - she is with respect to all other things a sensible, pleasant person - this absolutely drives me mad. :grr: Utter, utter bunkum masquerading as medicine for people who are willing to be duped into buying (if its not an oxymoron) diluted water as cure for whatever ails them.

Anyone agree, or should I just go and lie down in a dark room?

[CropleyWasGod]

I've just has an argument with a friend of mine regarding one of my pet bugbears. Homeopathy.

His wife is suffering from some skin complaint, and after going into a natural remedy/health food place down south, has decided to go with a homepathic "cure" rather than seeing a doctor or using something with some medicinal benefit. The justification? "Last time she had a cold, she took a homeopathic pill and ta-dah! within three or four days the cold had gone and she felt much better. Perish the mere thought that maybe, just maybe she would have got better without it.

Whilst I've nothing against my friends wife - she is with respect to all other things a sensible, pleasant person - this absolutely drives me mad. :grr: Utter, utter bunkum masquerading as medicine for people who are willing to be duped into buying (if its not an oxymoron) diluted water as cure for whatever ails them.

Anyone agree, or should I just go and lie down in a dark room?

I remain open-minded about all sorts of so-called alternative medicines. (how anyone can call the likes of acupuncture "alternative" when one-quarter of the world's population have been using it for centuries beats me).

Back to the point. The mind is a strange beast, and one we have a lot to learn about. It often happens that folk recover from ailments "as a result of" pills, therapy, homoepathic stuff etc.... when, it could be argued, it is the subconscious mind that is doing the reparing. "I am taking something for it, therefore I will get better".

It therefore follows, with that logic, that any homeopathic remedies probably work... not on the body, but on the mind. Ergo they do their job, and are worth the money.

Or am I being an auld hippie?

[ancienthibby]

I've just has an argument with a friend of mine regarding one of my pet bugbears. Homeopathy.

His wife is suffering from some skin complaint, and after going into a natural remedy/health food place down south, has decided to go with a homepathic "cure" rather than seeing a doctor or using something with some medicinal benefit. The justification? "Last time she had a cold, she took a homeopathic pill and ta-dah! within three or four days the cold had gone and she felt much better. Perish the mere thought that maybe, just maybe she would have got better without it.

Whilst I've nothing against my friends wife - she is with respect to all other things a sensible, pleasant person - this absolutely drives me mad. :grr: Utter, utter bunkum masquerading as medicine for people who are willing to be duped into buying (if its not an oxymoron) diluted water as cure for whatever ails them.

Anyone agree, or should I just go and lie down in a dark room?

That's my recommendation for you!!:devil:

[Jack]

Your Guide to Quackery :thumbsup:

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html)

[PeeJay]

I've just has an argument with a friend of mine regarding one of my pet bugbears. Homeopathy.

His wife is suffering from some skin complaint, and after going into a natural remedy/health food place down south, has decided to go with a homepathic "cure" rather than seeing a doctor or using something with some medicinal benefit. The justification? "Last time she had a cold, she took a homeopathic pill and ta-dah! within three or four days the cold had gone and she felt much better. Perish the mere thought that maybe, just maybe she would have got better without it.

Whilst I've nothing against my friends wife - she is with respect to all other things a sensible, pleasant person - this absolutely drives me mad. :grr: Utter, utter bunkum masquerading as medicine for people who are willing to be duped into buying (if its not an oxymoron) diluted water as cure for whatever ails them.

Anyone agree, or should I just go and lie down in a dark room?

Agree wholeheartedly! :thumbsup: My wife and many of her friends here in Germany swear by it however: we often argue about, all to no avail! I've decided that - at the end of the day - if it helps cure an ailment, then it's sort of OK with me. It's all nonsense of course, and the industry that has arisen from this glorified marketing of the placebo under a different name is my main "bugbear".

A recent study in Switzerland basically put the whole idea to bed as bunkum and hocus pocus - yet people still stick by it, I ask you: what can you do with people of 'faith'??:confused:

[ancienthibby]

Agree wholeheartedly! :thumbsup: My wife and many of her friends here in Germany swear by it however: we often argue about, all to no avail! I've decided that - at the end of the day - if it helps cure an ailment, then it's sort of OK with me. It's all nonsense of course, and the industry that has arisen from this glorified marketing of the placebo under a different name is my main "bugbear".

A recent study in Switzerland basically put the whole idea to bed as bunkum and hocus pocus - yet people still stick by it, I ask you: what can you do with people of 'faith'??:confused:

Listen to them!!:devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

My feeling is that if medical science can't explain how something works, it is regarded as a lesser cure than something they can explain. Homeopathy is based on the wisdom built up by mankind over several thousand years.

Then in the 18th Century we have the so-called age of reason, and the scientists start to take control of our lives, if something can't be measured it is no use.

Take this example. Cannabis has been shown to have therapeutic benefits in a number of conditions, such as asthma, and multiple sclerosis. However, rather than just give people cannabis, science is struggling to invent a product that mimics cannabis. Lunacy, utter lunacy.

I also believe that St John's Wort and Gingko Bilaboa have therapeutic value. Again though doctors have to prescribe drugs that have been licensed following scientific testing. So there is a place for homeopathy alongside "conventional (since the 18th Century at least) medicine".

When it comes to treating people's suffering nobody should be so arrogant as to say that they have the only right way. We are all unique organisms and have our own unique responses to interventions.

[HibsMax]

I have no personal experience with homeopathy so I can't swear that it's pish but I am not impressed by what I've read.

@TwoCarpets - what is diluted water? :wink:

[HibsMax]

I also believe that St John's Wort and Gingko Bilaboa have therapeutic value.

are these homeopathic remedies though? I thought they were herbal extracts, etc. which is different than what homeopathy is.

[Beefster]

My feeling is that if medical science can't explain how something works, it is regarded as a lesser cure than something they can explain. Homeopathy is based on the wisdom built up by mankind over several thousand years.

Then in the 18th Century we have the so-called age of reason, and the scientists start to take control of our lives, if something can't be measured it is no use.

Take this example. Cannabis has been shown to have therapeutic benefits in a number of conditions, such as asthma, and multiple sclerosis. However, rather than just give people cannabis, science is struggling to invent a product that mimics cannabis. Lunacy, utter lunacy.

I also believe that St John's Wort and Gingko Bilaboa have therapeutic value. Again though doctors have to prescribe drugs that have been licensed following scientific testing. So there is a place for homeopathy alongside "conventional (since the 18th Century at least) medicine".

When it comes to treating people's suffering nobody should be so arrogant as to say that they have the only right way. We are all unique organisms and have our own unique responses to interventions.

I agree but this ignores the fact that homeopathy sells either pure water or sugar pills as a 'cure'. The diluation that takes place means that the vast majority of product sold hasn't one single molecule of the supposedly active ingredient.

Completely different from herbal remedies, acupuncture and the rest.

[lapsedhibee]

Utter, utter bunkum masquerading as medicine for people who are willing to be duped into buying (if its not an oxymoron) diluted water as cure for whatever ails them.

Agree completely that selling people diluted water is an utter scam. I have found however that a small dose of dehydrated H2O works wonders, and thoroughly recommend it. Very hard to get hold of, unfortunately.

[PeeJay]

:hilarious
Listen to them!!:devil:

Sorry - just couldn't resist it somehow! :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

My feeling is that if medical science can't explain how something works, it is regarded as a lesser cure than something they can explain. Homeopathy is based on the wisdom built up by mankind over several thousand years.

Then in the 18th Century we have the so-called age of reason, and the scientists start to take control of our lives, if something can't be measured it is no use.

Take this example. Cannabis has been shown to have therapeutic benefits in a number of conditions, such as asthma, and multiple sclerosis. However, rather than just give people cannabis, science is struggling to invent a product that mimics cannabis. Lunacy, utter lunacy.

I also believe that St John's Wort and Gingko Bilaboa have therapeutic value. Again though doctors have to prescribe drugs that have been licensed following scientific testing. So there is a place for homeopathy alongside "conventional (since the 18th Century at least) medicine".

When it comes to treating people's suffering nobody should be so arrogant as to say that they have the only right way. We are all unique organisms and have our own unique responses to interventions.

Sorry Filled Rolls, its not. It was invented by a guy called Hahnemann in the 19th century on the basis of the then belief that the body was controlled by the four humous of phlegm, blood, black bile and green bile (iirc), and that to get better you had to balance them. His idea was that like-cures-like, so that a massively diluted dose, say, of something that seemed to cause a fever would cure a fever. But the neat bit - and the utterly, utterly bonkers/insane/looney-toons bit - is that the more its diluted the better it becomes? Huh? What they do is put a bit of a causative agent into water, and dilute 100 times. Then they dilute it again. And again. And again. They dilute it to the point where it is a virtual statistical impossibility that even one molecule of the original solution is left in the final solution. So how does it work? Ah, the water memorises the benefits somehow? What??? Get the white coats out!

Its pish. Its water. Its not phenomenal.

[Twa Cairpets]

Your Guide to Quackery :thumbsup:

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html)

Quackwatch is a great site. I can recommend this one too. Skeptoid Link (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4034)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry Filled Rolls, its not. It was invented by a guy called Hahnemann in the 19th century on the basis of the then belief that the body was controlled by the four humous of phlegm, blood, black bile and green bile (iirc), and that to get better you had to balance them. His idea was that like-cures-like, so that a massively diluted dose, say, of something that seemed to cause a fever would cure a fever. But the neat bit - and the utterly, utterly bonkers/insane/looney-toons bit - is that the more its diluted the better it becomes? Huh? What they do is put a bit of a causative agent into water, and dilute 100 times. Then they dilute it again. And again. And again. They dilute it to the point where it is a virtual statistical impossibility that even one molecule of the original solution is left in the final solution. So how does it work? Ah, the water memorises the benefits somehow? What??? Get the white coats out!

Its pish. Its water. Its not phenomenal.

Sorry, I am confusing herbal/natural remedies with something else.

This sounds like those Bach herbal remedies you get, I have to say I've got my doubts about those.

[Killiehibbie]

I generally find some distilled water far more therapeutic.

[Jay]

Sorry, I am confusing herbal/natural remedies with something else.

This sounds like those Bach herbal remedies you get, I have to say I've got my doubts about those.

I feel the same. Not convinced with the bach stuff but we use echinachea(sp) arnica, lavender and a few others. I also know that some of the chinese herbal stuff works where traditional medicines failed as I have seen it with my own eyes.

[Twa Cairpets]

I feel the same. Not convinced with the bach stuff but we use echinachea(sp) arnica, lavender and a few others. I also know that some of the chinese herbal stuff works where traditional medicines failed as I have seen it with my own eyes.

But I would ask what it is you have seen? If you give someone something and they get better, what is there to say that they wouldnt have got better anyway?

There is a good reason why "alternative" medicine is alternative. It doesnt work. If it did, it would be called medicine, and drug companies would be exploiting it.

As a general disclaimer, I would agree that that there is a value in them as placebos, but it's small, and if its the choice between a sugar pill placebo a glass of water or some medicine, give me the medicine every time.

[Jay]

But I would ask what it is you have seen? If you give someone something and they get better, what is there to say that they wouldnt have got better anyway?

There is a good reason why "alternative" medicine is alternative. It doesnt work. If it did, it would be called medicine, and drug companies would be exploiting it.

As a general disclaimer, I would agree that that there is a value in them as placebos, but it's small, and if its the choice between a sugar pill placebo a glass of water or some medicine, give me the medicine every time.

It was a child who suffered terribly painful muscle spasms. The docs gave her all the conventional medicine they could to no avail so her family got her chinese heral stuff (the family were chinese)- it absolutely stank! Within hours she was much improved and if she didn't get it it happened again.

[Jay]

Arnica definitely works, I now have it in a cream but I can tell you the pure stuff definitely reduces bruising My son now rubs the cream into his achilles and its definitely helping along with the conventional stuff.

I am currently trying my 8 year old with echinachea as he has a very poor immune system, the docs are not interested in the fact he had a poor school attendance last winter due to virus after virus and he also cannot seem to build up an immunity to verruccas. I'll get back to you on that one:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

It was a child who suffered terribly painful muscle spasms. The docs gave her all the conventional medicine they could to no avail so her family got her chinese heral stuff (the family were chinese)- it absolutely stank! Within hours she was much improved and if she didn't get it it happened again.

I cant comment on the example but if it appeared to work for them, great. My point though is if it really is a "miracle" cure, it would be double blind tested in clinical trials, the active ingredient discovered, and then taken out into the market where someone would make a fortune.

[HibsMax]

There is a good reason why "alternative" medicine is alternative. It doesnt work. If it did, it would be called medicine, and drug companies would be exploiting it.
Drug companies would find it VERY difficult to exploit something that was much more readily available and cheaper. Alternative medicine is a massive risk to these guys since they spend billions of dollars and years on research. Speaking purely in monetary terms, it's in the drug companies' best interest for alternative medicine to be relegated to folklore and such.

[Jay]

What about the flora pro active stuff? Its proven to reduce cholestorol.Its plant/botanic stuff is it not?

[(((Fergus)))]

Sorry Filled Rolls, its not. It was invented by a guy called Hahnemann in the 19th century on the basis of the then belief that the body was controlled by the four humous of phlegm, blood, black bile and green bile (iirc), and that to get better you had to balance them. His idea was that like-cures-like, so that a massively diluted dose, say, of something that seemed to cause a fever would cure a fever. But the neat bit - and the utterly, utterly bonkers/insane/looney-toons bit - is that the more its diluted the better it becomes? Huh? What they do is put a bit of a causative agent into water, and dilute 100 times. Then they dilute it again. And again. And again. They dilute it to the point where it is a virtual statistical impossibility that even one molecule of the original solution is left in the final solution. So how does it work? Ah, the water memorises the benefits somehow? What??? Get the white coats out!

Its pish. Its water. Its not phenomenal.

With respect, I think you need to study it a bit more; Hahnemann does not concern himself with the four humours - that was part of the old school thinking he discarded. He was part of the enlightenment movement to free the "reason-gifted mind". He was not, however, a materialist, i.e., he recognised the existence of immaterial phenomena, e.g., magnetism.

Also, you're mistaken in describing the production of homoeopathic medicines as "dilutation"; it is a combination of dilution and succussion. (Succussion is a process similar to that used to magnetise metal.) The only way to test whether these medicines have any power to affect the human being is to do what Hahneman did: test their effects on healthypeople. In Hahnemann's case, he began with himself, then his family, then colleagues/students.

Personally, I would not do this, but if, in the spirit of unprejudiced investigation, you feel compelled to do so, only use a single low potency, take one dose at a time and give your body the time to react. A friend of mine took causticum in repeat doses for over a week trying to see if there was anything to it. His body only had the opportunity to react (violently) once he'd stopped and of course by that time he'd dosed himself heavily. Nearly killed himself but it clarified the issue for him.

A safer - although still painful - starting point would be to test the main principle in Homoeopathy, similia similibus curentur (let like cure like):


Get a source of heat, e.g., cooker ring on full or candle.
Carefully burn a small area of skin on your left hand. Now run the burnt area under cold water.
Carefully burn a small area of skin on your right hand. In this case, return the burnt area towards the heat, as close as you can stand it. Better still, dab it with boiling brandy on a bit of cotton wool. Do it until it feels better.
Observe the differences over the days/weeks ahead.

If you want to read what Hahnemann actually wrote, I'd recommend Spirit of the Homoeopathic Medical Doctrine, an essay included in this work:

http://www.homeopathybulgaria.org/todormed/SAMUEL%20HAHNEMANN-MATERIA%20MEDICA%20PURA.pdf

[Twa Cairpets]

Drug companies would find it VERY difficult to exploit something that was much more readily available and cheaper. Alternative medicine is a massive risk to these guys since they spend billions of dollars and years on research. Speaking purely in monetary terms, it's in the drug companies' best interest for alternative medicine to be relegated to folklore and such.

Sorry Max, but that is really twisted logic and edging on some "Big Pharma" conspiracy.

"...they spend billions of dollars and years on research" Yes they do. So one of there researchers says "hey, this chinese herbal remedy really worked for my neighbours back spasms", wouldnt they then spend their billions on researching and developing that?

Drug companies would find it VERY difficult to exploit something that was much more readily available and cheaper. This would be true if everyone who used alternative medicine does so by wandering around hedgerows picking out natures bounty. But they don't, they go to herbal shops and buy it neatly packaged, at a price way, way in excess of its cost. If you think that a big pharamceutical business couldnt do it a lot more cheaply, you are miles off the mark. They dont do it because its not medicine.

Just keep thinking homeopathy. Its either water or sugar pills, and its sold for a fortune.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------


What about the flora pro active stuff? Its proven to reduce cholestorol.Its plant/botanic stuff is it not?

I will look into it:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I feel the same. Not convinced with the bach stuff but we use echinachea(sp) arnica, lavender and a few others. I also know that some of the chinese herbal stuff works where traditional medicines failed as I have seen it with my own eyes.

I've heard those Hopi candles that you stick in your ear and set light to are really good for all sorts of thjings.

[Twa Cairpets]

With respect, I think you need to study it a bit more; Hahnemann does not concern himself with the four humours - that was part of the old school thinking he discarded. He was part of the enlightenment movement to free the "reason-gifted mind". He was not, however, a materialist, i.e., he recognised the existence of immaterial phenomena, e.g., magnetism.

Also, you're mistaken in describing the production of homoeopathic medicines as "dilutation"; it is a combination of dilution and succussion. (Succussion is a process similar to that used to magnetise metal.) The only way to test whether these medicines have any power to affect the human being is to do what Hahneman did: test their effects on healthypeople. In Hahnemann's case, he began with himself, then his family, then colleagues/students.

Personally, I would not do this, but if, in the spirit of unprejudiced investigation, you feel compelled to do so, only use a single low potency, take one dose at a time and give your body the time to react. A friend of mine took causticum in repeat doses for over a week trying to see if there was anything to it. His body only had the opportunity to react (violently) once he'd stopped and of course by that time he'd dosed himself heavily. Nearly killed himself but it clarified the issue for him.

A safer - although still painful - starting point would be to test the main principle in Homoeopathy, similia similibus curentur (let like cure like):


Get a source of heat, e.g., cooker ring on full or candle.
Carefully burn a small area of skin on your left hand. Now run the burnt area under cold water.
Carefully burn a small area of skin on your right hand. In this case, return the burnt area towards the heat, as close as you can stand it. Better still, dab it with boiling brandy on a bit of cotton wool. Do it until it feels better.
Observe the differences over the days/weeks ahead.

If you want to read what Hahnemann actually wrote, I'd recommend Spirit of the Homoeopathic Medical Doctrine, an essay included in this work:

http://www.homeopathybulgaria.org/todormed/SAMUEL%20HAHNEMANN-MATERIA%20MEDICA%20PURA.pdf


This is one of the most brain-bleedingly bonkers posts I have ever read.

But lets go through it one-by-one

Hahnemann did believe in the humours. He sought a way of balancing them that did not involve bloodletting or the like. Regardless of what “school” he belonged to, his thought processes were governed by medical thought at the time, which – pretty much completely – has been shown to be wrong. But, hey, lets leave this little gem of pseudoscientific claptrap to come through unscathed despite the fact that the premise on which it was built has been shown to be utterly, completely and massively incorrect.

Succussion: (Succussion is a process similar to that used to magnetise metal.). Erm, no, its really, really not, certainly in relation to homeopathy. It means that the solution should be shaken/struck in a particular manner inbetween each dilution. (Originally it was defined to be against a horse hair filled saddle, but that bit has since been dismissed as being just silly...)

Your pal probably got sick from having too much sugar. There is nothing else toxic in it. I offer you James Randi and his consumption of an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills during a court case in the States, without any affect whatsoever.

Regardless of any anecdotal evidence, the fact remains that there is not one single valid clinical trial that shows a benefit above placebo. Heres a link (http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/11/1187) for you to check. If you cant be bothered to look, it is a meta analysis (in this case focussing on arnica) which pulls together all reports on the efficacy of homeopathic arnica, and guess what: Conclusion The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials."

I’ll decline your kind offer to incinerate my flesh. It’s not really a test of homeopathy is it now. Are you sure you’re not getting confused with masochism?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry Max, but that is really twisted logic and edging on some "Big Pharma" conspiracy.

Are you seriously suggesting that there isn't one? Do you honestly believe that the drug companies act in people's best interests?

Consider the likes of Heroin, Thalidomide and Seroxat. All developed by drug companies and held out to be the only answer, and also 100% safe.

Anyway, drug companies use natural products in their remedies. Over 50% of drugs in the UK are manufactured using naturally grown ingredients.

[Twa Cairpets]

Are you seriously suggesting that there isn't one? Do you honestly believe that the drug companies act in people's best interests?

Consider the likes of Heroin, Thalidomide and Seroxat. All developed by drug companies and held out to be the only answer, and also 100% safe.

Anyway, drug companies use natural products in their remedies. Over 50% of drugs in the UK are manufactured using naturally grown ingredients.

I certainly dont believe there is any conspiracy aimed at doing down alternative medicine.

I think that they primarily act in the best interests of their shareholders, but undeniably (even if you think this is by side effect), it generally benefits people. I had mumps, measles and rubella as a child. I recall it being not much fun. The only people who's kids get this now are those who believe the ill-informed press hype about the utterly debunked links to autism spouted by just such big-pharma conspiracy theorists.

The bad mistakes that happened are appalling, but there are, generally very few. The necessity for companies to avoid this type of horrendous effect of their drugs is one of their paramount concerns, especially in such a litigous age.

And finally, I dont know if your final statistic is correct or not, but lets suppose it is. You've just proven my point. If its "natural" and works, it becomes medicine. If its "natural" and doesnt work it becomes an alternative remedy that big pharma is trying to stifle.

[richard_pitts]

Two Carpets,

Western Science is not infallible. I worked in pharmaceuticals for a while and the Western Drug companies went into India and China and attempted to disprove the effects of traditional medicine. Guess what? A good many passed the clinical trials,so they quickly stopped doing it :wink:

Tiger Balm is one such example. To counter your own argument, the reason it's traditional is often because it's been seen to have worked.

I don't believe the conspiracists, but the drug companies are in business and they are not driven purely by need. Take AIDS - most of the antivirals work best on Western strains, despite the fact most sufferers have African-type strains. Why? More money in the West.

A potted history of Western medicine:
Take this root
That root is bad, take this drug
That drug is bad, take this antibiotic
That antibiotic doesn't work now, take this drug instead
Drugs are bad, take this root :greengrin

[Jay]

Two Carpets,

Western Science is not infallible. I worked in pharmaceuticals for a while and the Western Drug companies went into India and China and attempted to disprove the effects of traditional medicine. Guess what? A good many passed the clinical trials,so they quickly stopped doing it :wink:

Tiger Balm is one such example. To counter your own argument, the reason it's traditional is often because it's been seen to have worked.

I don't believe the conspiracists, but the drug companies are in business and they are not driven purely by need. Take AIDS - most of the antivirals work best on Western strains, despite the fact most sufferers have African-type strains. Why? More money in the West.

A potted history of Western medicine:
Take this root
That root is bad, take this drug
That drug is bad, take this antibiotic
That antibiotic doesn't work now, take this drug instead
Drugs are bad, take this root :greengrin

Forgot about Tiger Balm - amazing stuff. My boy has a pot of it in his kit bag and I have a pot in my first aid box.

[Twa Cairpets]

Two Carpets,

Western Science is not infallible. I worked in pharmaceuticals for a while and the Western Drug companies went into India and China and attempted to disprove the effects of traditional medicine. Guess what? A good many passed the clinical trials,so they quickly stopped doing it :wink:

Tiger Balm is one such example. To counter your own argument, the reason it's traditional is often because it's been seen to have worked.

I don't believe the conspiracists, but the drug companies are in business and they are not driven purely by need. Take AIDS - most of the antivirals work best on Western strains, despite the fact most sufferers have African-type strains. Why? More money in the West.

A potted history of Western medicine:
Take this root
That root is bad, take this drug
That drug is bad, take this antibiotic
That antibiotic doesn't work now, take this drug instead
Drugs are bad, take this root :greengrin

I'd never for a moment suggest "Western" medicine - by which I take you mean "medical medicine" is infallible. Equally, I wouldnt suggest that all the answers are there. But I do not believe for instant that a company would invest serious time, effort and resource into proving something didnt work, when the returns for proving something does work are much higher.

If you think about through, testing by Company "A" shows that bamboo root cures bowel cancer. They start testing it, it looks promising, so they stop? Why? it doesnt stop the bamboo root working, they cant keep it secret, and someone will eventually exploit it.

My point is not that conventional medicine is foolproof, it is that "alternative" medicine, and homeopathy in particular, is essentially fraudulent mumbo-jumbo playing on peoples vulnerabilities and getting rich as a result.

[richard_pitts]

Is that not really how western medicine started - people flogging cure-alls etc. with evolution effectively weeding out the ones that didn't work? :confused:

[(((Fergus)))]

This is one of the most brain-bleedingly bonkers posts I have ever read.

But lets go through it one-by-one

Hahnemann did believe in the humours. He sought a way of balancing them that did not involve bloodletting or the like. Regardless of what “school” he belonged to, his thought processes were governed by medical thought at the time, which – pretty much completely – has been shown to be wrong. But, hey, lets leave this little gem of pseudoscientific claptrap to come through unscathed despite the fact that the premise on which it was built has been shown to be utterly, completely and massively incorrect.

Succussion: (Succussion is a process similar to that used to magnetise metal.). Erm, no, its really, really not, certainly in relation to homeopathy. It means that the solution should be shaken/struck in a particular manner inbetween each dilution. (Originally it was defined to be against a horse hair filled saddle, but that bit has since been dismissed as being just silly...)

Your pal probably got sick from having too much sugar. There is nothing else toxic in it. I offer you James Randi and his consumption of an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills during a court case in the States, without any affect whatsoever.

Regardless of any anecdotal evidence, the fact remains that there is not one single valid clinical trial that shows a benefit above placebo. Heres a link (http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/11/1187) for you to check. If you cant be bothered to look, it is a meta analysis (in this case focussing on arnica) which pulls together all reports on the efficacy of homeopathic arnica, and guess what: Conclusion The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials."

I’ll decline your kind offer to incinerate my flesh. It’s not really a test of homeopathy is it now. Are you sure you’re not getting confused with masochism?

Why don't you try the experiment - the one with the burning - for yourself and make up your own mind based on actual experience. You don't have to do it deliberately, just if you do happen to burn yourself, try using the heated brandy or - failing that - place the burn close to the heat.

[Twa Cairpets]

Is that not really how western medicine started - people flogging cure-alls etc. with evolution effectively weeding out the ones that didn't work? :confused:

No.

Snake oil salesmen sold cure-alls.

Science (aided, to a fair extent, by the human races propensity for wars and inflicting huge unpleasantness on each other) sought ways to combat illness, disease and infection. It's really from the 1930's onwards when the technology was advanced enough to come up with antibiotics, insulin, antivirals etc. Even then, it was only because biology understood better how the body really worked.

Germ theory was only postulated by Pasteur in the mid 1800s. That will be around fifty years after Hehnemanns Homeopathy nonsense.

[Jay]

So do you think that traditional meds are the be all and end all? Is there not a place for complimentary meds to work alongside it? I know at our practice some of the docs do acupuncture, I passed out when I got it. :greengrin

I see nothing wrong with it for minor ailments or to work alongside 'medical' stuff. I would much rather rub some tiger balm into my childs pulled muscle or put tea tree oil or calendula cream on a cut than give him paracetomol or antibiotics etc.

[Twa Cairpets]

Why don't you try the experiment - the one with the burning - for yourself and make up your own mind based on actual experience. You don't have to do it deliberately, just if you do happen to burn yourself, try using the heated brandy or - failing that - place the burn close to the heat.

Because I dont want to burn myself, and I can make up my mind by reading around both sides of an argument.

It's also a completely ludicrous suggestion for proving or disproving homeopathy one way or another, because it has nothing to do with homeopathy whastsoever.

[(((Fergus)))]

PS if you can find a quote where Hahnemann advocates anything to do with the humours, I'd be very interested.

The first sentence in that article I linked above is as follows:

"It is impossible to devine the internal essential nature of disease and the changes they effect in the hidden parts of the body, and it is absurd to frame a system of treatment on such hypothetical surmises and assumptions."

That is a clear rejection of the humour model.

[(((Fergus)))]

Because I dont want to burn myself, and I can make up my mind by reading around both sides of an argument.

It's also a completely ludicrous suggestion for proving or disproving homeopathy one way or another, because it has nothing to do with homeopathy whastsoever.

Trouble with that is your conclusion is based on other people's opinions. You can only really know something if you experience it for yourself.

I don't wish you to burn yourself unless you do it intentionally for the purposes of honest experiment, however if you do, maybe you'll remember this discussion and try it. Rather than wishing harm on you it will - in my experience - greatly reduce the suffering. In cases of severe burns, I have seen it save skin that otherwise would have been blistered and scarred by cold water treatment.

Have the courage of your convictions.

[Twa Cairpets]

So do you think that traditional meds are the be all and end all? Is there not a place for complimentary meds to work alongside it? I know at our practice some of the docs do acupuncture, I passed out when I got it. :greengrin

I see nothing wrong with it for minor ailments or to work alongside 'medical' stuff. I would much rather rub some tiger balm into my childs pulled muscle or put tea tree oil or calendula cream on a cut than give him paracetomol or antibiotics etc.

Not completely the be all and end all, no. For example, I've looked up Tiger Balm and there is apparently only one clinical trial that has been done by a family practioner in NZ and it does suggest a benefit in excess of placebo, so there is some suggestion it works. Acupuncture and Chiropractic have huge literature on both sides, and lots of trials. A lot of the trials are flawed in the way they are set up which invalidates the results, but overall there is a suggestion that both offer some clinical benefit, in certain circumstances and for certain ailments. (There is a lot of debate about whether its because its nice to have someone speak to you, listen to you and generally relax you, which will help muscle tension in backs, or if its the process themselves).

As for your last point, if youve got a mild headache, then something acting as a placebo would probably help as much as a paracetamol. Probably better to rehydrate than lob in chemicals I agree. I hugely disagree about not using antibiotics if they are prescribed for a genuine reason. If you have an infected cut, you want to use something that will actively kill the infection rather than trust to a herbal ointment, assuming you want it to heal.

[Twa Cairpets]

PS if you can find a quote where Hahnemann advocates anything to do with the humours, I'd be very interested.

The first sentence in that article I linked above is as follows:

"It is impossible to devine the internal essential nature of disease and the changes they effect in the hidden parts of the body, and it is absurd to frame a system of treatment on such hypothetical surmises and assumptions."

That is a clear rejection of the humour model.

Based on the body of knowledge prevalent in the late 1700's.

[Jay]

Not completely the be all and end all, no. For example, I've looked up Tiger Balm and there is apparently only one clinical trial that has been done by a family practioner in NZ and it does suggest a benefit in excess of placebo, so there is some suggestion it works. Acupuncture and Chiropractic have huge literature on both sides, and lots of trials. A lot of the trials are flawed in the way they are set up which invalidates the results, but overall there is a suggestion that both offer some clinical benefit, in certain circumstances and for certain ailments. (There is a lot of debate about whether its because its nice to have someone speak to you, listen to you and generally relax you, which will help muscle tension in backs, or if its the process themselves).

As for your last point, if youve got a mild headache, then something acting as a placebo would probably help as much as a paracetamol. Probably better to rehydrate than lob in chemicals I agree. I hugely disagree about not using antibiotics if they are prescribed for a genuine reason. If you have an infected cut, you want to use something that will actively kill the infection rather than trust to a herbal ointment, assuming you want it to heal.

If you have a cut and put tea tree or calendula cream on it the chances are you wont need antibiotics. They both have strong antiseptic properties. Eucalyptus has too as far as I can remember.

Try Tiger Blam. We have found if you put it on and you have no injury it burns like blazes to the point I had to wash it off my arm but if you have an injury/pain its a totally different sensation and a godsend.

[Twa Cairpets]

Trouble with that is your conclusion is based on other people's opinions. You can only really know something if you experience it for yourself.

I don't wish you to burn yourself unless you do it intentionally for the purposes of honest experiment, however if you do, maybe you'll remember this discussion and try it. Rather than wishing harm on you it will - in my experience - greatly reduce the suffering. In cases of severe burns, I have seen it save skin that otherwise would have been blistered and scarred by cold water treatment.

Have the courage of your convictions.

What in the name of bright blue buggering **** are you talking about? You must surely just be on the wind-up.

I havent experienced liver failure but im fairly confident I wouldnt like it. i'm pretty sure that getting bitten by, say, a trapdoor spider would kill me, but I'm in no hurry to try it to prove it one way or another.

Also, I'm amazed that ambulance crews dont carry around hot brandy for burns victims.

But again, what the hell has it got do with homeopathic "medicine"

[(((Fergus)))]

Based on the body of knowledge prevalent in the late 1700's.

That's irrelevant, the point is Hahnemann is rejecting the humour model - prevalent at that time - unless you have evidence to the contrary as you suggested in your original post.

[(((Fergus)))]

What in the name of bright blue buggering **** are you talking about? You must surely just be on the wind-up.

I havent experienced liver failure but im fairly confident I wouldnt like it. i'm pretty sure that getting bitten by, say, a trapdoor spider would kill me, but I'm in no hurry to try it to prove it one way or another.

Also, I'm amazed that ambulance crews dont carry around hot brandy for burns victims.

But again, what the hell has it got do with homeopathic "medicine"


"Homoeopathy" means similar suffering in Greek, cure like with like. The heat treatment demonstrates this principle. Good chefs are familiar with this technique.

[RyeSloan]

If by Homeopathy you mean the products like water that has been 'treated' but really is just water then I am totally with you on this.

If you are also including herbal remedies then I don't agree...it's quite clear nature has and does have a huge range of drugs stored away in it's many forms...the basis of a lot of pharma work is capturing and synthisising such drugs so to say that herbal or natural remedies can't or don't work seems somewhat oxy moronic.

Also Big Pharma will often concentrate on creating and patenting complex drugs to allow maximum profit when in the market...the cost and returns of using less complex products with vastly less patent worthiness can and does mean that this type of area simply doesn't interest Pharma companies. Really the current general medical viewpoint that an expensive drug will ALWAYS be better than a herbal or natural alternative suits them just perfectly.

IMHO there is a lot to be said for at least a re-appraisal of how we use 'alternative' medicine. Of course a lot of it is a bit nonsense but some of it is not and I think there is definately room to explore and use these when suitable. Also in the end of the day if it works it works so maybe in certain suitable cases giving patients access to low cost alternative medicine before expensive courses of drugs would seem like something well worth trying.

Not sure but I think I remember reading about an NHS funded Homeopathy hospital near Glasgow, caused a bit of a stir and was always struggling for funding but had some dedicated followers IIRC but tbh I can't really remember.

[--------]

I've just has an argument with a friend of mine regarding one of my pet bugbears. Homeopathy.

His wife is suffering from some skin complaint, and after going into a natural remedy/health food place down south, has decided to go with a homepathic "cure" rather than seeing a doctor or using something with some medicinal benefit. The justification? "Last time she had a cold, she took a homeopathic pill and ta-dah! within three or four days the cold had gone and she felt much better. Perish the mere thought that maybe, just maybe she would have got better without it.

Whilst I've nothing against my friends wife - she is with respect to all other things a sensible, pleasant person - this absolutely drives me mad. :grr: Utter, utter bunkum masquerading as medicine for people who are willing to be duped into buying (if its not an oxymoron) diluted water as cure for whatever ails them.

Anyone agree, or should I just go and lie down in a dark room?


You should.

First, is it really anything to do with you? Seems to me it isn't.

Second, her life isn't exactly in danger, and with skin complaints mainstream medicine often isn't all that effective. Sometimes homoeopathy or herbal treatments will work better. I get a rash on my wrists that the usual cortisone creams make worse; standard antiseptic creams don't help either. Tea-tree oil does.

Not all alternative therapies or therapists are useful or dependable. But some are. Open your mind.

[Beefster]

You should.

First, is it really anything to do with you? Seems to me it isn't.

Second, her life isn't exactly in danger, and with skin complaints mainstream medicine often isn't all that effective. Sometimes homoeopathy or herbal treatments will work better. I get a rash on my wrists that the usual cortisone creams make worse; standard antiseptic creams don't help either. Tea-tree oil does.

Not all alternative therapies or therapists are useful or dependable. But some are. Open your mind.

I think the problem that folk are making on this thread is mixing up 'herbal' and 'homeopathic' treatments. They are not the same thing.

Homeopathy has been proven time and time again to be utter bunkum. It's based on water having a 'memory'. Considering the fact that water is constantly recycled, purified etc, if ithad a memory, we're basically drinking sewage. But we're not.

http://www.badscience.net/

[hibsbollah]

You should.

First, is it really anything to do with you? Seems to me it isn't.

Second, her life isn't exactly in danger, and with skin complaints mainstream medicine often isn't all that effective. Sometimes homoeopathy or herbal treatments will work better. I get a rash on my wrists that the usual cortisone creams make worse; standard antiseptic creams don't help either. Tea-tree oil does.

Not all alternative therapies or therapists are useful or dependable. But some are. Open your mind.

:top marks
It strikes me that Two Carpets, while able to defend his positions in a rational articulate way, misses the essential point about the evolution of medical understanding, which is that it evolves over time. Some things are simply beneficial, despite the medical establishment being unable to point to why that is.

[Tomsk]

I strongly recommend homeopathy as a treatment for dehydration. Taken in sufficient doses homeopathic treatments will prove to be very efficacious and the patient will be completely relieved of any symptoms.

[Twa Cairpets]

You should.

First, is it really anything to do with you? Seems to me it isn't.

Well, yes, it is, because I want her to get better, and not spend a fortune on useless unguents.

Second, her life isn't exactly in danger, and with skin complaints mainstream medicine often isn't all that effective.
Sometimes homoeopathy or herbal treatments will work better. I get a rash on my wrists that the usual cortisone creams make worse; standard antiseptic creams don't help either. Tea-tree oil does.

Not all alternative therapies or therapists are useful or dependable. But some are. Open your mind.

As Beefster says, the the thread is (or at least was) about homeopathy. I'm delighted that your wrists get better with tea tree oil, but that isn't homeopathic. (I would also suggest that cortisone cream and antiseptic cream have very different properties. I'd go to a different doctor mate).

As with most of your replies to anything I post, you seem to take a very selective interpretation of what i'm saying. For clarity

- Mainstream medicine is not infallible, but I do believe it is far, far and away the best we have
- For minor ailments, complementary or alternative medicine may have an effect, even if it is only as placebo. I think that the majority of it is pretty useless though. For major illnesses I'll take the drugs, thank you.
- Homeopathy has been shown time after time after time to have an impact no better than placebo. Every test undertaken with properly double-blinded, randomised procedures has shown this.

I seem to recall that from previous threads you're not a fan of science, so maybe thats why you think I'm being closed minded. How would you show me that this pixie dust has any benefit? (And please dont say my Aunty Betties bruise got better, because thats just not relevant. it would have got better anyway, you know).

[Twa Cairpets]

:top marks
It strikes me that Two Carpets, while able to defend his positions in a rational articulate way, misses the essential point about the evolution of medical understanding, which is that it evolves over time. Some things are simply beneficial, despite the medical establishment being unable to point to why that is.

Hibsbollah, I would never claim to be an expert on the evolution of medicsal history. I know a bit, but essentially it is similar to progress of all science. Theorise, test, challenge, improve.

However, I do know that the basic concept of homeopathy is utter rubbish - like doesnt cure like - and that the theory has singularly failed to evolve since its inception. This is really not a case of "Some things are simply beneficial, despite the medical establishment being unable to point to why that is.". The medical establishment has shown time after time that it isnt beneficial.

[Tomsk]

You should.

First, is it really anything to do with you? Seems to me it isn't.

Second, her life isn't exactly in danger, and with skin complaints mainstream medicine often isn't all that effective. Sometimes homoeopathy or herbal treatments will work better. I get a rash on my wrists that the usual cortisone creams make worse; standard antiseptic creams don't help either. Tea-tree oil does.

Not all alternative therapies or therapists are useful or dependable. But some are. Open your mind.

Just because someone doesn't accept something to be true does not mean he or she has a closed mind.

I aim to have an open mind to the truth, and a closed mind to what is untrue.

[Green Mikey]

Trouble with that is your conclusion is based on other people's opinions. You can only really know something if you experience it for yourself.

I don't wish you to burn yourself unless you do it intentionally for the purposes of honest experiment, however if you do, maybe you'll remember this discussion and try it. Rather than wishing harm on you it will - in my experience - greatly reduce the suffering. In cases of severe burns, I have seen it save skin that otherwise would have been blistered and scarred by cold water treatment.
Have the courage of your convictions.

Your suggestion of curing a burn with a burn is utter madness!

It is outwith the realms of physical possibilty to save severly damaged skin by burning it again. Severe burns require medical attention and specialist treatments from qualified doctor.

Your assertion that cold water treatment does not work illustrates how little you know about burn treatment. Cold water is not used as a treatment for severe burns (second or third degree) due to the tissue damage that can occur.

Back to the OP...I don't belive in homeopathy at all, there is no evidence to support it. However, I do believe in herbal remedies, I have fund Aloe Vera (minor burns:greengrin) and Arnica (bruises) work excellently.

[--------]

I think the problem that folk are making on this thread is mixing up 'herbal' and 'homeopathic' treatments. They are not the same thing.

Homeopathy has been proven time and time again to be utter bunkum. It's based on water having a 'memory'. Considering the fact that water is constantly recycled, purified etc, if ithad a memory, we're basically drinking sewage. But we're not.

http://www.badscience.net/


You're right - I was confusing two types of alternative treatment. And I agree that the philosophy behind homoeopathy is weird, to say the least.

I would say that when homeopathy works, it works because of the placebo effect rather than because the theory's well-founded. In fact, I can't see where the theory has any foundation at all.

At the same time, the placebo effect is real, and people have got better from serious illness simply because they trusted the treatment they received.

Whether that's a confidence trick, or faith-healing, or coincidence, I don't really know.

[Hibrandenburg]

You're right - I was confusing two types of alternative treatment. And I agree that the philosophy behind homoeopathy is weird, to say the least.

I would say that when homeopathy works, it works because of the placebo effect rather than because the theory's well-founded. In fact, I can't see where the theory has any foundation at all.

At the same time, the placebo effect is real, and people have got better from serious illness simply because they trusted the treatment they received.

Whether that's a confidence trick, or faith-healing, or coincidence, I don't really know.


It all boils down to faith in the end. If you have faith that what you're taking will help then the chances are it will help. It doesn't matter if science says it's all humbug. :devil:

[hibsbollah]

Hibsbollah, I would never claim to be an expert on the evolution of medicsal history. I know a bit, but essentially it is similar to progress of all science. Theorise, test, challenge, improve.

However, I do know that the basic concept of homeopathy is utter rubbish - like doesnt cure like - and that the theory has singularly failed to evolve since its inception. This is really not a case of "Some things are simply beneficial, despite the medical establishment being unable to point to why that is.". The medical establishment has shown time after time that it isnt beneficial.

I dont think thats quite true. Its more accurate to say 'The medical establishment has failed, time after time, to produce a reason why patients sometimes find homeopathy so beneficial'. There is plenty of evidence that patients often report improvements while taking homeopathic, alternative or herbal treatment, which flies in the face of received expectation. I'm sure this drives the medical establishment absolutely mental:wink:

[--------]

As Beefster says, the the thread is (or at least was) about homeopathy. I'm delighted that your wrists get better with tea tree oil, but that isn't homeopathic. (I would also suggest that cortisone cream and antiseptic cream have very different properties. I'd go to a different doctor mate).

As with most of your replies to anything I post, you seem to take a very selective interpretation of what i'm saying. For clarity

- Mainstream medicine is not infallible, but I do believe it is far, far and away the best we have
- For minor ailments, complementary or alternative medicine may have an effect, even if it is only as placebo. I think that the majority of it is pretty useless though. For major illnesses I'll take the drugs, thank you.
- Homeopathy has been shown time after time after time to have an impact no better than placebo. Every test undertaken with properly double-blinded, randomised procedures has shown this.

I seem to recall that from previous threads you're not a fan of science, so maybe thats why you think I'm being closed minded. How would you show me that this pixie dust has any benefit? (And please dont say my Aunty Betties bruise got better, because thats just not relevant. it would have got better anyway, you know).


I mixed up two subjects - alternative medicines and homoeopathy. I agree homoeopathy's positive results are certainly attributable to the placebo effect. But that effect, where it occurs, is real. The patient gets better. (Sometimes to the undisguised fury of the patient's 'mainstream' doctor.)

Of your three points here, the third I agree with. (Although accounts of personal experience certainly aren't irrelevant, supposing I were inclined to advance any. Dismissing other people's experiences without listening to them isn't what I understand to be the scientific approach. But I don't have an Aunty Betty.)

The second, it depends on what exactly you class as 'alternative or complimentary medecine' - some 'therapies' are no more than mumbo-jumbo, I agree. Others work - even if one has to qualify that statement by saying they've worked 'for some people'.

Your first point I also agree with. But maybe one of the reasons people turn to homoeopaths and alternative practitioners (however foolish they may be to do so) is because so often mainstream practitioners fail to listen to what their patients are actually saying to them.

When people are anxious about their health, they need to be heard, not handed a prescription and punted out the door because that's what the system demands.

Or encouraged to expect a cure where no cure exists, because the doctor hasn't the moral courage to tell his/her patient the truth.

Or given the impression that simply 'taking the medicine' will sort out the problem, without side-effects, without complications, once and for all.

You have no idea how many people have said to me that the doctor wasn't listening to them. Or cases of doctors completely forgetting that their patients are often anxious and frightened when they come for an examination, tests, treatment, whatever, and that anxiety and fear can prevent people from hearing what the doctor or surgeon is saying to them.

In the end of the day, it's up to the patient what he or she decides to do about whatever's troubling him or her. The example you brought up isn't life-threatening (apparently); it would be a lot more pressing if we were talking about a patient who's a friend refusing treatment for cancer, for example. But even then, it's the patient's decision. No one else's.

I have no problem with science, by the way. My problem is with those whose minds are fixed on the idea that science - or whatever it is that they conceive of as science - can answer all questions and cure all ills. It can't.

[--------]

Just because someone doesn't accept something to be true does not mean he or she has a closed mind.

I aim to have an open mind to the truth, and a closed mind to what is untrue.


And you discover what's true and what's untrue how exactly? :cool2:

[Twa Cairpets]

I dont think thats quite true. Its more accurate to say 'The medical establishment has failed, time after time, to produce a reason why patients sometimes find homeopathy so beneficial'. There is plenty of evidence that patients often report improvements while taking homeopathic, alternative or herbal treatment, which flies in the face of received expectation. I'm sure this drives the medical establishment absolutely mental:wink:

Sorry mate - that simply isnt the case. If you accept that there are certain fair protocols for measuring the efficacy of a treatment, there is genuinely not a shred of evidence to back up homeopathy as a valid cure. Someone mentioned it earlier, but for a reem of references I would direct you to Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/category/complementary-medicine/homeopathy/), or, if you like podcasts, try quackcast (http://www.quackcast.com/page2/page2.html).

But to answer your first point directly, why waste time, effort and resource trying to disprove something that has already been shown to be incorrect. The burden of proof clearly lies with homeopathic cure peddlers. And by the way, if ever it is shown to work, I'll be the first in the queue.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It all boils down to faith in the end. If you have faith that what you're taking will help then the chances are it will help. It doesn't matter if science says it's all humbug. :devil:

The problem with science is that, eventually, you have to take the same leap of faith that you would with non-scientific solutions.

Science has forced itself into the position of being seen as the ultimate truth. On the subject of medicine (and especially in psychiatry) science does not always have the answer, in fact it often raises more questions than it solves.

I am not saying we shouldn't use scientific methods, but we shouldn't be blind to alternatives, which although people know they work, we haven't yet learned why they work.

[--------]

The problem with science is that, eventually, you have to take the same leap of faith that you would with non-scientific solutions.

Science has forced itself into the position of being seen as the ultimate truth. On the subject of medicine (and especially in psychiatry) science does not always have the answer, in fact it often raises more questions than it solves.

I am not saying we shouldn't use scientific methods, but we shouldn't be blind to alternatives, which although people know they work, we haven't yet learned why they work.

:agree: Psychiatry and psychoanalysis are arguably no more than pseudo-sciences, since so much of what they assert is ultimately unverifiable. Just don't say that to the psychiatrists.

And a lot of people forget that one of the main determining factors in whether a patient recovers or not is the patient's trust in his or her doctor.

Which is NOT scientifically verifiable.

[Twa Cairpets]

I mixed up two subjects - alternative medicines and homoeopathy. I agree homoeopathy's positive results are certainly attributable to the placebo effect. But that effect, where it occurs, is real. The patient gets better. (Sometimes to the undisguised fury of the patient's 'mainstream' doctor.)

Of your three points here, the third I agree with. (Although accounts of personal experience certainly aren't irrelevant, supposing I were inclined to advance any. Dismissing other people's experiences without listening to them isn't what I understand to be the scientific approach. But I don't have an Aunty Betty.)

The second, it depends on what exactly you class as 'alternative or complimentary medecine' - some 'therapies' are no more than mumbo-jumbo, I agree. Others work - even if one has to qualify that statement by saying they've worked 'for some people'.

Your first point I also agree with. But maybe one of the reasons people turn to homoeopaths and alternative practitioners (however foolish they may be to do so) is because so often mainstream practitioners fail to listen to what their patients are actually saying to them.

When people are anxious about their health, they need to be heard, not handed a prescription and punted out the door because that's what the system demands.

Or encouraged to expect a cure where no cure exists, because the doctor hasn't the moral courage to tell his/her patient the truth.

Or given the impression that simply 'taking the medicine' will sort out the problem, without side-effects, without complications, once and for all.

You have no idea how many people have said to me that the doctor wasn't listening to them. Or cases of doctors completely forgetting that their patients are often anxious and frightened when they come for an examination, tests, treatment, whatever, and that anxiety and fear can prevent people from hearing what the doctor or surgeon is saying to them.

In the end of the day, it's up to the patient what he or she decides to do about whatever's troubling him or her. The example you brought up isn't life-threatening (apparently); it would be a lot more pressing if we were talking about a patient who's a friend refusing treatment for cancer, for example. But even then, it's the patient's decision. No one else's.

I have no problem with science, by the way. My problem is with those whose minds are fixed on the idea that science - or whatever it is that they conceive of as science - can answer all questions and cure all ills. It can't.

I dont think any Doctor worth his salt would show "undisguised fury" at a placebo working. Why would they - its been tested and shown to have an effect, there are mountains of clinical trials showing this, and not a single practioner I think would deny its efficacy in certain circumstances. In the case of homeopathy, any effect as you say can only be placebo, as there is no active ingredient.

Your first point I also agree with. But maybe one of the reasons people turn to homoeopaths and alternative practitioners (however foolish they may be to do so) is because so often mainstream practitioners fail to listen to what their patients are actually saying to them.

Absolutely right. Couldnt agree more. But that does not mean that "alternative" practioners actions or potions are suddenly better as a result. Where the benefit of a homeopath may come in is to listen and talk, and Ive no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is issuing them sugar pills as a real medical solution.

In the end of the day, it's up to the patient what he or she decides to do about whatever's troubling him or her. The example you brought up isn't life-threatening (apparently); it would be a lot more pressing if we were talking about a patient who's a friend refusing treatment for cancer, for example. But even then, it's the patient's decision. No one else's.

This worries me. If people make their decision based on ill-informed belief in homeopathic mumbo-jumbo, or any other variety of snake-oil rather than take something that might make them better, then to allow them to continue down that route is very shaky moral ground.

Lastly, I have never said nor would say that science has all the answers to everything. it doesnt, and doesnt seek to. What it does do is provide people who care to think about things with an enormously strong starting point to question, challenge and query many areas (but not all) areas of humanity

[Twa Cairpets]

The problem with science is that, eventually, you have to take the same leap of faith that you would with non-scientific solutions.

Science has forced itself into the position of being seen as the ultimate truth. On the subject of medicine (and especially in psychiatry) science does not always have the answer, in fact it often raises more questions than it solves.

I am not saying we shouldn't use scientific methods, but we shouldn't be blind to alternatives, which although people know they work, we haven't yet learned why they work.

I'd be interested if you could give an example of something that we "know" works, but havent worked out why.

The problem with homeopathy is that its been shown not to work

[Tomsk]

And you discover what's true and what's untrue how exactly? :cool2:

By keeping an open mind.

[--------]

I dont think any Doctor worth his salt would show "undisguised fury" at a placebo working.

Really? I've seen them.

One consultant who told a couple that their daughter who had suffered severe head injuries would be (I quote his EXACT WORDS) "nothing but a vegetable" for the rest of her life was less than amused when the parents found a clinic that worked very hard to give the lassie as much independence as possible - using voice-controlled computers, suck-sip controls, touch pads, etc. Her dad actually burst into tears (happy ones) the day he walked into her room unannounced and she told him to get out. "She told me to **** off," he said. "She's never done that for ages."

Or the GP who gave up on a wee wumman who'd had a heart attack and told the paramedics to stand down. Not a happy bunny when they ignored him and saved her life. That was 15 years ago. She's still going strong, and he's not over it yet.

This worries me. If people make their decision based on ill-informed belief in homeopathic mumbo-jumbo, or any other variety of snake-oil rather than take something that might make them better, then to allow them to continue down that route is very shaky moral ground.

"Ill-informed belief?" OK - give the people and their nearest and dearest as much information as you have or as they can take in, then leave them to make their own decision. Anything else is intrusive and arrogant.

Or are you going to forcibly medicate people?

What if I've been diagnosed with cancer and decide not to accept radiotherapy/chemotherapy, but rather go out as peacefully as possibly with the help of the local hospice and MacMillan nurses? You going to step in there? Prevent me from having access to acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal remedies because you don't approve?

Or if I have MS, and find a particular alternative therapy helpful? Is it OK if I use it? Or would you stop me?

If I make a living will, a "do not resuscitate" declaration? Will that stand, or have "people who know better" the right to over-rule my wishes?

This is all relevant to the discussion, btw, because it's all about the PATIENT's right to control what happens to him or her and to his or her body.

Like I say - give folks the information, then step back and let them make their own minds up. The only exceptions I can see would be cases of children below the age of legal responsibility, and people who are no longer mentally competent to make a rational decision. Even then I'd say there needs to be safeguards to protect them from intruders with personal agendas.

Lastly, I have never said nor would say that science has all the answers to everything. it doesnt, and doesnt seek to. What it does do is provide people who care to think about things with an enormously strong starting point to question, challenge and query many areas (but not all) areas of humanity

With respect, "science" is an abstraction. "Science" isn't the problem.

The problem is scientists with agendas that reach beyond their scientific competence; scientists and scientific 'believers' who reckon they know better than other people and therefore have the right to choose for other people; the fact that pure research no longer exists (or not for very long, since 'science' today is about applying science to the world to make someone a lot of money.

There may indeed be scientists somewhere spending themselves tirelessly int he search for the cure to this, that or the other presently incurable illness.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that behind them is MegaPharmaceuticals Inc. who are funding the project, and who will make very sure that when the cure's discovered, the price of life will be enough to send their shares climbing up that footsie index like a space shuttle.

And if you're poor?

Tough.

[Tomsk]

I'd be interested if you could give an example of something that we "know" works, but havent worked out why.

The problem with homeopathy is that its been shown not to work

If the pseudo-science doesn't work, they can always hook them with the faith gaff.

It's the grandest, most convoluted snake-oil-salesman act in history.

[hibsbollah]

The problem with homeopathy is that its been shown not to work

You keep saying that, but the only thing ive found which is truly unbiased is this http://cochrane.co.uk/en/index.html The NHS' own R&D, which in 6 tests, found positive benefits of homeopathy in 2 tests and in 4 tests the results were inconclusive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/13/letters-homeopathy-positives

Incidentally, do you have a view about Traditional Chinese medicine? Far from being a 'quack' science, it is the mainstream medical care system in developed nations such as Japan, Korea, China, Singapore etc. You can get western medicines but they are seen as 'alternative' choices not supported by the state. Health measurements in these Eastern developed countries are comparable to countries in the West.

[Twa Cairpets]

You keep saying that, but the only thing ive found which is truly unbiased is this http://cochrane.co.uk/en/index.html The NHS' own R&D, which in 6 tests, found positive benefits of homeopathy in 2 tests and in 4 tests the results were inconclusive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/13/letters-homeopathy-positives

Incidentally, do you have a view about Traditional Chinese medicine? Far from being a 'quack' science, it is the mainstream medical care system in developed nations such as Japan, Korea, China, Singapore etc. You can get western medicines but they are seen as 'alternative' choices not supported by the state. Health measurements in these Eastern developed countries are comparable to countries in the West.

No. the Cochrane reviews (//http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/cochrane_search_fs.html?mode=startsearch&products=all&unitstatus=none&opt1=OR&Query2=&zones2=article-title&opt2=AND&Query3=&zones3=author&opt3=AND&Query4=&zones4=abstract&opt4=AND&Query5=&zones5=tables&FromYear=&ToYear=&Query1=homeopathy&zones1=%28article-title%2Cabstract%2Ckeywords%29) (of which they are seven) show no evidence of success.

I dont know enough about Eastern mainstream medicine to comment, and I dont know if you are correct about chinese medicine being used instead of "Western" medicine in that mainstream. Strikes me as odd

[Twa Cairpets]

Doddie, you have an uncanny knack of misrepresenting my view point, usually by bringing out a wee story to illustrate the point you want to make, rather than by actually addressing anything I've said, so to respond;

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
I dont think any Doctor worth his salt would show "undisguised fury" at a placebo working.

Really? I've seen them.

One consultant who told a couple that their daughter who had suffered severe head injuries would be (I quote his EXACT WORDS) "nothing but a vegetable" for the rest of her life was less than amused when the parents found a clinic that worked very hard to give the lassie as much independence as possible - using voice-controlled computers, suck-sip controls, touch pads, etc. Her dad actually burst into tears (happy ones) the day he walked into her room unannounced and she told him to get out. "She told me to **** off," he said. "She's never done that for ages."

Or the GP who gave up on a wee wumman who'd had a heart attack and told the paramedics to stand down. Not a happy bunny when they ignored him and saved her life. That was 15 years ago. She's still going strong, and he's not over it yet.

These two little stories have nothing to do with placebos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo) whatsoever. Zero. Nada. Zilch. they appear to be heartwarming wee tales of bad doctors.

This worries me. If people make their decision based on ill-informed belief in homeopathic mumbo-jumbo, or any other variety of snake-oil rather than take something that might make them better, then to allow them to continue down that route is very shaky moral ground.

"Ill-informed belief?" OK - give the people and their nearest and dearest as much information as you have or as they can take in, then leave them to make their own decision. Anything else is intrusive and arrogant.

Or are you going to forcibly medicate people?

Yes, I would forcibly medicate children if their parents withhold treatment. No, I wouldnt forcibly medicate adults. I would make sure that someone qualified to explain to them what was wrong and what actions were open to them that had been - yes, and heres that word again - scientifically and clinically proven. If after that they want to kill themsleves, then thats their call.

What if I've been diagnosed with cancer and decide not to accept radiotherapy/chemotherapy, but rather go out as peacefully as possibly with the help of the local hospice and MacMillan nurses? You going to step in there? Prevent me from having access to acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal remedies because you don't approve?

No. blatant misrepresentation of what I'm saying to be emotive. "Doddie- king of the Straw man Logical Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)".
Or if I have MS, and find a particular alternative therapy helpful? Is it OK if I use it? Or would you stop me?

If I make a living will, a "do not resuscitate" declaration? Will that stand, or have "people who know better" the right to over-rule my wishes?

This is all relevant to the discussion, btw, because it's all about the PATIENT's right to control what happens to him or her and to his or her body.

Have I once ever suggested that adults dont have the right of control? Have I ever once suggested that people should be denied to take whatever form of quack remedy they prefer? Its their cash and their health that is being wasted. I will however with friends and family, or on forums like this say what I know of the remedies - especially homeopathy. Problem with that, or am I to be denied the right to inform people that they are taking sugar pills and basing their recovery on just wishing really, really hard?

Like I say - give folks the information, then step back and let them make their own minds up. The only exceptions I can see would be cases of children below the age of legal responsibility, and people who are no longer mentally competent to make a rational decision. Even then I'd say there needs to be safeguards to protect them from intruders with personal agendas.

I love this paragraph. You actually make the perfect argument for rationality. Especially the personal agenda bit.
Lastly, I have never said nor would say that science has all the answers to everything. it doesnt, and doesnt seek to. What it does do is provide people who care to think about things with an enormously strong starting point to question, challenge and query many areas (but not all) areas of humanity

With respect, "science" is an abstraction. "Science" isn't the problem.

"Science is an abstraction"? Eh? What?

The problem is scientists with agendas that reach beyond their scientific competence; scientists and scientific 'believers' who reckon they know better than other people and therefore have the right to choose for other people; the fact that pure research no longer exists (or not for very long, since 'science' today is about applying science to the world to make someone a lot of money.

Ah, I see. Science isnt the problem. Its them mean old scientists. Doddie, you dont have scooby here. Just pick up a copy of "Science" or "Nature" and you'll see how woefully inaccurate your view is.

There may indeed be scientists somewhere spending themselves tirelessly int he search for the cure to this, that or the other presently incurable illness.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that behind them is MegaPharmaceuticals Inc. who are funding the project, and who will make very sure that when the cure's discovered, the price of life will be enough to send their shares climbing up that footsie index like a space shuttle.

And if you're poor?

Tough

A marvellous bit of logic here. Nobodies doing medical science for good reasons. and if they were, it would be too expensive anyway..

What utter nonsense. You have an issue with making a profit then? I dont particularly care if someone makes millions if they get a cure for something. As I said earlier on the thread, I had measles mumps and rubella when i was a kid. Neither of my kids have any real idea of what these diseases are. Why? Because someone researched a vaccine and it means they wont be ill. I hope they are enjoying their time on their yacht on Bermuda.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'd be interested if you could give an example of something that we "know" works, but havent worked out why.

The problem with homeopathy is that its been shown not to work

St John's Wort, has been reported to alleviate symptoms of anxiety and depression in some people, yet how it acts is unknown. Gingko Biloba has been reported to increase concentration and improve memory in mild dementia sufferers, again how it does this is unknown.

The same could be said for a lot of psychoactive drugs, it's thought for example that they affect certain neurotransmitters, but measuring these is an inexact science at best - which picks up on Doddie's point.

[Twa Cairpets]

St John's Wort, has been reported to alleviate symptoms of anxiety and depression in some people, yet how it acts is unknown. Gingko Biloba has been reported to increase concentration and improve memory in mild dementia sufferers, again how it does this is unknown.

The same could be said for a lot of psychoactive drugs, it's thought for example that they affect certain neurotransmitters, but measuring these is an inexact science at best - which picks up on Doddie's point.

From Wikipedia:

"Pharmacokinetic interactions
St John's wort has been shown to cause multiple drug interactions mainly through induction of the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A4, but also CYP2C9. This results in the increased metabolism of those drugs, resulting in decreased concentration and clinical effect. The principal constituent thought to be responsible is hyperforin.
Pharmacodynamic interactions
St John's wort may also contribute to serotonin syndrome in combination with other drugs which may elevate 5-HT (serotonin) levels in the central nervous system (CNS).[19]

No, Ive no detailed understanding of this, but it does suggest to me that there is a knowledge of whats going on and why it seems to work. I would challenge anyone to get that type of info for Homeopathy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

From Wikipedia:

"Pharmacokinetic interactions
St John's wort has been shown to cause multiple drug interactions mainly through induction of the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A4, but also CYP2C9. This results in the increased metabolism of those drugs, resulting in decreased concentration and clinical effect. The principal constituent thought to be responsible is hyperforin.
Pharmacodynamic interactions
St John's wort may also contribute to serotonin syndrome in combination with other drugs which may elevate 5-HT (serotonin) levels in the central nervous system (CNS).[19]

No, Ive no detailed understanding of this, but it does suggest to me that there is a knowledge of whats going on and why it seems to work. I would challenge anyone to get that type of info for Homeopathy.

The point is though, that what it does is very much based on hypothesis. People see the effects, then draw invent the science afterwards - there is no measurement available of serotonin levels when someone is happy that you can compare to serotonin levels when they are not.

Another example I can give is use of Vitamin B12 by schozophrenics, no scientific evidence to say why it works, but there are studies which show it is effective. Of course it could be a placebo effect, but so could the drugs company's products.

I agree that doesn't make an argument for homoepathy, but I can't condemn it outright, just because it doesn't fit with the western model of medicine. Chinese medicine has been around a lot longer than western medicine, acupuncture has been slated as mumbo jumbo, because it has no scientific basis yet it has been shown to work time and time again. As I see it the more alternatives available to treat people, the more chance we have of meeting the unique needs of the individual.

[--------]

Doddie, you have an uncanny knack of misrepresenting my view point, usually by bringing out a wee story to illustrate the point you want to make, rather than by actually addressing anything I've said, so to respond;

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
I dont think any Doctor worth his salt would show "undisguised fury" at a placebo working.

Really? I've seen them.

One consultant who told a couple that their daughter who had suffered severe head injuries would be (I quote his EXACT WORDS) "nothing but a vegetable" for the rest of her life was less than amused when the parents found a clinic that worked very hard to give the lassie as much independence as possible - using voice-controlled computers, suck-sip controls, touch pads, etc. Her dad actually burst into tears (happy ones) the day he walked into her room unannounced and she told him to get out. "She told me to **** off," he said. "She's never done that for ages."

Or the GP who gave up on a wee wumman who'd had a heart attack and told the paramedics to stand down. Not a happy bunny when they ignored him and saved her life. That was 15 years ago. She's still going strong, and he's not over it yet.

These two little stories have nothing to do with placebos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo) whatsoever. Zero. Nada. Zilch. they appear to be heartwarming wee tales of bad doctors.

This worries me. If people make their decision based on ill-informed belief in homeopathic mumbo-jumbo, or any other variety of snake-oil rather than take something that might make them better, then to allow them to continue down that route is very shaky moral ground.

"Ill-informed belief?" OK - give the people and their nearest and dearest as much information as you have or as they can take in, then leave them to make their own decision. Anything else is intrusive and arrogant.

Or are you going to forcibly medicate people?

Yes, I would forcibly medicate children if their parents withhold treatment. No, I wouldnt forcibly medicate adults. I would make sure that someone qualified to explain to them what was wrong and what actions were open to them that had been - yes, and heres that word again - scientifically and clinically proven. If after that they want to kill themsleves, then thats their call.

What if I've been diagnosed with cancer and decide not to accept radiotherapy/chemotherapy, but rather go out as peacefully as possibly with the help of the local hospice and MacMillan nurses? You going to step in there? Prevent me from having access to acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal remedies because you don't approve?

No. blatant misrepresentation of what I'm saying to be emotive. "Doddie- king of the Straw man Logical Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)".
Or if I have MS, and find a particular alternative therapy helpful? Is it OK if I use it? Or would you stop me?

If I make a living will, a "do not resuscitate" declaration? Will that stand, or have "people who know better" the right to over-rule my wishes?

This is all relevant to the discussion, btw, because it's all about the PATIENT's right to control what happens to him or her and to his or her body.

Have I once ever suggested that adults dont have the right of control? Have I ever once suggested that people should be denied to take whatever form of quack remedy they prefer? Its their cash and their health that is being wasted. I will however with friends and family, or on forums like this say what I know of the remedies - especially homeopathy. Problem with that, or am I to be denied the right to inform people that they are taking sugar pills and basing their recovery on just wishing really, really hard?

Like I say - give folks the information, then step back and let them make their own minds up. The only exceptions I can see would be cases of children below the age of legal responsibility, and people who are no longer mentally competent to make a rational decision. Even then I'd say there needs to be safeguards to protect them from intruders with personal agendas.

I love this paragraph. You actually make the perfect argument for rationality. Especially the personal agenda bit.
Lastly, I have never said nor would say that science has all the answers to everything. it doesnt, and doesnt seek to. What it does do is provide people who care to think about things with an enormously strong starting point to question, challenge and query many areas (but not all) areas of humanity

With respect, "science" is an abstraction. "Science" isn't the problem.

"Science is an abstraction"? Eh? What?

The problem is scientists with agendas that reach beyond their scientific competence; scientists and scientific 'believers' who reckon they know better than other people and therefore have the right to choose for other people; the fact that pure research no longer exists (or not for very long, since 'science' today is about applying science to the world to make someone a lot of money.

Ah, I see. Science isnt the problem. Its them mean old scientists. Doddie, you dont have scooby here. Just pick up a copy of "Science" or "Nature" and you'll see how woefully inaccurate your view is.

There may indeed be scientists somewhere spending themselves tirelessly int he search for the cure to this, that or the other presently incurable illness.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that behind them is MegaPharmaceuticals Inc. who are funding the project, and who will make very sure that when the cure's discovered, the price of life will be enough to send their shares climbing up that footsie index like a space shuttle.

And if you're poor?

Tough

A marvellous bit of logic here. Nobodies doing medical science for good reasons. and if they were, it would be too expensive anyway..

What utter nonsense. You have an issue with making a profit then? I dont particularly care if someone makes millions if they get a cure for something. As I said earlier on the thread, I had measles mumps and rubella when i was a kid. Neither of my kids have any real idea of what these diseases are. Why? Because someone researched a vaccine and it means they wont be ill. I hope they are enjoying their time on their yacht on Bermuda.


There are three layers in this post.

You accuse me of twisting the argument, and you're doing it yourself.

So those doctors weren't dealing with cases of placebos - they saw their patients getting better without or inspite of their help, and they weren't happy. That's relevant to the point.

I am not working through a post like that.

But in case you've missed the point - every medical issue is a personal issue - not theoretical, not abstract. It all comes back to a doctor and a patient and who makes the decisions.

But i don't have to take the crap you're handing out in posts like this.

[hibsbollah]

No. the Cochrane reviews (http:////http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/cochrane_search_fs.html?mode=startsearch&products=all&unitstatus=none&opt1=OR&Query2=&zones2=article-title&opt2=AND&Query3=&zones3=author&opt3=AND&Query4=&zones4=abstract&opt4=AND&Query5=&zones5=tables&FromYear=&ToYear=&Query1=homeopathy&zones1=%28article-title%2Cabstract%2Ckeywords%29) (of which they are seven) show no evidence of success.

I dont know enough about Eastern mainstream medicine to comment, and I dont know if you are correct about chinese medicine being used instead of "Western" medicine in that mainstream. Strikes me as odd

Well there are clearly different interpretations of the Cochrane reports then. You could at least demonstrate some acknowledgement of this from the link I have provided.

I can assure you that I am correct about the role of Chinese medicine in the countries listed, and they are generally sceptical of the grandiose claims of Western medicine (consider, amongst other things thalidomide, the inability of Western medicine to adequately deal with the West's biggest killer (depression), prozac and seroxat scandals, and the reduction in immunity caused by overuse of medication. Add to that the systemic problem caused by the market, where for example anti-AIDS drugs that could save millions of lives are being restricted due to a short term search for profit, and quite a negative picture emerges...

From your OP onwards though, you seem to be pretty sure of your position on this subject.

[lapsedhibee]

Carpets, you're a cynic. Next you'll be trying to say that organically grown food is no better for people than regular food.

[Killiehibbie]

The original point was about a treatment which has less medicinal help than a cup of Typhoo. How come it's been lumped in with all 'alternative' treatments? Chinese medicine is proven to work and has been treating people longer than we've been 'civilsed'

[RyeSloan]

Carpets, you're a cynic. Next you'll be trying to say that organically grown food is no better for people than regular food.

No need for TC to do that.....Organic no better (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6732520.ece) :devil: :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

There are three layers in this post.

You accuse me of twisting the argument, and you're doing it yourself.

Nonsense. I am responding to specific points raised.

So those doctors weren't dealing with cases of placebos - they saw their patients getting better without or inspite of their help, and they weren't happy. That's relevant to the point.

You used it to illustrate a point about placebos. A tad dishonest, if you read it without reference back to the original point. Nowhere has anyone raised anything about bad doctors apart from you, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.

I am not working through a post like that.

Thats up to you.

But in case you've missed the point - every medical issue is a personal issue - not theoretical, not abstract. It all comes back to a doctor and a patient and who makes the decisions.

I'm missing the point? Once more, Doddie, you bring in a completely irrelevant point to knock down an argument that hasn't been made! For the record, I agree with every word of the above paragraph. Has bugger all to do with homeopathy though.

But i don't have to take the crap you're handing out in posts like this.

You must be a very sensitive soul. What crap am I "handing out"? I'm disagreeing with you forcefully and I'm handing out crap? Doubtless another example of intellectual assault, if I remember the phrasse correctly from another thread.


Doddie, I hope you stay and fight your corner. But remember, the thread is predominantly about homeopathy with interesting diversions into other alternative treatments. Its nothing to do with the bedside manner of a doctor you once heard about.

[Twa Cairpets]

Well there are clearly different interpretations of the Cochrane reports then. You could at least demonstrate some acknowledgement of this from the link I have provided.

I can assure you that I am correct about the role of Chinese medicine in the countries listed, and they are generally sceptical of the grandiose claims of Western medicine (consider, amongst other things thalidomide, the inability of Western medicine to adequately deal with the West's biggest killer (depression), prozac and seroxat scandals, and the reduction in immunity caused by overuse of medication. Add to that the systemic problem caused by the market, where for example anti-AIDS drugs that could save millions of lives are being restricted due to a short term search for profit, and quite a negative picture emerges...

From your OP onwards though, you seem to be pretty sure of your position on this subject.

I did follow your link and looked up homeopathy. It took my to the link I put in!

I dont know about Eastern medical practices - I'll try to have a look around it though because it sounds interesting.

I'm pretty sure of my ground on homeopathy, and have a very skeptical attitude to any alternative/complementary treatment that has no proper evidence to back up claims made. They are not subject to the same rigorous protocols as pharmaceutical medicine, which is why they are not allowed to be called medicine.

I am not an apologist for modern/"western" medicine - a lot of it is done badly by bad doctors, but I am utterly convinced that on a chemical level, what is provided is more likely to cure you than what is offered by alternative practitioners.

[HibsMax]

Sorry Max, but that is really twisted logic and edging on some "Big Pharma" conspiracy.

"...they spend billions of dollars and years on research" Yes they do. So one of there researchers says "hey, this chinese herbal remedy really worked for my neighbours back spasms", wouldnt they then spend their billions on researching and developing that?
You have a problem with conspiracy theories? LOL. Bottom line - I have no idea what research the pharmaceutical companies do so anything I say on the topic is pure speculation on my part. Let me ask you this, do you think the pharma companies have researched alternative medicine exhaustively?



Drug companies would find it VERY difficult to exploit something that was much more readily available and cheaper. This would be true if everyone who used alternative medicine does so by wandering around hedgerows picking out natures bounty. But they don't, they go to herbal shops and buy it neatly packaged, at a price way, way in excess of its cost. If you think that a big pharamceutical business couldnt do it a lot more cheaply, you are miles off the mark. They dont do it because its not medicine.
You know this for a fact? So the millions (?) of people who say that alternative medicine works for them are anomalies or liars?

[Twa Cairpets]

You have a problem with conspiracy theories? LOL. Bottom line - I have no idea what research the pharmaceutical companies do so anything I say on the topic is pure speculation on my part. Let me ask you this, do you think the pharma companies have researched alternative medicine exhaustively?



You know this for a fact? So the millions (?) of people who say that alternative medicine works for them are anomalies or liars?

To answer your questions...

1) I think most conspiracy theories are just that. I'm a firm believer in the concept of Occams Razor (http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html)
2) I think that if something shows favourable results for the treatment of an illness, then yes, it would be researched and developed. Surely its quicker, cheaper and easier to start from a base of effectiveness than start from scratch.
3) I think that the people who believe it works for them are the victims of (a) confirmation bias and (b) not understanding the concept of regression to the mean. If you have a sore head, and you take a homeopathic pill, and then a couple of hours later feel better, you assume that the pill made you better. The odds are you will have got better anyway and that the pill is entirely co-incidental. Because there is a correlation between the pill and the feeling of improvement, the assumption is that there is a causative link. If you dont feel better after the pill, you either blame it on the headache being really bad or forget that that time it didnt work.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

[HibsMax]

***** This post does not relate to homeopathy *****

"like doesnt cure like" -- this makes me think of allergy shots. Allergy shots don't cure people of allergies but careful administration of the allergens over a period of time trains the body to deal with them naturally. That's what I hope to do shortly so I don't depend on my $45 / month medication.

I think this could be interpreted as like curing like.

***** This post does not relate to homeopathy *****

[Twa Cairpets]

***** This post does not relate to homeopathy *****

"like doesnt cure like" -- this makes me think of allergy shots. Allergy shots don't cure people of allergies but careful administration of the allergens over a period of time trains the body to deal with them naturally. That's what I hope to do shortly so I don't depend on my $45 / month medication.

I think this could be interpreted as like curing like.

***** This post does not relate to homeopathy *****

***This reply does not relate to homeopathy***

Its also how vaccination works, as I understand it.

***This reply does not relate to homeopathy (because thats not wht homeopathy is about***

[HibsMax]

2) I think that if something shows favourable results for the treatment of an illness, then yes, it would be researched and developed. Surely its quicker, cheaper and easier to start from a base of effectiveness than start from scratch.
So what you're saying here is your assuming that they have been exhaustively researched. For what it's worth, I agree with the point you're making but that doesn't mean it's true.



3) I think that the people who believe it works for them are the victims of (a) confirmation bias and (b) not understanding the concept of regression to the mean. If you have a sore head, and you take a homeopathic pill, and then a couple of hours later feel better, you assume that the pill made you better. The odds are you will have got better anyway and that the pill is entirely co-incidental. Because there is a correlation between the pill and the feeling of improvement, the assumption is that there is a causative link. If you dont feel better after the pill, you either blame it on the headache being really bad or forget that that time it didnt work.
Isn't it possible that it actually works for them? As you know, people are different. I'm sure if you take penicillin great things happen. If I take it, there's a good chance I'll die. Maybe alternative medicine (not homeopathy) works for as many people as penicillin kills. I'm just saying that I am not ruling it out, regardless of the drug companies are pedaling. LOL. For what it's worth, my general health is in the hands of said companies because of my allergies / asthma. I haven't looked for or found an alternative. Maybe I will look.


Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.Doesn't make it untrue, just less reliable.

[HibsMax]

***This reply does not relate to homeopathy***

Its also how vaccination works, as I understand it.

***This reply does not relate to homeopathy (*because thats not wht homeopathy is about***
Cool. So there is a little truth to the matter.

* I don't know if your little addendum was for my benefit but I know that's not what homeopathy is about (see post #9). Just wanted to be clear about that. ;)

[Hibrandenburg]

I'd be interested if you could give an example of something that we "know" works, but havent worked out why.

The problem with homeopathy is that its been shown not to work

Quantum Physics?

[(((Fergus)))]

Your suggestion of curing a burn with a burn is utter madness!

It is outwith the realms of physical possibilty to save severly damaged skin by burning it again. Severe burns require medical attention and specialist treatments from qualified doctor.

Your assertion that cold water treatment does not work illustrates how little you know about burn treatment. Cold water is not used as a treatment for severe burns (second or third degree) due to the tissue damage that can occur.

Back to the OP...I don't belive in homeopathy at all, there is no evidence to support it. However, I do believe in herbal remedies, I have fund Aloe Vera (minor burns:greengrin) and Arnica (bruises) work excellently.

I'm obviously not suggesting you burn a burn. Homoeopathy is based on similarity rather than identicality. In the case of burns, the (acute) treatment is to apply heat to the affected area, not to burn it (ideally with hot brandy, otherwise by holding close to - but obviously not on - the heat source).

Nor was I talking about extreme burns being treated with cold water, but rather typical domestic burns, e.g., in the kitchen.

I totally agree that all this defies conventional logic - the obvious antidote to heat is cold. However, that is only true of inanimate objects, whereas the human being is an animated, dynamic creature. That in itself does not prove the principle, this can only be done by experiment. This I have done myself and this is what I found: dabbing with hot brandy - as hot as is bearable (Note: DO NOT burn yourself) - is obviously painful initially but quickly gives way to relief. Within a few hours it is no longer possible to identify the area of skin that was burned, either visually or by sensation. With cold water treatment, the exact opposite happens: there is immediate amelioration while under the water, however, as time progresses a blister forms, this bursts and is followed by a scab. The area remains very sensitive for several days and the skin is marked for some weeks, even months if it was a bad blister.

This is my experience and that of my family. There's only one way to find out if your body reacts in the same way.

[(((Fergus)))]

You're right - I was confusing two types of alternative treatment. And I agree that the philosophy behind homoeopathy is weird, to say the least.

I would say that when homeopathy works, it works because of the placebo effect rather than because the theory's well-founded. In fact, I can't see where the theory has any foundation at all.

At the same time, the placebo effect is real, and people have got better from serious illness simply because they trusted the treatment they received.

Whether that's a confidence trick, or faith-healing, or coincidence, I don't really know.

The principle of similarity is based in the first instance on the observation of natural homoeopathic cures, for example it was noted by many medical observers of the time that during a smallpox epidemic patients already suffering from (non-epidemic) cowpox were cured. (Smallpox and cowpox being similar.)

The decider for Hahnemann was when he translated a book by the Edinburgh physician, William Cullen, who described the efficacy of Peruvian bark (aka China, i.e., later the source of quinine) in cases of intermittent fever. Cullen stated the usual opinion that the bark's power was due to its 'tonic effects on the stomach' (i.e., total speculation). Hahnemann wasn't satisfied with that so took the medicine himself and found that he developed symptoms similar to intermittent fever.

Regarding the placebo effect, there's more to it that unless young children (babies), animals and plants are also subject to the placebo effect.

[(((Fergus)))]

I did follow your link and looked up homeopathy. It took my to the link I put in!

I dont know about Eastern medical practices - I'll try to have a look around it though because it sounds interesting.

I'm pretty sure of my ground on homeopathy, and have a very skeptical attitude to any alternative/complementary treatment that has no proper evidence to back up claims made. They are not subject to the same rigorous protocols as pharmaceutical medicine, which is why they are not allowed to be called medicine.

I am not an apologist for modern/"western" medicine - a lot of it is done badly by bad doctors, but I am utterly convinced that on a chemical level, what is provided is more likely to cure you than what is offered by alternative practitioners.

Apart from mentioning the principle of like curing like, nothing in your post #13 regarding the technical aspects of Homoeopathy is remotely accurate:

1. Nowhere in the Organon, Chronic Diseases or the materia medica does Hahnemann say anything about 'balancing the four humours'. The opposite is true: he states that externally perceptible signs and symptoms are the only basis for prescription.

2. Homoeopathic medicines are not simply dilutions.

3. Nowhere does Hahnemann say anything about the "memory of water" nor any other speculative nonsense.

I can only presume that you have based your comments on secondary, possibly antagonistic sources rather than Hahnemann's own writings.

[barcahibs]

I'm not touching homoepathy with a bargepole, complete and utter nonsense as far as I can see.

As for herbal remedies however... I used to be a sceptic I have to say but now I'm... very slightly less sceptical! I've got to say my girlfriend has always sworn by tiger balm and having now tried it - it does seem to work. Very possible its just the placebo effect however, it burns/hurts when its put on so it must be doing me all sorts of good right? :greengrin

I took St John's wort for a long time, in lieu of and alongside conventional treatments and my opinion of it at the end was that it was useless. Again there might be a placebo effect for some but the danger here is that when used to treat serious illnesses I'd worry that people forego 'real' medicine in favour of 'natural' stuff and put themselves in real danger by doing so. I suspect if I'd relied on St John's Wort I wouldn't be here now.

Having said that, some of the conventional treatments I had at the time produced some pretty horrific (and unadvertised) side effects - some of which I still suffer from today several years since I stopped taking the medication. Its a hard one to call, far too hard for me but I'll stick to my default position of 'science knows best'.

Another point that I think many people don't consider when taking natural remedies is - exactly what are you getting? It may be that St John's Wort does have a medicinal effect but (as filled rolls has mentioned) we don't know exactly what it is that produces that effect - so how can we be sure that whatever it is is present in every batch of tablets? Its entirely possible, in fact likely, that factors such as soil conditions, trace minerals in the ground, watering levels, sunlight levels, pollination vectors, age of plant, size of plant, atmospeheric conditions, etc, etc all have an effect on the medicinal value of the plant.
Do we even know what variety of St John's Wort is supposed to work? Plants hybridise all the time who says the variety being used is the right one? Is it just the fastest growing one? What part of the plant is supposed to be used? the seeds, stalk, leaves, flower, roots, the whole thing? What parts ARE being used? Are all brands using the same bit?
If these aren't standardised (or even known at all) then I'm pretty suspicious as to whether the tablets can have any medicinal value at all.

As for other stuff I have a friend that swears by acupunture for migraine control and another with back pain that says its no use whatsoever?

Anyway you might be interested to know that the US government has just spent a couple of billion dollars researching alternative medicines and concluded that almost all don't work. link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/) Theres also a specific study on st John's Wort (link (http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm)) proving that its no better than a placebo - mind you the 'proper' drug tested alongside st john's wort proved no better than a placebo either :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not touching homoepathy with a bargepole, complete and utter nonsense as far as I can see.

As for herbal remedies however... I used to be a sceptic I have to say but now I'm... very slightly less sceptical! I've got to say my girlfriend has always sworn by tiger balm and having now tried it - it does seem to work. Very possible its just the placebo effect however, it burns/hurts when its put on so it must be doing me all sorts of good right? :greengrin

I took St John's wort for a long time, in lieu of and alongside conventional treatments and my opinion of it at the end was that it was useless. Again there might be a placebo effect for some but the danger here is that when used to treat serious illnesses I'd worry that people forego 'real' medicine in favour of 'natural' stuff and put themselves in real danger by doing so. I suspect if I'd relied on St John's Wort I wouldn't be here now.

Having said that, some of the conventional treatments I had at the time produced some pretty horrific (and unadvertised) side effects - some of which I still suffer from today several years since I stopped taking the medication. Its a hard one to call, far too hard for me but I'll stick to my default position of 'science knows best'.

Another point that I think many people don't consider when taking natural remedies is - exactly what are you getting? It may be that St John's Wort does have a medicinal effect but (as filled rolls has mentioned) we don't know exactly what it is that produces that effect - so how can we be sure that whatever it is is present in every batch of tablets? Its entirely possible, in fact likely, that factors such as soil conditions, trace minerals in the ground, watering levels, sunlight levels, pollination vectors, age of plant, size of plant, atmospeheric conditions, etc, etc all have an effect on the medicinal value of the plant.
Do we even know what variety of St John's Wort is supposed to work? Plants hybridise all the time who says the variety being used is the right one? Is it just the fastest growing one? What part of the plant is supposed to be used? the seeds, stalk, leaves, flower, roots, the whole thing? What parts ARE being used? Are all brands using the same bit?
If these aren't standardised (or even known at all) then I'm pretty suspicious as to whether the tablets can have any medicinal value at all.

As for other stuff I have a friend that swears by acupunture for migraine control and another with back pain that says its no use whatsoever?

Anyway you might be interested to know that the US government has just spent a couple of billion dollars researching alternative medicines and concluded that almost all don't work. link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/) Theres also a specific study on st John's Wort (link (http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm)) proving that its no better than a placebo - mind you the 'proper' drug tested alongside st john's wort proved no better than a placebo either :greengrin

Top Post :top marks

[Twa Cairpets]

Apart from mentioning the principle of like curing like, nothing in your post #13 regarding the technical aspects of Homoeopathy is remotely accurate:

1. Nowhere in the Organon, Chronic Diseases or the materia medica does Hahnemann say anything about 'balancing the four humours'. The opposite is true: he states that externally perceptible signs and symptoms are the only basis for prescription.

2. Homoeopathic medicines are not simply dilutions.

3. Nowhere does Hahnemann say anything about the "memory of water" nor any other speculative nonsense.

I can only presume that you have based your comments on secondary, possibly antagonistic sources rather than Hahnemann's own writings.

1) OK Fergus, I've had a good look around, and Ive misinterpreted where Hahnemann was coming from on the humours. He did seek an alternative to such barbaric practices of blood letting, for example, and came up with homeopathy.

2) No they are not, as you pointed out with your succussion comment. it would be nice for you to check back yourelf to satisfy yourself that this has nothing (certainly in modern homeopathic "medicine") to do with magentising. Its shaking/strinking the dilution.

3) Maybe Hahnemann doesnt mention this - I confess to not knowing if this suggestion was in the primary source. I suspect not, as he had no undertanding of atoms and moelcules, so wouldnt have had the ability to postulate something like this. It is, I hope you agree, the primary explanation given by homeopaths as to why it works.

Fergus, the facts remain are these, however:

1) The primary - if not the only - basis for homeopathic "medicines" working is dilution, and the more dilute the better. Dilutions of 300C and the like are diluted to the point where there are no molecules of the supposedly active substance left.
2) There is no evidence from any properly conducted, randomised, double-blind studies undertaken that show a benefit above placebo. This is not to do with mysticism, or belief, or biased researchers or a conspiracy of Big Pharma. Its because it doesnt work.

[Dashing Bob S]

You live and learn. I thought this meant someone who didn't really care one way or the other about gay rights.

[(((Fergus)))]

1)
2) No they are not, as you pointed out with your succussion comment. it would be nice for you to check back yourelf to satisfy yourself that this has nothing (certainly in modern homeopathic "medicine") to do with magentising. Its shaking/strinking the dilution.


I wasn't suggesting that homoeopathic medicines were magnetised, I was merely pointing out another instance in nature where the immaterial characteristics of a substance are altered through the action of physical force.



3) Maybe Hahnemann doesnt mention this - I confess to not knowing if this suggestion was in the primary source. I suspect not, as he had no undertanding of atoms and moelcules, so wouldnt have had the ability to postulate something like this. It is, I hope you agree, the primary explanation given by homeopaths as to why it works.


By all homoeopaths? No. In my opinion, only by those who also can't accept the immaterial dimension to Homoeopathy and therefore also require a crude material explanation, i.e., the charlatans. Because some plumbers are dodgy (no offence, AGL), that does not mean that plumbing itself is false.



Fergus, the facts remain are these, however:

1) The primary - if not the only - basis for homeopathic "medicines" working is dilution, and the more dilute the better. Dilutions of 300C and the like are diluted to the point where there are no molecules of the supposedly active substance left.


No, Homoeopathic medicines are produced using a combination of grinding of the mother tincture followed by dilution and succussion of the solution in alcohol. This process is called dynamisation or potentisation. People may speak of "dilutions" for short, however what they mean is potentised dilutions or simply "potencies".

All potencies above 12C (Avogadro's number) no longer contain one molecule of the original tincture. A Hahnemannian homoeopath will not use potencies lower than this since, as Hahnemann says, disease is nothing other than a derangement of the immaterial vital force. To hit a nail, you use a hammer; to affect an immaterial entity, you require another immaterial agent.

If you do not accept that there are immaterial levels above the material levels we can all see and feel (well most of us, some blind people are sceptical), you will not accept Homoeopathy and it is not for you.

For those you wish to consider the exist of immaterial "substances", I would point to gravity, magnetism, electricity, light, the smell of certain minerals, none of which can be observed as material entities (even under the microscope) but only through their effects on other objects. We cannot see them, but we know through reason that they are there.

The best and most pertinent example, however, is to compare the human body immediately before and immediately after death. There is no difference in weight, nothing physical has been removed, yet the person - and their disease - have gone.



2) There is no evidence from any properly conducted, randomised, double-blind studies undertaken that show a benefit above placebo. This is not to do with mysticism, or belief, or biased researchers or a conspiracy of Big Pharma. Its because it doesnt work.

What is "properly conducted"? I've yet to find one person who is not polarised by this subject and who therefore does not have a vested interest in the outcome of such trials, one way or the other.

I personally used to have a very materialistic mind but through some good fortune was able to see for myself the effects of Homoeopathy in a number of different cases. I cannot prove that the things I have seen had anything to do with the medicines given, however with each new instance the probability that they are connected grows and grows.

As I said in the beginning, the only way to really know is through your own experience. If you need other people to approve things for you, then Homoeopathy - which is about returning responsibility for a person's health to its rightful owner - is definitely not for you.

[Twa Cairpets]

I wasn't suggesting that homoeopathic medicines were magnetised, I was merely pointing out another instance in nature where the immaterial characteristics of a substance are altered through the action of physical force.



By all homoeopaths? No. In my opinion, only by those who also can't accept the immaterial dimension to Homoeopathy and therefore also require a crude material explanation, i.e., the charlatans. Because some plumbers are dodgy (no offence, AGL), that does not mean that plumbing itself is false.



No, Homoeopathic medicines are produced using a combination of grinding of the mother tincture followed by dilution and succussion of the solution in alcohol. This process is called dynamisation or potentisation. People may speak of "dilutions" for short, however what they mean is potentised dilutions or simply "potencies".

All potencies above 12C (Avogadro's number) no longer contain one molecule of the original tincture. A Hahnemannian homoeopath will not use potencies lower than this since, as Hahnemann says, disease is nothing other than a derangement of the immaterial vital force. To hit a nail, you use a hammer; to affect an immaterial entity, you require another immaterial agent.

If you do not accept that there are immaterial levels above the material levels we can all see and feel (well most of us, some blind people are sceptical), you will not accept Homoeopathy and it is not for you.

For those you wish to consider the exist of immaterial "substances", I would point to gravity, magnetism, electricity, light, the smell of certain minerals, none of which can be observed as material entities (even under the microscope) but only through their effects on other objects. We cannot see them, but we know through reason that they are there.

The best and most pertinent example, however, is to compare the human body immediately before and immediately after death. There is no difference in weight, nothing physical has been removed, yet the person - and their disease - have gone.



What is "properly conducted"? I've yet to find one person who is not polarised by this subject and who therefore does not have a vested interest in the outcome of such trials, one way or the other.

I personally used to have a very materialistic mind but through some good fortune was able to see for myself the effects of Homoeopathy in a number of different cases. I cannot prove that the things I have seen had anything to do with the medicines given, however with each new instance the probability that they are connected grows and grows.

As I said in the beginning, the only way to really know is through your own experience. If you need other people to approve things for you, then Homoeopathy - which is about returning responsibility for a person's health to its rightful owner - is definitely not for you.

So, cutting through all the mystical mumbo-jumbo, it only works if you believe in it?

Right.

Well that makes sense. Because I'm - to your way of thinking - the owner of a closed mind, there wil be no medical benefit? Barmy.

Properly conducted is randomised double- or triple-blinded trials covering large enough numbers to ensure statistical validity. The reason for doing them this way is to ensure that the result is impartial and open for discussion, repetition and analysis. Does that help? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment)

Incidentally, I think with your impressive faith in the efficacy of "proper" homeopathy you should take Randi's (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)challenge. Homeopathy qualifies as one of the pseudosciences to be covered by his offer of 1million dollars if it can be shown to work under proper observing conditions. If you feel bad about upsetting the mystical karma, you could always give the money to Yogi

[(((Fergus)))]

On the subject of placebo, there are three things that suggest to me that this cannot be the explanation:

1) Homoeopathic medicines affect young children/babies, animals and - although I haven't seen this myself - plants. None of these 'individuals' know they are receiving any medical treatment.

2) In a Homoeopathic cure, there is an initial phase where the symptoms are aggravated before the organism responds and amelioration ensues. Does the placebo effect state that a person first gets worse, then gets better? Why would a person do that unless under the influence of an external agent?

3) I have also seen cases where the wrong homoeopathic medicine was prescribed and the person, rather than getting better, simply enters a different pathological state. The symptoms of this state can then be used to identify the antidote. Again, why would a person do that?

These are my own observations and therefore only valid to me but I share them in the hope that they may encourage others to look for themselves.

[Twa Cairpets]

I wasn't suggesting that homoeopathic medicines were magnetised, I was merely pointing out another instance in nature where the immaterial characteristics of a substance are altered through the action of physical force.



By all homoeopaths? No. In my opinion, only by those who also can't accept the immaterial dimension to Homoeopathy and therefore also require a crude material explanation, i.e., the charlatans. Because some plumbers are dodgy (no offence, AGL), that does not mean that plumbing itself is false.



No, Homoeopathic medicines are produced using a combination of grinding of the mother tincture followed by dilution and succussion of the solution in alcohol. This process is called dynamisation or potentisation. People may speak of "dilutions" for short, however what they mean is potentised dilutions or simply "potencies".

All potencies above 12C (Avogadro's number) no longer contain one molecule of the original tincture. A Hahnemannian homoeopath will not use potencies lower than this since, as Hahnemann says, disease is nothing other than a derangement of the immaterial vital force. To hit a nail, you use a hammer; to affect an immaterial entity, you require another immaterial agent.

If you do not accept that there are immaterial levels above the material levels we can all see and feel (well most of us, some blind people are sceptical), you will not accept Homoeopathy and it is not for you.

For those you wish to consider the exist of immaterial "substances", I would point to gravity, magnetism, electricity, light, the smell of certain minerals, none of which can be observed as material entities (even under the microscope) but only through their effects on other objects. We cannot see them, but we know through reason that they are there.

The best and most pertinent example, however, is to compare the human body immediately before and immediately after death. There is no difference in weight, nothing physical has been removed, yet the person - and their disease - have gone.



What is "properly conducted"? I've yet to find one person who is not polarised by this subject and who therefore does not have a vested interest in the outcome of such trials, one way or the other.

I personally used to have a very materialistic mind but through some good fortune was able to see for myself the effects of Homoeopathy in a number of different cases. I cannot prove that the things I have seen had anything to do with the medicines given, however with each new instance the probability that they are connected grows and grows.

As I said in the beginning, the only way to really know is through your own experience. If you need other people to approve things for you, then Homoeopathy - which is about returning responsibility for a person's health to its rightful owner - is definitely not for you.

The Society of Homeopaths (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/) would disagree. I can add nothing more to this directly lifted cut and pasted sample from the site, because it is so rife with utter nonsense as to need no emebellishment from me.

How are the remedies made?
There are five regulated homeopathic pharmacies in the UK (see Find a Pharmacy). The raw extracts (from plants or animals) or triturations (from minerals and salts) are made into a ‘tincture’ with alcohol which forms the basis of the dilution procedure. Dilutions are made up to either 1 part tincture to 10 parts water (1x) or 1 part tincture to 100 parts water (1c). Repeated dilution results in the familiar 6x, 6c or 30c potencies that can be bought over the counter: the 30c represents an infinitessimal part of the original substance.

If they are so dilute, how can they work?
After each dilution the mixture is vigorously agitated in a machine that delivers a calibrated amount of shaking. This is called succussion. It is thought that this process imprints the healing energy of the medicinal substance throughout the body of water (the diluent) as if a message is passed on. The message contains the healing energy. Even in ultra-molecular dilutions, information specific to the original dissolved substance remains and can be detected. (3)

[(((Fergus)))]

So, cutting through all the mystical mumbo-jumbo, it only works if you believe in it?

Right.

Well that makes sense. Because I'm - to your way of thinking - the owner of a closed mind, there wil be no medical benefit? Barmy.

Properly conducted is randomised double- or triple-blinded trials covering large enough numbers to ensure statistical validity. The reason for doing them this way is to ensure that the result is impartial and open for discussion, repetition and analysis. Does that help? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment)

Incidentally, I think with your impressive faith in the efficacy of "proper" homeopathy you should take Randi's (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)challenge. Homeopathy qualifies as one of the pseudosciences to be covered by his offer of 1million dollars if it can be shown to work under proper observing conditions. If you feel bad about upsetting the mystical karma, you could always give the money to Yogi

Because of your way of thinking at the moment, you will probably not consult a homoeopath and that is your business. If you do not consult a (proper Hohnemannian) homoeopath and receive the correct medicine there will obviously be no medicinal effect.

Regarding Mr Randi, Homoeopathy is a system of cure not a side show. If he is genuinely curious about it, he can also make his own investigations and seek out the best homoeopath he can find for treatment. It is not the business of Homoeopathy to convince other people. Unlike certain aspects of allopathy, it is not compulsory. My posts on this thread are not intended to convince other people about Homoeopathy - how do I know it is right for them? - simply to correct the misrepresentation of it.

[(((Fergus)))]

The Society of Homeopaths (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/) would disagree. I can add nothing more to this directly lifted cut and pasted sample from the site, because it is so rife with utter nonsense as to need no emebellishment from me.

How are the remedies made?
There are five regulated homeopathic pharmacies in the UK (see Find a Pharmacy). The raw extracts (from plants or animals) or triturations (from minerals and salts) are made into a ‘tincture’ with alcohol which forms the basis of the dilution procedure. Dilutions are made up to either 1 part tincture to 10 parts water (1x) or 1 part tincture to 100 parts water (1c). Repeated dilution results in the familiar 6x, 6c or 30c potencies that can be bought over the counter: the 30c represents an infinitessimal part of the original substance.

If they are so dilute, how can they work?
After each dilution the mixture is vigorously agitated in a machine that delivers a calibrated amount of shaking. This is called succussion. It is thought that this process imprints the healing energy of the medicinal substance throughout the body of water (the diluent) as if a message is passed on. The message contains the healing energy. Even in ultra-molecular dilutions, information specific to the original dissolved substance remains and can be detected. (3)

So it seems the Society of Homoeopaths are a) lazy with their terminology b) lazy in the production on medicines (using machinery) and c) prone to speculation. None of this has any bearing on Homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann.

[Twa Cairpets]

Because of your way of thinking at the moment, you will probably not consult a homoeopath and that is your business. If you do not consult a (proper Hohnemannian) homoeopath and receive the correct medicine there will obviously be no medicinal effect.

Regarding Mr Randi, Homoeopathy is a system of cure not a side show. If he is genuinely curious about it, he can also make his own investigations and seek out the best homoeopath he can find for treatment. It is not the business of Homoeopathy to convince other people. Unlike certain aspects of allopathy, it is not compulsory. My posts on this thread are not intended to convince other people about Homoeopathy - how do I know it is right for them? - simply to correct the misrepresentation of it.

Yes it is.

If it is advertised as a system or technique offering a cure, then dang tootin' they need to provide some evidence that it works.

But expanding you first point. Lets say I find a proper - by your standards - homeopath, and sit through his quizzing of what is wrong with me, and listen politely to all he has to say, and get given some pills for, say, my bad back or some other genuine ailment. Your point is that even after doing that, and getting the "right" medicine from the "right" practioner, it still wont work for me if i dont believe it will?

As for Randi - he's not in the least curious about it. He is an avowed skeptic of it. This is why he has no input into the testing procedures, other than to agree protocols with the testee. He offers a prize for anyone showing disinterested evidence of the benefits of any pseudoscience. If it was me, I'd have a pop. Funny how no-one ever does though.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------


So it seems the Society of Homoeopaths are a) lazy with their terminology b) lazy in the production on medicines (using machinery) and c) prone to speculation. None of this has any bearing on Homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann.

:faf:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anyway you might be interested to know that the US government has just spent a couple of billion dollars researching alternative medicines and concluded that almost all don't work. link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/) Theres also a specific study on st John's Wort (link (http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm)) proving that its no better than a placebo - mind you the 'proper' drug tested alongside st john's wort proved no better than a placebo either :greengrin

I know that St John's wort can't be taken alongside SSRIs like Prozac, as they both do pretty much the same thing, so the dose of the Prozac would be effectively higher than it should be.

The thing with tablets for mood disorders is that they will not have the same effect on every individual. Hence the fact that doctors keep trying different ones until they find one that "works". I see no harm in including SJW in the possible solutions, although people suffering from mood disorders should always see a doctor first (apparently they know more about how to sort your state of mind out than you do, even though you are the owner of that mind and have used it for a considerable time).

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes it is.

If it is advertised as a system or technique offering a cure, then dang tootin' they need to provide some evidence that it works.

But expanding you first point. Lets say I find a proper - by your standards - homeopath, and sit through his quizzing of what is wrong with me, and listen politely to all he has to say, and get given some pills for, say, my bad back or some other genuine ailment. Your point is that even after doing that, and getting the "right" medicine from the "right" practioner, it still wont work for me if i dont believe it will?

As for Randi - he's not in the least curious about it. He is an avowed skeptic of it. This is why he has no input into the testing procedures, other than to agree protocols with the testee. He offers a prize for anyone showing disinterested evidence of the benefits of any pseudoscience. If it was me, I'd have a pop. Funny how no-one ever does though.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------



:faf:

Your problem, it seems to me, is that you are using science to evaluate something that isn't scientific. IMO, that's one of the traps that alternative therapists fall into, they try to sook up to the scientists by using their language.

Science is too concerned with the "how" and doesn;t pay enough attention to the "what" as far as I can see. If a remedy works for someone, then why not let them keep taking it?

[Twa Cairpets]

Your problem, it seems to me, is that you are using science to evaluate something that isn't scientific. IMO, that's one of the traps that alternative therapists fall into, they try to sook up to the scientists by using their language.

Science is too concerned with the "how" and doesn;t pay enough attention to the "what" as far as I can see. If a remedy works for someone, then why not let them keep taking it?

Its a problem I'm delighted to have FR!

People who are on the pro-side of these therapies try, as you say, often to use scientific language to justify their claims.

I have a massive issue with accepting the "what", as you put it, uncritically. It opens the way for any type of alternative voodoo to be seen as being on a par. Reiki, Crystal Healing, Ear candles, Reflexology, Magnet therapy, Chi-balancing, iridology, spiritual healing and a whole host of other things that "science just cant explain". suddenly gain a validity that is not warranted. If people want to spend money on this kind of stuff - fine. A fool and his money and all that.

They may well even feel better after some of these treatements. Why? Because its nice to have a relaxing half hour, not because you've had some mystical, unseen energy field balanced ro re-aligned. Personally, I'd prefer to read a book or have a bath - I'm sure I'll feel happy and relaxed after it.

Science is too concerned with the "how" and doesn;t pay enough attention to the "what" as far as I can see.

Not true. Of course it is important to understand mechanism, but it is also important to understand of there is a mechanism to be understood in the first place.

Heres a couple of conversations:

"My new treatment works"
"How do you know?"
"We tested it through randomised double blind experiments and it was shown to have statistically significant better results than both a placebo and the current treatment"
"Well thats good news, lets examine how it works so we can make it better."
"Righty-o"

"My new treatment works"
"How do you know?"
"I've seen it with my own eyes, and I understand the immaterial mystical powers that the base substance can give"
"Well thats nice, but have you any evidence to back it up"
"Of course, I gave it to my wife when she had a sore head, and six hours later she was cured!"
"Anything else?"
"What do you mean - I've seen it work. That should be all you need"
"So nothing to suggest that it might work for the majority of the population?"
"Typical scientist, trying to hide the facts because it doesnt fit your model. If you believed enough you would see that it works"
"Thank you. Next".

[Twa Cairpets]

So it seems the Society of Homoeopaths are a) lazy with their terminology b) lazy in the production on medicines (using machinery) and c) prone to speculation. None of this has any bearing on Homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann.

Out of interest, how does a Hahnemmanian succuss his potion?

[(((Fergus)))]

Yes it is.

If it is advertised as a system or technique offering a cure, then dang tootin' they need to provide some evidence that it works.



If it doesn't work then I agree people would be foolish to keep coming back. Generally, people only visit a homoeopath for the first time because they have seen the changes it makes for their friends/relatives.




But expanding you first point. Lets say I find a proper - by your standards - homeopath, and sit through his quizzing of what is wrong with me, and listen politely to all he has to say, and get given some pills for, say, my bad back or some other genuine ailment. Your point is that even after doing that, and getting the "right" medicine from the "right" practioner, it still wont work for me if i dont believe it will?


Assuming you were so ill and had exhausted all the other possibilities to the extent that you were prepared to reveal the painful details of your suffering to someone you had previously held in such contempt, then - provided you hadn't totally destroyed your vitality through other, suppressive therapies - the remedy would work.

[(((Fergus)))]

Out of interest, how does a Hahnemmanian succuss his potion?

By hand on a relatively hard surface, e.g., book.

EDIT: I thought you wrote "potency" there. Homoeopathy doesn't use potions as you yourself pointed out - it's allopathy that uses mixtures of crude substances in its treatment. All rigorously tested of course, yet still they need more doctors and more hospitals as people get sicker and sicker. After 60-odd years of NHS we should be a healthy society by now.

[Twa Cairpets]

By hand on a relatively hard surface, e.g., book.

Ignoring the obvious opportunities for cheap double entendre jokes, presumably there has to be a certain amount of force applied and done a certain way for it to work? Doesnt it strike you that one Hahnemannian would do it differently to another?

[goosano]

Theres also a specific study on st John's Wort (link (http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/pressrelease.htm)) proving that its no better than a placebo - mind you the 'proper' drug tested alongside st john's wort proved no better than a placebo either :greengrin

There's also a well respected study published in the British Medical Journal that shows that it is as effective and better tolerated than one of the standard antidepressants, paroxetine-here (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abridged/330/7490/503?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%22st+john%27s+wort%22&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT)

[(((Fergus)))]

Ignoring the obvious opportunities for cheap double entendre jokes, presumably there has to be a certain amount of force applied and done a certain way for it to work? Doesnt it strike you that one Hahnemannian would do it differently to another?

Not only is it impossible for one person to replicate the physical action of another, it is impossible for any person to repeat their own action in an identical manner.

Just like music: no musician plays the same piece in exactly the same way twice. And certainly no two musicians play the same piece in the same way. It is, however, possible to recognise when two people are playing the same piece.

If you are looking for a mechanical, adynamic system of treatment for your back then Homoeopathy is definitely not the answer.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Its a problem I'm delighted to have FR!


The thing is I don't see much difference in what the alternative therapists say and what the drug companies do. So many treatments are given on a trial and error basis, whether it be pain killers, cognitive enhancers or even antibiotics.

I admit that I am specifically interested in psychiatric treatments, and my scepticism towards science comes mostly from that. Put simply, convential medicine tries to use a scientific approach to treating disorders of the mind. Much of what they advocate is based on speculation at best, yet they still insist that they have the only right answer.

If I had cancer, I have to say I'd be saying "pump those chemicals in as fast as you can". On the other hand if it was a mental problem I was seeking help for, I would be very wary before I took the medications they offer. I am not saying they don't bring a result, but the question is whether it is the result the patient actually wanted.

Hands up though, I find the concept that water has a memory a bit hard to take. That said, maybe there is a whole layer of science yet to be discovered, a new generation of microscopes that shows up things that we haven't seen before.

[(((Fergus)))]

I admit that I am specifically interested in psychiatric treatments, and my scepticism towards science comes mostly from that. Put simply, convential medicine tries to use a scientific approach to treating disorders of the mind. Much of what they advocate is based on speculation at best, yet they still insist that they have the only right answer.


:agree: I also find that when a person has a symptom totally removed by conventional medical treatment - or allopathy in general - they will (if still alive) have a new symptom located in a deeper part of the body. Generally, the doctor will deny that there is any causal connection between their treatment and the emergence of the new symptom. For example, eczema if successfully suppressed will transfer from the external skin to the internal skin (lungs) in the form of asthma; rheumatism if suppressed becomes heart disease. There are fixed and therefore predictable patterns of metastatis for all disease manifestations.

Therefore, when assessing the efficacy of a treatment it is not enough to say "the symptom has gone". You must know in which direction it has gone: deeper and higher into the person (ultimately affecting the highest organs, i.e., the intellect and emotions) or down and out of the person. A person who has heart disease after having rheumatism suppressed should - if treated properly - regain the rheumatism while freeing the heart. The rheumatic state can then be treated, this time properly.

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree: I also find that when a person has a symptom totally removed by conventional medical treatment - or allopathy in general - they will (if still alive) have a new symptom located in a deeper part of the body. Generally, the doctor will deny that there is any causal connection between their treatment and the emergence of the new symptom. For example, eczema if successfully suppressed will transfer from the external skin to the internal skin (lungs) in the form of asthma; rheumatism if suppressed becomes heart disease. There are fixed and therefore predictable patterns of metastatis for all disease manifestations.

Therefore, when assessing the efficacy of a treatment it is not enough to say "the symptom has gone". You must know in which direction it has gone: deeper and higher into the person (ultimately affecting the highest organs, i.e., the intellect and emotions) or down and out of the person. A person who has heart disease after having rheumatism suppressed should - if treated properly - regain the rheumatism while freeing the heart. The rheumatic state can then be treated, this time properly.

Fergus. Mate. Seriously. You are wandering of into the realms of the absurd here.

Show me any evidence that what you've said above is the case.

[Twa Cairpets]

By hand on a relatively hard surface, e.g., book.

EDIT: I thought you wrote "potency" there. Homoeopathy doesn't use potions as you yourself pointed out - it's allopathy that uses mixtures of crude substances in its treatment. All rigorously tested of course, yet still they need more doctors and more hospitals as people get sicker and sicker. After 60-odd years of NHS we should be a healthy society by now.

Allopathy.

Dontcha just love made up constructs?

I dont have the figures to hand, but I'm guessing that the figures for, to name a few, Tuberculosis, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Smallpox, Diptheria and Whooping Cough have dropped.

Where would your evidence be for people getting sicker and sicker specifically as a result of the failures of what you call allopathy, and which other people call medicine?

[(((Fergus)))]

Fergus. Mate. Seriously. You are wandering of into the realms of the absurd here.

Show me any evidence that what you've said above is the case.

The only evidence I have is my own experience of it in myself, my family, friends and relatives as well as cases I've read about. It could all just be coincidence, but that seems increasingly improbable.

[(((Fergus)))]

Allopathy.

Dontcha just love made up constructs?

I dont have the figures to hand, but I'm guessing that the figures for, to name a few, Tuberculosis, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Smallpox, Diptheria and Whooping Cough have dropped.

Where would your evidence be for people getting sicker and sicker specifically as a result of the failures of what you call allopathy, and which other people call medicine?

Allopathy is not confined to western hospital medicine, the vast majority of alternative therapies use crude and dissimilar agents to suppress individual symptoms without regard to the internal cause. (Since the cause is unaffected, it resumes its expression once the influence of the drug has worn off.)

The character of this expression has changed over the centuries, becoming less external and more internal in the process. Today, we no longer have epidemics of measles or smallpox, we have epidemics of obesity, depression, infertility, alcoholism, drug-taking, suicide.

Which is closer to life and health in your opinion?

[RyeSloan]

Allopathy is not confined to western hospital medicine, the vast majority of alternative therapies use crude and dissimilar agents to suppress individual symptoms without regard to the internal cause. (Since the cause is unaffected, it resumes its expression once the influence of the drug has worn off.)

The character of this expression has changed over the centuries, becoming less external and more internal in the process. Today, we no longer have epidemics of measles or smallpox, we have epidemics of obesity, depression, infertility, alcoholism, drug-taking, suicide.

Which is closer to life and health in your opinion?

Oh come on....obesity, alcoholisim, drug taking are alamost all individual choices made, nothing to do with basic physical well being. True they will ultimately effect the user but are you implying that there are higher instances now because we have defeated small pox by using modern medicine??

Depression and suicide are caused by many many factors and I doubt you or anyone else actually has meaningful comparable data provign depression is more common (not more diagnosed) than previously.

Also your comment about people becoming sicker and sicker after 40 years of the NHS is simply not true....have a look at life expectancy rates and ask yourself if they are down to widespread use of homeopathy or thanks to modern medicine?

You also state "Assuming you were so ill and had exhausted all the other possibilities to the extent that you were prepared to reveal the painful details of your suffering to someone you had previously held in such contempt, then - provided you hadn't totally destroyed your vitality through other, suppressive therapies - the remedy would work."
Thing is you have no idea if this is true as what TC is getting at is that there is no verifiable evidence that it does...you state it as a truth but have nothing but localised observations to confirm it.

As I've said before I have tiem for soem alternative medicines and have little time for some of the actions of big Pharma but diluted water memorising healing properties which actually contains not a single molocule of the original 'remedy' is total nonsense, no matter how it is prepared!!!

[goosano]

:agree: I also find that when a person has a symptom totally removed by conventional medical treatment - or allopathy in general - they will (if still alive) have a new symptom located in a deeper part of the body. Generally, the doctor will deny that there is any causal connection between their treatment and the emergence of the new symptom. For example, eczema if successfully suppressed will transfer from the external skin to the internal skin (lungs) in the form of asthma; rheumatism if suppressed becomes heart disease. There are fixed and therefore predictable patterns of metastatis for all disease manifestations.

Therefore, when assessing the efficacy of a treatment it is not enough to say "the symptom has gone". You must know in which direction it has gone: deeper and higher into the person (ultimately affecting the highest organs, i.e., the intellect and emotions) or down and out of the person. A person who has heart disease after having rheumatism suppressed should - if treated properly - regain the rheumatism while freeing the heart. The rheumatic state can then be treated, this time properly.

This is perhaps the most ludicrous of all the posts in this thread-asthma,eczema and hay fever are all known as being linked conditions. And when you mention rhumatism in connection with heart disease what do you mean-rheumatism as in rheumatic fever or as in joint problems?

[Twa Cairpets]

The only evidence I have is my own experience of it in myself, my family, friends and relatives as well as cases I've read about. It could all just be coincidence, but that seems increasingly improbable.

No. Youre not getting away with that. You stated:

I also find that when a person has a symptom totally removed by conventional medical treatment - or allopathy in general - they will (if still alive) have a new symptom located in a deeper part of the body. Generally, the doctor will deny that there is any causal connection between their treatment and the emergence of the new symptom. For example, eczema if successfully suppressed will transfer from the external skin to the internal skin (lungs) in the form of asthma; rheumatism if suppressed becomes heart disease. There are fixed and therefore predictable patterns of metastatis for all disease manifestations.Therefore, when assessing the efficacy of a treatment it is not enough to say "the symptom has gone". You must know in which direction it has gone: deeper and higher into the person (ultimately affecting the highest organs, i.e., the intellect and emotions) or down and out of the person. A person who has heart disease after having rheumatism suppressed should - if treated properly - regain the rheumatism while freeing the heart. The rheumatic state can then be treated, this time properly.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Have you any medical training? Do you have the tools to make a reasoned, defendable causal link between rheumatism and heart disease? If you do, great, tell me how it works and point me in the direction of a paper I can look up. I will.

Everything you stated in your post you stated to read as incontrovertible fact. Now its from your (I'm guessing) untrained and clearly biased observations.

Here's the difference between you and me. If you show me some evidence - real evidence, that is, not hearsay, not unverifiable claims - I'll consider it and am absolutely 100% willing to change my mind on the matter in the light of this evidence.

I do not believe for an instant that you will change your mind on the basis of any amount of evidence that it doesnt work.

[Twa Cairpets]

Oh come on....obesity, alcoholisim, drug taking are alamost all individual choices made, nothing to do with basic physical well being. True they will ultimately effect the user but are you implying that there are higher instances now because we have defeated small pox by using modern medicine??

Depression and suicide are caused by many many factors and I doubt you or anyone else actually has meaningful comparable data provign depression is more common (not more diagnosed) than previously.

Also your comment about people becoming sicker and sicker after 40 years of the NHS is simply not true....have a look at life expectancy rates and ask yourself if they are down to widespread use of homeopathy or thanks to modern medicine?

You also state "Assuming you were so ill and had exhausted all the other possibilities to the extent that you were prepared to reveal the painful details of your suffering to someone you had previously held in such contempt, then - provided you hadn't totally destroyed your vitality through other, suppressive therapies - the remedy would work."
Thing is you have no idea if this is true as what TC is getting at is that there is no verifiable evidence that it does...you state it as a truth but have nothing but localised observations to confirm it.

As I've said before I have tiem for soem alternative medicines and have little time for some of the actions of big Pharma but diluted water memorising healing properties which actually contains not a single molocule of the original 'remedy' is total nonsense, no matter how it is prepared!!!

:top marks

[(((Fergus)))]

Also your comment about people becoming sicker and sicker after 40 years of the NHS is simply not true....have a look at life expectancy rates and ask yourself if they are down to widespread use of homeopathy or thanks to modern medicine?


That's another point: those figures do not include abortion statistics which would lower the average age considerably.

Today we kill every third or fourth foetus in the UK. People only a couple of generations ago were not only much more fertile, they were also more likely to love their offspring rather than hate it - certainly love it enough not to kill it. I personally consider that to be a healthier state.

You have to look at the whole picture.



Thing is you have no idea if this is true as what TC is getting at is that there is no verifiable evidence that it does...you state it as a truth but have nothing but localised observations to confirm it.


Put it this way: I've never seen it NOT work under those conditions, although there is always a first time for anything, we have to keep an open mind.



As I've said before I have tiem for soem alternative medicines and have little time for some of the actions of big Pharma but diluted water memorising healing properties which actually contains not a single molocule of the original 'remedy' is total nonsense, no matter how it is prepared!!!

As said before, it's got nothing to do with the "memory of water". Also there are plenty of things in life that function without the transfer of molecules, e.g., when you listen to the radio, not one molecule passes between the presenter's mouth and your ear. It is a transfer of information rather than material and it can pass through brick walls, etc.

[(((Fergus)))]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


I'm not making any claims, I am relating my experience. If you personally don't believe me that's your prerogative.

[Twa Cairpets]

That's another point: those figures do not include abortion statistics which would lower the average age considerably.

What the hell are you talking about?
Today we kill every third or fourth foetus in the UK. People only a couple of generations ago were not only much more fertile, they were also more likely to love their offspring rather than hate it - certainly love it enough not to kill it. I personally consider that to be a healthier state.

You have to look at the whole picture.

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Put it this way: I've never seen it NOT work under those conditions, although there is always a first time for anything, we have to keep an open mind.

:faf:

As said before, it's got nothing to do with the "memory of water". Also there are plenty of things in life that function without the transfer of molecules, e.g., when you listen to the radio, not one molecule passes between the presenter's mouth and your ear. It is a transfer of information rather than material and it can pass through brick walls, etc.

You have a clearly very ropey understanding of huge bits of science, but we wont go into that here. Oh, by the way, if its not to do with the memory of water (as the Society of Homeopaths claim), what has it do with?



.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------


I'm not making any claims, I am relating my experience. If you personally don't believe me that's your prerogative.

I think you'll find you've made rather a lot of claims if you go back and review your posts. I dont believe you because I'm afraid to say and with apologies in advance for the discourtesy, Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're nuts.

[lapsedhibee]

you're nuts
:tsk tsk:

Am personally not a homeopathophile, but not everything about water is fully scientifically understood. For example, the Mpemba effect (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html), first written about by Aristotle.

Not putting forward the continuing uncertainty about that as an argument for homeopathy, just saying. :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------



I think you'll find you've made rather a lot of claims if you go back and review your posts. I dont believe you because I'm afraid to say and with apologies in advance for the discourtesy, Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're nuts.

The only person making unfounded claims on this thread is yourself. You have the brass neck to claim that Homoeopathy is nonsense yet you have neither studied it, tested the principles for yourself, nor had treatment. You know nothing about it other than a few buzzwords and a lot of secondhand prejudice yet you dismiss it out of hand with mockery and contempt while claiming to be "scientific".

I, my family and many of my friends have first hand personal experience of Homoeopathy. I have related my own experiences of it and my observation of its action in them. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone takes something from that, then good. If not, then I am sorry to have wasted my time.

[Twa Cairpets]

The only person making unfounded claims on this thread is yourself. You have the brass neck to claim that Homoeopathy is nonsense yet you have neither studied it, tested the principles for yourself, nor had treatment. You know nothing about it other than a few buzzwords and a lot of secondhand prejudice yet you dismiss it out of hand with mockery and contempt while claiming to be "scientific".

I, my family and many of my friends have first hand personal experience of Homoeopathy. I have related my own experiences of it and my observation of its action in them. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone takes something from that, then good. If not, then I am sorry to have wasted my time.

I'm delighted that you, your family and your friends have found pdeudoscientific claptrap a source of comfort to you.

As expected, the resort of the true believer in such arrant balderdash is to present zero evidence other than apocryphal stories and unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable personal evidence.

What I have studied to a level that is depressing is the scientific evidence behind this bogus, dangerous and ridiculous idea.

You accuse me of buzzwords! If I thought that this was irony then I would hail you as one of the most gifted comedians of all time. Have you the faintest appreciation of any of the utter, utter piffle you have written in this thread? Have you looked back and reviewed any of your bizarre postings?

Despite what you think, there is a world of difference between prejudice, which is what you have demonstrated amply on this and other threads, and skepticism, which is a reluctance to accept things as fact without querying, checking, referencing and researching the wilder claims made by people in any number of areas.

Your last line is this?: Nothing more, nothing less. If someone takes something from that, then good. If not, then I am sorry to have wasted my time.[/

Mine would be: If anyone takes anything from this, it would not to accept anything Fergus has said as proof. Equally, dont accept a single word Ive written, or any opinions anyone else has put forward. Go and research it for yourself. Check the evidence, and make up your own mind. But remember one phrase - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[Twa Cairpets]

:tsk tsk:

Am personally not a homeopathophile, but not everything about water is fully scientifically understood. For example, the Mpemba effect (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html), first written about by Aristotle.

Not putting forward the continuing uncertainty about that as an argument for homeopathy, just saying. :wink:

At the risk of sounding something of a know-it-all, I'm fairly up on water and its properties. I did my degree dissertation on the scientific controversy surrounding polywate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater)r. Interesting stuff.

The sad thing is that the deluded believers in homeopathy see such things as evidence for a possible mechanism for their voodoo. Its not.

[ArabHibee]

At the risk of sounding something of a know-it-all, I'm fairly up on water and its properties. I did my degree dissertation on the scientific controversy surrounding polywate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater)r. Interesting stuff.

The sad thing is that the deluded believers in homeopathy see such things as evidence for a possible mechanism for their voodoo. Its not.


I started reading this thread, then decided I didn't want to waste 20 minutes of my life wading through the next 4-5 pages.

Question I have is: Two Carpets - do you get out much? :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I started reading this thread, then decided I didn't want to waste 20 minutes of my life wading through the next 4-5 pages.

Question I have is: Two Carpets - do you get out much? :confused:

People may take against Two carpets uber-rationalism but his posts have, to a large extent, ensured that this and the evolution thread have been two of the most fascinating on this board for quite a while.

I'm struggling to recall you contributing anything on any section of .net other than some cringe-inducingly embarassing flirting with people you have presumably never met.

[goosano]

I, my family and many of my friends have first hand personal experience of Homoeopathy. I have related my own experiences of it and my observation of its action in them. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone takes something from that, then good. If not, then I am sorry to have wasted my time.

The problem with this statement is that most medical problems are self limiting. If you take treatment for a cold then you don't know whether the cold was naturally going away or if it has been speeded on it's way by treatment. There is also the placebo effect to take into account. The only true way of knowing if treatments work is by doing a double blind randomised controlled trial.

The well respected medical journal the Lancet did a meta analysis (ie combined the results of many studies) of trials involving homeopathic treatment in 2005. The conclusion was that there was no evidence at all that homeopathy had any effect.

[ArabHibee]

:bye:
People may take against Two carpets uber-rationalism but his posts have, to a large extent, ensured that this and the evolution thread have been two of the most fascinating on this board for quite a while.

I'm struggling to recall you contributing anything on any section of .net other than some cringe-inducingly embarassing flirting with people you have presumably never met.

:yawn: Might have known that you would turn up at some point to put in your tuppence worth. Are you his spokesperson or something? Can't he speak for himself?
How intelligent of you to go and look at what I've posted previously. I really couldn't give a flying duck what your opinion of me is. I come on .net to chat about footie and have a laugh. I stretch my brain enough at my work during the day.
And before you start going on about "well don't go onto threads debating serious things", I thought the thread would be interesting but I found (for myself) that it wasn't. I was merely asking TwoCarpets a question as I feel that he starts threads to argue with people. But you'll know all about that won't you? Some of the self-righteous claptrap you've come out with in your posts beggars belief. So lets just agree on one thing, you think I'm a muppet and the feeling's mutual.
Oh and FYI - I've met quite a lot of people from hibs.net, fortunately I've never met you. Let's keep it that way.
Sorry for the :hijack: I'll away and do some flirting on another thread!

[Twa Cairpets]

:bye:

:yawn: Might have known that you would turn up at some point to put in your tuppence worth. Are you his spokesperson or something? Can't he speak for himself?
How intelligent of you to go and look at what I've posted previously. I really couldn't give a flying duck what your opinion of me is. I come on .net to chat about footie and have a laugh. I stretch my brain enough at my work during the day.
And before you start going on about "well don't go onto threads debating serious things", I thought the thread would be interesting but I found (for myself) that it wasn't. I was merely asking TwoCarpets a question as I feel that he starts threads to argue with people. But you'll know all about that won't you? Some of the self-righteous claptrap you've come out with in your posts beggars belief. So lets just agree on one thing, you think I'm a muppet and the feeling's mutual.
Oh and FYI - I've met quite a lot of people from hibs.net, fortunately I've never met you. Let's keep it that way.
Sorry for the :hijack: I'll away and do some flirting on another thread!

Thanks for your concen Arab.

Yes, I do get out a lot. For what its worth, I coach two different youth football teams, I run my own business, I go mountaineering fairly regularly, have an excellent circle of friends and family and generally think I live rather a happy life. I have a ST for Easter Road as well.

I post on the main forum on football too. I also have a long standing alias on kickback which is great fun. I like to go and poke them every now and again.

But for purposes of clarity, I've only started one thread on this forum, and have only really contributed to four other ones.

I believe very strongly in some things, and like to learn as much as I can about them. The forums are a good place to debate and get other views. if people dont like mine, I'm happy to go through them. Its fun.

This homeopathy thread is excellent because of the responses from the likes of Fergus, who although I think is barking, at least defends his ground (albeit an indefensible one), and becasue I think its important. if you dont, fine, dont post and if it bores you, dont read it.

Simple really.

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2115352]People may take against Two carpets uber-rationalism but his posts have, to a large extent, ensured that this and the evolution thread have been two of the most fascinating on this board for quite a while.

[QUOTE]

Now i like that. Two Carpets - Uber Rationalist. I should get it on a t-shirt

[Phil D. Rolls]

Can I just say that although I'm not much further forward, the quality of debate on this thread has been both entertaining and informative. Well done to all those who are making their points so well. :thumbsup:

It's good that there have been very little smart alec interventions from people who don't like to read this sort of thing. I realise that most of them are probably asleep after the first couple of posts, but fair play to everyone for keeping things (almost) respectful.

[LiverpoolHibs]

:bye:

:yawn: Might have known that you would turn up at some point to put in your tuppence worth. Are you his spokesperson or something? Can't he speak for himself?

I'm sure he can. But then it's a public forum and it's sort of the point that you don't just respond to posts directed to yourself. It'd be pretty uninteresting otherwise.


How intelligent of you to go and look at what I've posted previously. I really couldn't give a flying duck what your opinion of me is. I come on .net to chat about footie and have a laugh. I stretch my brain enough at my work during the day.

I didn't go and look at what you've previously posted I noticed it when reading a thread the other day. It was a pretty unpleasant moment that has unfortunately stuck in my mind.


And before you start going on about "well don't go onto threads debating serious things", I thought the thread would be interesting but I found (for myself) that it wasn't. I was merely asking TwoCarpets a question as I feel that he starts threads to argue with people. But you'll know all about that won't you? Some of the self-righteous claptrap you've come out with in your posts beggars belief. So lets just agree on one thing, you think I'm a muppet and the feeling's mutual.

I'm not sure what you thought would be in this thread that isn't? You didn't just ask him a question you attemted to belittle him, presumably because you found yourself unable to actually debate the subject of the thread as others have done.

And I'm sure you'll find no difficulty in pointing me to threads I've started just to argue with people or the 'self-righteous captrap' I've come out with.

[RyeSloan]

That's another point: those figures do not include abortion statistics which would lower the average age considerably.

Today we kill every third or fourth foetus in the UK. People only a couple of generations ago were not only much more fertile, they were also more likely to love their offspring rather than hate it - certainly love it enough not to kill it. I personally consider that to be a healthier state.

You have to look at the whole picture.

What a strange response, are you saying life expectancy is only increasing because of the rise in abortion rates??

The whole picture as you will know shows a vast and steady rise in life expectancy and that this is directly linked to superior health care...or are you trying to suggest that by killing unborn children we automatically live longer, is this another of your 'immaterial' connections??




Put it this way: I've never seen it NOT work under those conditions, although there is always a first time for anything, we have to keep an open mind.

So you are stating it as fact then based only on your very limted personal observations.



As said before, it's got nothing to do with the "memory of water". Also there are plenty of things in life that function without the transfer of molecules, e.g., when you listen to the radio, not one molecule passes between the presenter's mouth and your ear. It is a transfer of information rather than material and it can pass through brick walls, etc.

Are you seriously comparing the workings of homeopathic remedies to sound waves and gravitational force?!? Not only are you getting your workings of nature a wee bitty confused the simple fact is that even these 'invisibles' can, unlike your 'proof' in the effectiveness of homeopathy, be measured, quantified and proven.

[Twa Cairpets]

I came across this on YouTube.

Dara O'Briain (Mock the Week host) on Homeopathy and Alternative remedies. Brilliant, and exactly what I would say if I was an excellent Irish comedian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

[Beefster]

I started reading this thread, then decided I didn't want to waste 20 minutes of my life wading through the next 4-5 pages.

Question I have is: Two Carpets - do you get out much? :confused:

But then you wasted some seconds to tell us that you didn't want to waste any time of your life on it? Rational...

[Phil D. Rolls]

I came across this on YouTube.

Dara O'Briain (Mock the Week host) on Homeopathy and Alternative remedies. Brilliant, and exactly what I would say if I was an excellent Irish comedian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

Not only is Dara a great comedian, but he is married to a doctor. I wonder if this could have any influence on his thinking about alternative medicine?

[Twa Cairpets]

Not only is Dara a great comedian, but he is married to a doctor. I wonder if this could have any influence on his thinking about alternative medicine?

Or maybe his understanding of how science works as a result of his degree in theoretical physics?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Or maybe his understanding of how science works as a result of his degree in theoretical physics?

Could well be, he is still a scientist mocking something because it can't be explained by science. But that is a recurring theme on this thread.

[da-robster]

There's a good comedy sketch about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

[hibsbollah]

Could well be, he is still a scientist mocking something because it can't be explained by science. But that is a recurring theme on this thread.

:agree:

I read something last night by Carl Jung that seemed very apt to this thread ; "We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy."

Although I predict the zealots among us may find coming to terms with the inadequacy of their points of view a bit difficult:wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Could well be, he is still a scientist mocking something because it can't be explained by science. But that is a recurring theme on this thread.

Thats an ingenious slant FR.

It is not the job of science to explain something that shows no evidence of working.

I used the line earlier - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Believers in homeopathy present absolutely no mechanism, evidence or practical support for their view, but require everyone "just to believe"

What are we to believe? A 250 year old idea, based on a theory designed before almost every branch of modern biology was understood.

Don't get overly hung up on the word science. Think of it as evidence - real evidence, not anecdotal stories - and it becomes much harder to justify the claim.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:agree:

I read something last night by Carl Jung that seemed very apt to this thread ; "We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy."

Although I predict the zealots among us may find coming to terms with the inadequacy of their points of view a bit difficult:wink:

What I have found is that doctors can tell me down to the chemical interaction at cell level how I can type this message. But they can't tell me why I want to type this message.

There are large parts of our being that science treats in the same way as ancient explorers treated bits of the ocean they hadn't been to "here be sea monsters".

[hibsbollah]

Thats an ingenious slant FR.

It is not the job of science to explain something that shows no evidence of working.



:faf:We're going round in circles here because you cannot accept that there is evidence for it working, direct from patients. What there is not is a scientific mechanism for why it works. Conventional medicine being unable to identify the mechanism isnt the fault of the homeopath, as you seem to suggest. It could just as easily be said to be the fault of conventional medicine.

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree:

I read something last night by Carl Jung that seemed very apt to this thread ; "We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy."

Although I predict the zealots among us may find coming to terms with the inadequacy of their points of view a bit difficult:wink:

I really hope I'm a zealot!

I like Jungs quote, and applied to things like emotion, thought, friendship its perfect.

In the field of coming to a conclusion about whether something measurable is right or not, its not relevant. The inadequacy lies firmly in the camp of believers in pesudoscience. If you take this argument for homeopathy, then it is equally valid, as Ive said before, for reiki, ear candling, therapeutic touch and crystal therapy. You might believe all these work too. If you dont, then what do you base your disbelief on? Hunch? Level of outlandishness? If you base your level of "belief" solely on whether there is independent, impartial, disinterested evidence, then you have a level playing field.

I just dont see how you can believe something that there is no evidence for. (And this is different to religion, btw - you cant begin to attempt to measure the existence of God, but you can measure the efficacy of a medical treatment or intervention).

[hibsbollah]

I really hope I'm a zealot!

I like Jungs quote, and applied to things like emotion, thought, friendship its perfect.

In the filed of coming to a conclusion about whether something measurable is righ tor not, its not relevant. The inadequacy lies firmly in the camp of believers in pesudoscience. if you take this argument for homeopathy, then it is equally valid, as Ive said before, for reiki, ear candling, therapeutic touch and crystal therapy. You might believe all these work too. If you dont, then what do you base your disbelief on? Hunch? Level of outlandishness? If you base your level of "belief" solely on whether there is independent, impartial, disinterested evidence, then you have a level playing field.

I just dont see how you can believe something that there is no evidence for. (And this is different to religion, btw - you cant begin to attempt to measure the existence of God, but you can measure the efficacy of a medical treatment or intervention).

See my post above. You're confusing 'evidence' with 'mechanism'.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I really hope I'm a zealot!

I like Jungs quote, and applied to things like emotion, thought, friendship its perfect.

In the filed of coming to a conclusion about whether something measurable is righ tor not, its not relevant. The inadequacy lies firmly in the camp of believers in pesudoscience. if you take this argument for homeopathy, then it is equally valid, as Ive said before, for reiki, ear candling, therapeutic touch and crystal therapy. You might believe all these work too. If you dont, then what do you base your disbelief on? Hunch? Level of outlandishness? If you base your level of "belief" solely on whether there is independent, impartial, disinterested evidence, then you have a level playing field.

I just dont see how you can believe something that there is no evidence for. (And this is different to religion, btw - you cant begin to attempt to measure the existence of God, but you can measure the efficacy of a medical treatment or intervention).

My experience is that the evidence is rarely impartial or independent. Certainly in psychiatry, they seem to be able to come up with evidence that justifies the treatment they prescribe. How do you measure the efficacy of a drug that is supposed to alter someone's mood, when there are so many variables that will affect it?

Maybe psychiatry is pseudoscience too?

[Twa Cairpets]

See my post above. You're confusing 'evidence' with 'mechanism'.

No.

On the contrary, you are confusing evidence with anecdote.

You seem to think that somebody, in a completely unctrolled, unregulated situation saying "I feel better", then fine. What you consider as evidence and what anyone with the slightest interest in impartial analysis considers evidence is miles apart, and yes, we would be going around in circles.

But ok, lets explore this.

You say that someone claiming to feel better after taking homeopathy is evidence of its working. Would you also therefore say it evidence that someone not feeling better after taking homeopathy is also evidence, albeit contrary to what you believe? I'm hoping you will.

If these people were then monitored under controlled circumstances, where their clinical well-being was measured and monitored by individuals who didnt know whether or not the treatment they were being given was real homeopathic preparations, acknowledged placebos or conventional medicine, would that be fair? If the people then monitoring the status of the patients also didnt know what they had been given would that also be fair? If you add in finally the fact that the patients themselves had no idea that they were part of any type of measurement or trial, would that be a fair way of excluding any possibility of bias in the trial?

I'm hoping you cant disagree with any of the above as being fair.

Here's the facts hibsbollah. Every time trials have been carried out under these conditions, homeopathy has been shown to provide no clinical advantage in excess of the effect of placebo. If you want I can provide link after link.

Why can't science provide an explanation for the mechanism? Because there is no mechanism to provide a mechanism for.

[hibsbollah]

No.

On the contrary, you are confusing evidence with anecdote.

You seem to think that somebody, in a completely unctrolled, unregulated situation saying "I feel better", then fine. What you consider as evidence and what anyone with the slightest interest in impartial analysis considers evidence is miles apart, and yes, we would be going around in circles.

But ok, lets explore this.

You say that someone claiming to feel better after taking homeopathy is evidence of its working. Would you also therefore say it evidence that someone not feeling better after taking homeopathy is also evidence, albeit contrary to what you believe? I'm hoping you will.

If these people were then monitored under controlled circumstances, where their clinical well-being was measured and monitored by individuals who didnt know whether or not the treatment they were being given was real homeopathic preparations, acknowledged placebos or conventional medicine, would that be fair? If the people then monitoring the status of the patients also didnt know what they had been given would that be fair? If you add in finally the fact that the patients themselves had no idea that they were part of any type of measurement or trial, would that be a fair way of excluding any possibility of bias in the trial.

I'm hoping you cant disagree with any of the above as being fair.

Here's the facts hibsbollah. Every time trials have been carried out under these conditions, homeopathy has been shown to provide no clinical advantage in excess of the effect of placebo. If you want I can provide link after link.

Why can't science provide an explanation for the mechanism? Because there is no mechanism to provide a mechanism for.

I'm not keen on providing link after link, because you find something on the internet to prove almost anything to be true, but here's something you may find enlightening; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/129436.php

Essentially, this represents a repudiation of the original Lancet report, which took a very anti-homeopathic angle, and which the medical establishment is still feasting out on.

Key findings you may want to consider are:
1. Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.

2.The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions. Homeopathy works for some of these but not others, implying that homeopathy is not placebo.

and crucially,

3. This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the Lancet review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy. An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.


Moving onto anecdotal evidence, you have already proved yourself incapable of accepting this in the case of Fergus, who gave you examples of how his family benefitted from non-traditional medical applications. Although I am probably leaving myself open to your usual tone of withering scorn and sarcasm, I have anecdotal evidence of homeopathic and non-traditional medicines working for me and my family, over a period of years, and across generations. I know Ferr Phos, or iron phosphate, works, (in terms of protecting against the common cold)because ive seen it work. I have never seen it not work on anyone. It works on children, who are not subject to the placebo effect, and it works on people who have poor health otherwise and excellent health otherwise. It works on people who have a diet that would otherwise provide protection against the common cold, and those who don't. I could say the same for arnica, which works wonders for bruises.

Now I would imagine it costs millions of pounds to submit this remedy for the same medical trials that the pharmo-giants put their products through, but as you can see from the link above, the homeopathy establishment are desperate for their products to receive trials.

You may take from this that I am a fanatical supporter of homeopathy. I'm not, ive just found from experience that at least two of them work.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not keen on providing link after link, because you find something on the internet to prove almost anything to be true, but here's something you may find enlightening; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/129436.php

Essentially, this represents a repudiation of the original Lancet report, which took a very anti-homeopathic angle, and which the medical establishment is still feasting out on.

Key findings you may want to consider are:
1. Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.

2.The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions. Homeopathy works for some of these but not others, implying that homeopathy is not placebo.

and crucially,

3. This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the Lancet review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy. An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.


Moving onto anecdotal evidence, you have already proved yourself incapable of accepting this in the case of Fergus, who gave you examples of how his family benefitted from non-traditional medical applications. Although I am probably leaving myself open to your usual tone of withering scorn and sarcasm, I have anecdotal evidence of homeopathic and non-traditional medicines working for me and my family, over a period of years, and across generations. I know Ferr Phos, or iron phosphate, works, (in terms of protecting against the common cold)because ive seen it work. I have never seen it not work on anyone. It works on children, who are not subject to the placebo effect, and it works on people who have poor health otherwise and excellent health otherwise. It works on people who have a diet that would otherwise provide protection against the common cold, and those who don't. I could say the same for arnica, which works wonders for bruises.

Now I would imagine it costs millions of pounds to submit this remedy for the same medical trials that the pharmo-giants put their products through, but as you can see from the link above, the homeopathy establishment are desperate for their products to receive trials.

You may take from this that I am a fanatical supporter of homeopathy. I'm not, ive just found from experience that at least two of them work.

I have read the link. Thanks for this.

Desparately trying to avoid sinking to withering scorn and sarcasm, it is fair to note that the source for the report is Peter Gold, from the National Centre of Homeopathy. They probably don't provide the most disinterested analysis of the Lancet Report.

So, given the choice between one of the most revered medical/scientific, high quality peer reviewed publications on the planet, or the opinion of a representative of an unregulated body, my old, cynical, closed-mind will tend towards the former.

Coiuple of points that I would be hugely grateful if you could think about and reply on - and im not being sarcastic here.

Placebo & Kids. Kids are surely amongst the most susceptible to placebo. "Mummy will kiss it better", and the analysis of how they have responded to any treatment is down to people who are potentially hugely biased towards confirmation. Odds are that someone being comforting, loving and soothing is morelikely to have a benefit that a sugar pill.

The market for homeopathy is valued in the billions of dollars. If you were to do a cost benefit analysis of the value of the homeopathic community/industry providing definitive, indisputable proof of its efficacy, I think you would find that it would be instantly the most lucrative industry in history. The rules for trials are easy, straightforward and understood by everyone. Crying poverty just doesnt wash.

[hibsbollah]

I have read the link. Thanks for this.

Desparately trying to avoid sinking to withering scorn and sarcasm, it is fair to note that the source for the report is Peter Gold, from the National Centre of Homeopathy. They probably don't provide the most disinterested analysis of the Lancet Report.

So, given the choice between one of the most revered medical/scientific, high quality peer reviewed publications on the planet, or the opinion of a representative of an unregulated body, my old, cynical, closed-mind will tend towards the former.

Coiuple of points that I would be hugely grateful if you could think about and reply on - and im not being sarcastic here.

Placebo & Kids. Kids are surely amongst the most susceptible to placebo. "Mummy will kiss it better", and the analysis of how they have responded to any treatment is down to people who are potentially hugely biased towards confirmation. Odds are that someone being comforting, loving and soothing is morelikely to have a benefit that a sugar pill.

The market for homeopathy is valued in the billions of dollars. If you were to do a cost benefit analysis of the value of the homeopathic community/industry providing definitive, indisputable proof of its efficacy, I think you would find that it would be instantly the most lucrative industry in history. The rules for trials are easy, straightforward and understood by everyone. Crying poverty just doesnt wash.

Kids arent susceptible to a placebo effect if they dont know they're taking anything. Ferr Phos is a tiny tasteless lozenge that disolves on the tongue.

You may be right about the global value of homeopathic profits. I dont know how much these things cost or who normally pays for trials. I would doubt that theres a single homeopathic 'producer' of medicines of the size of the likes of Glaxo Smithkline or their ilk, who essentially monopolise global medical care.

[Jack]

For the lots of posters who have mentioned Chinese stuff

From the Consumer Health Digest, a scientific weekly look at ‘alternative medicines’ and research carried out on them.



Devastating attack on "acupuncture anesthesia" published.

The Science-Based Medicine Blog has concluded that the "acupuncture anesthesia" promoted by the People's Republic of China from about 1958 through the mid-1970s was faked. In a four-part series, anesthesiologist Kimball Atwood, M.D. concludes:

**Most patients who underwent acupuncture for surgery were given sedatives, narcotics, and local anesthetics.

**Statistics about the use and effectiveness of "acupuncture anesthesia" were grossly exaggerated.

**During the Cultural Revolution, patients were under extreme pressure to please their physicians and other authority figures, which meant they were unlikely to complain.

**In the late 1970s, when criticism became safe, knowledgeable doctors began speaking out publicly about the fakery. Use and respect for Traditional Chinese Medicine has been declining in China since that time.

**There is no acupuncture anesthesia or analgesia-at least not to an extent that is either humane or clinically useful for surgery.

Source: Atwood KA. "Acupuncture anesthesia: a proclamation from Chairman Mao. Science in Medicine Blog, May/June 2009.
[Part I] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=131
[Part II] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=494
[Part III] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=505
[Part IV] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=540



If the Chinese are going off it why is anyone extolling its vitues?

[hibsbollah]

For the lots of posters who have mentioned Chinese stuff

From the Consumer Health Digest, a scientific weekly look at ‘alternative medicines’ and research carried out on them.





If the Chinese are going off it why is anyone extolling its vitues?

I dont know much about acupuncture, but its just a small part of the chinese medicine system as far as i know:agree:

[Beefster]

:faf:We're going round in circles here because you cannot accept that there is evidence for it working, direct from patients.

When I have a cold, I always wear trousers.
When I wear trousers, I always recover from the cold eventually.
Therefore, wearing trousers cures the cold.

It might seem like a logical assumption to make but it doesn't make it true.

[hibsbollah]

When I have a cold, I always wear trousers.
When I wear trousers, I always recover from the cold eventually.
Therefore, wearing trousers cures the cold.

It might seem like a logical assumption to make but it doesn't make it true.

You're wrong, theres nothing logical about that assumption:faf:

I think you need to assume a basic level of intelligence when assessing if something works or not.

[Jack]

I dont know much about acupuncture, but its just a small part of the chinese medicine system as far as i know:agree:


I suppose that comment you refer to was mostly aimed at the bit I put in bold ...

"Use and respect for Traditional Chinese Medicine has been declining in China since that time."

... which, if I have read it correctly, suggets faith in/use of all traditional Chinese medicine has been declining in China since the 70s.

[Twa Cairpets]

You're wrong, theres nothing logical about that assumption:faf:

I think you need to assume a basic level of intelligence when assessing if something works or not.

I'm trying to bite my tongue here.

A basic level of intelligence may lead one to consider that a solution so dilute for it not to contain a single molecule of the orginal substance, shaken (sorry Fergus, succussed) in a special magical way is not going to have any affect other than rehydration.

Where do you draw your line? I find the idea that people waste money giving deluded charlatans money for reiki or crystal healing hugely depressing. I find that it insults my intelligence. Why is that particular form of mumbo-jumbo any less valid to the application of a "basic level of intelligence" than homeopathy.

[hibsbollah]

I'm trying to bite my tongue here.

A basic level of intelligence may lead one to consider that a solution so dilute for it not to contain a single molecule of the orginal substance, shaken (sorry Fergus, succussed) in a special magical way is not going to have any affect other than rehydration.

Where do you draw your line? I find the idea that people waste money giving deluded charlatans money for reiki or crystal healing hugely depressing. I find that it insults my intelligence. Why is that particular form of mumbo-jumbo any less valid to the application of a "basic level of intelligence" than homeopathy.

What really shows a lack of intelligence is to avoid the evidence of your own experience.

A basic level of intelligence should tell Beefster's trouser wearing character, for example, that wearing trousers should be a fundamental component in staying warm and healthy. A basic level of intelligence is irrelevant whether the person is taking paracetamol or ferr phos.

[hibsbollah]

I suppose that comment you refer to was mostly aimed at the bit I put in bold ...

"Use and respect for Traditional Chinese Medicine has been declining in China since that time."

... which, if I have read it correctly, suggets faith in/use of all traditional Chinese medicine has been declining in China since the 70s.

It would be interesting to see stats on it I suppose, there will be a lot of factors affecting use, including a ban of imports of endangered species maybe? Its still the mainstream form of healthcare in the countries I mentioned though.

[Twa Cairpets]

What really shows a lack of intelligence is to avoid the evidence of your own experience.

A basic level of intelligence should tell Beefster's trouser wearing character, for example, that wearing trousers should be a fundamental component in staying warm and healthy. A basic level of intelligence is irrelevant whether the person is taking paracetamol or ferr phos.

Ive looked at Paracetamol, and Ive looked at Ferr Phos. Here are some cut and pastes. They may be a little long, but I invite you to read through them and then, by applying your intelligence, make a judgement on which one appears to be better. Links here (http://www.assistpainrelief.com/info/paracetamol/) and here (http://www.answers.com/topic/ferrum-phosphoricum)


(Interestingly, nowhere could I find any thing that suggested that your hypothesised property of cold prevention "I know Ferr Phos, or iron phosphate, works, (in terms of protecting against the common cold)because ive seen it work".) Maybe you should let the guys at the Homeopathy society know. Of course, maybe you just didnt catch a cold. I've not had one for about three years, without the help of Ferr Phos!!!

Paracetamol Paracetamol works as a weak prostaglandin inhibitor. It achieves this by blocking the production of prostaglandins, which are chemicals involved in the transmission of the pain message to the brain. In this regard, paracetamol is different from Aspirin and NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in that it blocks the pain message at the brain and not at the source of the pain, as the others do.

Structually, paracetamol is similar to aspirin. They are both recognised by the same enzyme, which is called cyclo-oxygenase (COX). Cyclo-oxygenase serves as a pain activator, amplifying the degree of pain experienced in order to let the body know that there is a problem. It is this enzyme that is responsible for the biosynthesis of prostoglandins. By reducing the amount of prostaglandin available for synthesis, paracetamol helps relieve headache pain by reducing the dilation of the blood vessels that cause the pain. Paracetamol, however, only inhibits prostaglandin biosynthesis in the central nervous system (CNS) with little or no effect on peripheral tissues.

Ferr Phos: "...a classically trained homeopath would not give ferrum phos. automatically to every patient who walked into the office complaining of fever or a viral illness. A contemporary American practitioner of homeopathy recommends giving ferrum phos. when the person does not have clear and distinct symptoms that would point to another remedy. The profile of the ferrum phos. person is that he or she has a lower fever and is more alert than one who needs belladonna but less upset and fearful than one who needs aconite. Where a patient with the belladonna profile may have a face that is flushed all over with fever, the ferrum phos. patient has clearly defined pink or red patches on the cheeks. The ferrum phos. patient is not focused solely on his or her discomfort and may have conversations with others as if he or she were not ill.

Other characteristics of ferrum phos. patients include a tendency to tire easily. They are nervous, sensitive people, disturbed by anxiety-provoking dreams. They may be restless sleepers, even though their illnesses are often brought on by overexertion. In addition, ferrum phos. patients often bleed easily; they are more prone to nosebleeds or minor bleeding from the gums at the onset of an illness. If they cough up mucus, it is likely to be streaked with blood.

The homeopathic definition of "symptom" is broader than the standard medical understanding. To a homeopath, symptoms represent the body's attempts to deal with an internal or external ailment. They are guides to choosing the correct remedy rather than problems to be suppressed. A homeopathic practitioner who is asking a patient about symptoms will inquire about the circumstances (e.g., light or dark, heat or cold, rest or activity, etc.) that make the patient feel better or worse. These factors are called modalities in homeopathy. In terms of modalities, gentle motion and applications of cold make ferrum phos. patients feel better, while cold air, nighttime, standing up, and heavy exertion make them feel worse.

A homeopathic practitioner might prescribe ferrum phos. for any of the following conditions:

tickling coughs accompanied by chest pain
laryngitis
red and swollen tonsils
fevers that start slowly
ear infections that have not yet produced pus
incontinence, involuntary urination with coughing, bedwetting
rheumatic joints
menstrual periods that begin with headaches
anemia
fatigue
nosebleeds
sore throats, especially in singers
vomiting
diarrhea
heart palpitations
Preparations

Ferrum phos. is available in the United States in both liquid and tablet form. It can be purchased from homeopathic pharmacies or over the internet. Common potencies of ferrum phos. are 30C and 6X. The abbreviation 30C stands for a centesimal potency. This indicates that a process of dilution, along with vigorous shaking (succussion) of the remedy, has been repeated 30 times to achieve the desired potency. The abbreviation 6X indicates a decimal potency, and means that this decimal dilution has been repeated six times. In homeopathic practice, the strength of the remedy is in inverse proportion to the amount of chemical or plant extract in the alcohol or water; thus a 30C preparation of ferrum phos. is considered a much higher potency than a 6X preparation. People using homeopathic remedies at home are generally encouraged to use the lower potencies such as 6X or 12X."

[hibsbollah]

Ive looked at Paracetamol, and Ive looked at Ferr Phos. Here are some cut and pastes. They may be a little long, but I invite you to read through them and then, by applying your intelligence, make a judgement on which one appears to be better. Links here (http://www.assistpainrelief.com/info/paracetamol/) and here (http://www.answers.com/topic/ferrum-phosphoricum)


(Interestingly, nowhere could I find any thing that suggested that your hypothesised property of cold prevention "I know Ferr Phos, or iron phosphate, works, (in terms of protecting against the common cold)because ive seen it work".) Maybe you should let the guys at the Homeopathy society know. Of course, maybe you just didnt catch a cold. I've not had one for about three years, without the help of Ferr Phos!!!

Paracetamol Paracetamol works as a weak prostaglandin inhibitor. It achieves this by blocking the production of prostaglandins, which are chemicals involved in the transmission of the pain message to the brain. In this regard, paracetamol is different from Aspirin and NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in that it blocks the pain message at the brain and not at the source of the pain, as the others do.

Structually, paracetamol is similar to aspirin. They are both recognised by the same enzyme, which is called cyclo-oxygenase (COX). Cyclo-oxygenase serves as a pain activator, amplifying the degree of pain experienced in order to let the body know that there is a problem. It is this enzyme that is responsible for the biosynthesis of prostoglandins. By reducing the amount of prostaglandin available for synthesis, paracetamol helps relieve headache pain by reducing the dilation of the blood vessels that cause the pain. Paracetamol, however, only inhibits prostaglandin biosynthesis in the central nervous system (CNS) with little or no effect on peripheral tissues.

Ferr Phos: "...a classically trained homeopath would not give ferrum phos. automatically to every patient who walked into the office complaining of fever or a viral illness. A contemporary American practitioner of homeopathy recommends giving ferrum phos. when the person does not have clear and distinct symptoms that would point to another remedy. The profile of the ferrum phos. person is that he or she has a lower fever and is more alert than one who needs belladonna but less upset and fearful than one who needs aconite. Where a patient with the belladonna profile may have a face that is flushed all over with fever, the ferrum phos. patient has clearly defined pink or red patches on the cheeks. The ferrum phos. patient is not focused solely on his or her discomfort and may have conversations with others as if he or she were not ill.

Other characteristics of ferrum phos. patients include a tendency to tire easily. They are nervous, sensitive people, disturbed by anxiety-provoking dreams. They may be restless sleepers, even though their illnesses are often brought on by overexertion. In addition, ferrum phos. patients often bleed easily; they are more prone to nosebleeds or minor bleeding from the gums at the onset of an illness. If they cough up mucus, it is likely to be streaked with blood.

The homeopathic definition of "symptom" is broader than the standard medical understanding. To a homeopath, symptoms represent the body's attempts to deal with an internal or external ailment. They are guides to choosing the correct remedy rather than problems to be suppressed. A homeopathic practitioner who is asking a patient about symptoms will inquire about the circumstances (e.g., light or dark, heat or cold, rest or activity, etc.) that make the patient feel better or worse. These factors are called modalities in homeopathy. In terms of modalities, gentle motion and applications of cold make ferrum phos. patients feel better, while cold air, nighttime, standing up, and heavy exertion make them feel worse.

A homeopathic practitioner might prescribe ferrum phos. for any of the following conditions:

tickling coughs accompanied by chest pain
laryngitis
red and swollen tonsils
fevers that start slowly
ear infections that have not yet produced pus
incontinence, involuntary urination with coughing, bedwetting
rheumatic joints
menstrual periods that begin with headaches
anemia
fatigue
nosebleeds
sore throats, especially in singers
vomiting
diarrhea
heart palpitations
Preparations

Ferrum phos. is available in the United States in both liquid and tablet form. It can be purchased from homeopathic pharmacies or over the internet. Common potencies of ferrum phos. are 30C and 6X. The abbreviation 30C stands for a centesimal potency. This indicates that a process of dilution, along with vigorous shaking (succussion) of the remedy, has been repeated 30 times to achieve the desired potency. The abbreviation 6X indicates a decimal potency, and means that this decimal dilution has been repeated six times. In homeopathic practice, the strength of the remedy is in inverse proportion to the amount of chemical or plant extract in the alcohol or water; thus a 30C preparation of ferrum phos. is considered a much higher potency than a 6X preparation. People using homeopathic remedies at home are generally encouraged to use the lower potencies such as 6X or 12X."

From those passages, both things claim to do things that would help my cold. However, from experience, they both do very different things in practice. Ferr Phos seems to be most effective when the first early symptoms of a cold emerge. Paracetamol (i take it in the form of Lemsip:greengrin) is basically only useful after the cold has kicked in, and deals with the symptoms.

I would say 'give both a try' but I feel that would be tantamount to asking a white supremacist to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird':wink: ...you're clearly pretty set in your ways on this subject. I'll stick to what works best for me and you can do the same:thumbsup:

[Twa Cairpets]

From those passages, both things claim to do things that would help my cold. However, from experience, they both do very different things in practice. Ferr Phos seems to be most effective when the first early symptoms of a cold emerge. Paracetamol (i take it in the form of Lemsip:greengrin) is basically only useful after the cold has kicked in, and deals with the symptoms.

I would say 'give both a try' but I feel that would be tantamount to asking a white supremacist to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird':wink: ...you're clearly pretty set in your ways on this subject. I'll stick to what works best for me and you can do the same:thumbsup:

Make you a deal.

I'll go and get some homeopathic sleeping pills and see if they work because I could do with sleeping better.

You go and buy "Bad Medicine" by Ben Goldacre - its a good book, honest.

And in a month or so we'll see if we've changed our opinions

[hibsbollah]

Make you a deal.

I'll go and get some homeopathic sleeping pills and see if they work because I could do with sleeping better.

You go and buy "Bad Medicine" by Ben Goldacre - its a good book, honest.

And in a month or so we'll see if we've changed our opinions

I dunno about sleeping pills...I would recommend a large Highland Park and a good book:wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

I dunno about sleeping pills...I would recommend a large Highland Park and a good book:wink:

I can confirm without reference to clinical trials that Highland Parks effect is absolutely not that of a placebo...

[hibsbollah]

Should be interesting...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/05/homeopathy-eczema-cure

[joe breezy]

I would have agreed with the original post at one point but there are many natural things that do work - nutrition is one.

There have been studies that show that green tea can be effective in inhibiting certain conditions but the research doesn't go as far as it could as drug ompanies aren't interested in things they can't patent.

A lot of it is all about money.

[Killiehibbie]

I dunno about sleeping pills...I would recommend a large Highland Park and a good book:wink:

I don't believe it 5 pages and the two of you have agreed on something.

[Beefster]

I'm sure there has been some (justified) criticism of 'Big Pharma' on this thread. Here's how the large homeopathy companies are no better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm

Water can cure AIDS and TB? I wonder how many patients survived the treatments to provide the 'evidence' for those claims.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm sure there has been some (justified) criticism of 'Big Pharma' on this thread. Here's how the large homeopathy companies are no better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm

Water can cure AIDS and TB? I wonder how many patients survived the treatments to provide the 'evidence' for those claims.

If you read the article, it is pretty damning.

Or maybe the recipients of the medicine just dont believe in its efficacy enough. They should have a chat with Fergus regarding how - what was it now - "disease is nothing other than a derangement of the immaterial vital force." If they're not willing to accept that then its their look out.:rolleyes: