Homeopathy (reprise)

[Twa Cairpets]

As the original thread seems to have been deleted, I make only limited apologies in raising this particular bugbear of mine again. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o&feature=player_embedded) to a woman explaining how Hahnemannian Homeopathy works is excrutiatingly barking. If your brain doesnt revolt by spontaneously combusting or shutting down your sensory organs, stick with it all the way through. OK, its eight minutes of your life you'll never get back, but its so entertainingly awful its might just be worth it.

[sleeping giant]

I'm glad you have started this thread as i read the other one and thought nothing more about it at the time as i had never encountered them.

I have a 4 month old baby who a bit of reflux (bad stomach acid , unable to settle) about 10 weeks ago.

TBH , i dont like throwing medication at babies willy nilly but we tried Infacoll but it didnt seem to work.
My wife asked at the local chemist and they ordered and she bought Chamomilla 30c 7 grams granuals.
I was horrified to find that this is a homeopathic remedy.
The instruction said to pour some of the granuals onto the babies tongue.

I thought this stuff was meant to be water ! This bottle contains granuals !
If the active ingredient is Chamomilla and the only other ingredient is water , how come this is in granuals.
There must be something else in it but it doesn't say what it is.

No danger this is going anywhere near my child !

[sleeping giant]

I would also like to add that the only information that i could get on it was from messageboards with a vested interest !

[Jay]

Haven't used these particular granules on my kids but have used others, they disolved immediately and worked really well.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm glad you have started this thread as i read the other one and thought nothing more about it at the time as i had never encountered them.

I have a 4 month old baby who a bit of reflux (bad stomach acid , unable to settle) about 10 weeks ago.

TBH , i dont like throwing medication at babies willy nilly but we tried Infacoll but it didnt seem to work.
My wife asked at the local chemist and they ordered and she bought Chamomilla 30c 7 grams granuals.
I was horrified to find that this is a homeopathic remedy.
The instruction said to pour some of the granuals onto the babies tongue.

I thought this stuff was meant to be water ! This bottle contains granuals !
If the active ingredient is Chamomilla and the only other ingredient is water , how come this is in granuals.
There must be something else in it but it doesn't say what it is.

No danger this is going anywhere near my child !

I looked this up on a website "Healthchemist.co.nz". (http://www.healthchemist.co.nz/naturalpharm-classical/naturopharm-chamomilla-30c-tablet-p744026.html)Here's what it has to say about Chamomolla:

Active Ingredients:
Homeopathically diluted chamomilla, lactose

(or, in other words, nothing at all in water and sugar)

Dosage:
Many homoeopathic physicians suggest that remedies be used as follows: Take one dose and wait for a response.

If improvement is seen, continue to wait and let the remedy work. If improvement lags significantly or has clearly stopped, another dose may be taken.

I love this bit - if you get better, it sthe sugar pill. If you dont, have another sugar pill. Or, in other words, let nature take its course, and if you get better entirely naturally attribute the recovery to the magic woo-woo of a sugar pill.

The frequency of dosage varies with the condition and the individual. Sometimes a dose may be required several times an hour; other times a dose may be indicated several times a day; and in some situations, one dose per day (or less) can be sufficient.

If no response is seen within a reasonable amount of time, select a different remedy

Or if you're so ill as to need medical help, see a doctor rather than have a sugar pill.

So SG, if you want your child to get better, a dissolved pill will give them a wee sugar rush, and nothing else. Nothing at all.

[sleeping giant]

Haven't used these particular granules on my kids but have used others, they disolved immediately and worked really well.

Hmmmm.

I wonder what TC will think of that:greengrin
If you used it on babies then that cuts out the mental aspect of it !!

[sleeping giant]

I looked this up on a website "Healthchemist.co.nz". (http://www.healthchemist.co.nz/naturalpharm-classical/naturopharm-chamomilla-30c-tablet-p744026.html)Here's what it has to say about Chamomolla:

Active Ingredients:
Homeopathically diluted chamomilla, lactose

(or, in other words, nothing at all in water and sugar)

Dosage:
Many homoeopathic physicians suggest that remedies be used as follows: Take one dose and wait for a response.

If improvement is seen, continue to wait and let the remedy work. If improvement lags significantly or has clearly stopped, another dose may be taken.

I love this bit - if you get better, it sthe sugar pill. If you dont, have another sugar pill. Or, in other words, let nature take its course, and if you get better entirely naturally attribute the recovery to the magic woo-woo of a sugar pill.

The frequency of dosage varies with the condition and the individual. Sometimes a dose may be required several times an hour; other times a dose may be indicated several times a day; and in some situations, one dose per day (or less) can be sufficient.

If no response is seen within a reasonable amount of time, select a different remedy

Or if you're so ill as to need medical help, see a doctor rather than have a sugar pill.

So SG, if you want your child to get better, a dissolved pill will give them a wee sugar rush, and nothing else. Nothing at all.

I'm with you on that part.
What i am not sure about and it may sound thick but what is in it that turns the water into granuals. Nothing is listed in the ingredients.

[sleeping giant]

The thing is , the sugar water would work for reflux etc as it would help them go to the toilet.

Like i said earlier. The only info available is from websites that sell it:grr:

[(((Fergus)))]

As the original thread seems to have been deleted, I make only limited apologies in raising this particular bugbear of mine again. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o&feature=player_embedded) to a woman explaining how Hahnemannian Homeopathy works is excrutiatingly barking. If your brain doesnt revolt by spontaneously combusting or shutting down your sensory organs, stick with it all the way through. OK, its eight minutes of your life you'll never get back, but its so entertainingly awful its might just be worth it.

What part of what that lady said was 'Hahnemannian'? I.e., can you quote from Hahnemann's writings the corresponding information?

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm glad you have started this thread as i read the other one and thought nothing more about it at the time as i had never encountered them.

I have a 4 month old baby who a bit of reflux (bad stomach acid , unable to settle) about 10 weeks ago.

TBH , i dont like throwing medication at babies willy nilly but we tried Infacoll but it didnt seem to work.
My wife asked at the local chemist and they ordered and she bought Chamomilla 30c 7 grams granuals.
I was horrified to find that this is a homeopathic remedy.
The instruction said to pour some of the granuals onto the babies tongue.

I thought this stuff was meant to be water ! This bottle contains granuals !
If the active ingredient is Chamomilla and the only other ingredient is water , how come this is in granuals.
There must be something else in it but it doesn't say what it is.

No danger this is going anywhere near my child !

There are many different medicines that include this type of stomach symptom. If you don't choose the correct one for the particular patient, the effect will be suppressive rather than curative (if the dose is strong enough - very likely in a young child).

[Marabou Stork]

I'm with you on that part.
What i am not sure about and it may sound thick but what is in it that turns the water into granuals. Nothing is listed in the ingredients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granulation_%28powder_technology%29#Wet_Granulatio n

[Gregor]

I have a 4 month old baby who a bit of reflux (bad stomach acid , unable to settle) about 10 weeks ago.


You should try Colief (http://www.colief.com/). Our wee one had similar problems ; manifested in stomach cramping. You mix up a couple of drops in a spoonful of milk (breast or formula) and the enzymes sort out the acid issues and relax things down there so the food stays down.

You can actually buy it over the counter as well but it gets expensive so it is possible to get on prescription.

[MSK]

As the original thread seems to have been deleted, I make only limited apologies in raising this particular bugbear of mine again. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o&feature=player_embedded) to a woman explaining how Hahnemannian Homeopathy works is excrutiatingly barking. If your brain doesnt revolt by spontaneously combusting or shutting down your sensory organs, stick with it all the way through. OK, its eight minutes of your life you'll never get back, but its so entertainingly awful its might just be worth it.No it hasnt .. http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=156575

[lapsedhibee]

This link to a woman explaining how Hahnemannian Homeopathy works is excrutiatingly barking.
Gotta agree with her, though, that the best way to deal with a dog fouling on your property is to bomb the owner's house. :agree:

[Beefster]

I'm glad you have started this thread as i read the other one and thought nothing more about it at the time as i had never encountered them.

I have a 4 month old baby who a bit of reflux (bad stomach acid , unable to settle) about 10 weeks ago.

TBH , i dont like throwing medication at babies willy nilly but we tried Infacoll but it didnt seem to work.
My wife asked at the local chemist and they ordered and she bought Chamomilla 30c 7 grams granuals.
I was horrified to find that this is a homeopathic remedy.
The instruction said to pour some of the granuals onto the babies tongue.

I thought this stuff was meant to be water ! This bottle contains granuals !
If the active ingredient is Chamomilla and the only other ingredient is water , how come this is in granuals.
There must be something else in it but it doesn't say what it is.

No danger this is going anywhere near my child !

My son went through really bad reflux when he was about 8 months old. Infant Gaviscon fed to him in his milk worked a treat and let us sleep for the first time in months. I think it needs to be prescribed though.

http://www.babyreflux.co.uk/knowledge/questions/39/Infant+Gaviscon

We also got a 'wedge' pillow so that he wasn't lying flat on his back.

I can't imagine that a sugar pill will do much.

[Bayern Bru]

A brief history of medicine.

I have a stomach ache …….

2000 B.C. - Here, eat this root.
1000 A.D. - That root is heathen, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. - That prayer is superstition, drink this potion.
1940 A.D. - That potion is snake oil, swallow this pill.
1985 A.D. - That pill is ineffective, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. - That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root…

[Twa Cairpets]

Gotta agree with her, though, that the best way to deal with a dog fouling on your property is to bomb the owner's house. :agree:

In keeping with the thread, heres the type of bomb you should use;

Light a match, and then stick it in a bucket of water. Throw out 99% of the water, and refill. Repeat thirty times.

Voila: A Homeopathic Fire Bomb!

[Twa Cairpets]

What part of what that lady said was 'Hahnemannian'? I.e., can you quote from Hahnemann's writings the corresponding information?

It was her who makes the reference to Hahnemann. And clearly even her mangled interpretation of science is from a time after he existed. Out of curiosity, did it make sense to you?

But to avoid yet another "Can you quote from Hahnemann" type Fergus debate, I thought I'd have a read of some his Organon.

Wow.

In fairness, his hearts in the right place, as he was fighting against practices such as blood letting, but when I got to this bit, which is a direct quote from here (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html), I had to give up. If everything that follows is based on this key premise, then anyone with primary school understanding of infection/bacteria/germs will be able to say "Bollox".

Let it be granted now, what cannot be doubted, that no diseases - if they do not result from the introduction of perfectly indigestible or otherwise injurious substances into the stomach, or into other orifices or cavities of the body, or from foreign bodies penetrating. the skin, etc. - that no disease, in a word, is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health; how injudicious, in that case, must not a method of treatment directed towards the expulsion* of that imaginary material substance appear to every rational man, since no good, but only monstrous harm, can result from its employment in the principal diseases of mankind, namely, those of a chronic character!

[hibsbollah]

My son went through really bad reflux when he was about 8 months old. Infant Gaviscon fed to him in his milk worked a treat and let us sleep for the first time in months. I think it needs to be prescribed though.

http://www.babyreflux.co.uk/knowledge/questions/39/Infant+Gaviscon

We also got a 'wedge' pillow so that he wasn't lying flat on his back.

I can't imagine that a sugar pill will do much.

My son also had bad reflux (especially common in babies born caesarian, apparently) and infant Gaviscon, as Beefster says, works very well.

I find preaching to the pre-converted extremely dull so i'm not going into the homeopathy debate again:wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

My son also had bad reflux (especially common in babies born caesarian, apparently) and infant Gaviscon, as Beefster says, works very well.

I find preaching to the pre-converted extremely dull so i'm not going into the homeopathy debate again:wink:

Good. Although I personally find preaching to the credulous, gullible and misinformed (very different categories of people, btw) quite good fun, so if you feel like getting involved again feel free.

(Actually, the point of the thread was mostly to highlight the video in the first post, not necessarily to have another debate)

[hibsbollah]

credulous, gullible and misinformed


:asshole:

[(((Fergus)))]

It was her who makes the reference to Hahnemann. And clearly even her mangled interpretation of science is from a time after he existed. Out of curiosity, did it make sense to you?

But to avoid yet another "Can you quote from Hahnemann" type Fergus debate, I thought I'd have a read of some his Organon.

Wow.

In fairness, his hearts in the right place, as he was fighting against practices such as blood letting, but when I got to this bit, which is a direct quote from here (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html), I had to give up. If everything that follows is based on this key premise, then anyone with primary school understanding of infection/bacteria/germs will be able to say "Bollox".

Let it be granted now, what cannot be doubted, that no diseases - if they do not result from the introduction of perfectly indigestible or otherwise injurious substances into the stomach, or into other orifices or cavities of the body, or from foreign bodies penetrating. the skin, etc. - that no disease, in a word, is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health; how injudicious, in that case, must not a method of treatment directed towards the expulsion* of that imaginary material substance appear to every rational man, since no good, but only monstrous harm, can result from its employment in the principal diseases of mankind, namely, those of a chronic character!

She namechecked Hahnemann, she didn't call herself a Hahnemannian and her ideas about how Homoeopathy works are not taken from Hahnemann. As I've said before to you, there are a lot of people using and abusing the name of Homoeopathy but that has no bearing on the merit of Homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann - and there is no other legitimate definition.

Regarding the passage you do quote from Hahnemann - good to see you're finally reading up on your favourite subject :wink: - he obviously has a radically different view to the orthodox western concept of 'materia peccans' (the 'evil' external material, e.g., bugs). If you want to understand the point he is making you will have to lay those as you say primary school notions of infection to one side.

[Twa Cairpets]

She namechecked Hahnemann, she didn't call herself a Hahnemannian and her ideas about how Homoeopathy works are not taken from Hahnemann. As I've said before to you, there are a lot of people using and abusing the name of Homoeopathy but that has no bearing on the merit of Homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann - and there is no other legitimate definition.

So given your very hardline and literal belief in your man, is there anything that he wrote in the mid 1850s that may, on your view, be open to question after 150 odd years of scientific advancement? It strikes me that pretty much every field of science, learning and technology has advanced since then, but that Hahnemanns word - in your opinion - remains inviolate.


Regarding the passage you do quote from Hahnemann - good to see you're finally reading up on your favourite subject :wink: - he obviously has a radically different view to the orthodox western concept of 'materia peccans' (the 'evil' external material, e.g., bugs). If you want to understand the point he is making you will have to lay those as you say primary school notions of infection to one side.

So just so I'm absolutely clear, you dont believe that bacteria or viruses (lets just collectively call them germs) cause disease?

[sleeping giant]

You should try Colief (http://www.colief.com/). Our wee one had similar problems ; manifested in stomach cramping. You mix up a couple of drops in a spoonful of milk (breast or formula) and the enzymes sort out the acid issues and relax things down there so the food stays down.

You can actually buy it over the counter as well but it gets expensive so it is possible to get on prescription.

He's not too bad now tbh.
We never used the granuals as i was suspicious of them.


Edit: Sorry if this has already been mentioned but what safety tests do these go through and who governs these test ?

[Twa Cairpets]

He's not too bad now tbh.
We never used the granuals as i was suspicious of them.


Edit: Sorry if this has already been mentioned but what safety tests do these go through and who governs these test ?

As they are not allowed to be sold as medicines (becase they're not), they are not subject to the same controls, clinical testing requirements or regulation as real medicine.

I wouldnt worry though, if you take the pills the worst that will happen is that you'll get hyper from eating sugar. If you have a liquid based treatment, enjoy the healthy rehydrating effects of water.

There is a chap in the US called James "The Amazing" Randi. The guy is to my mind a genius and a major force for rationality, and has been fighting the paranormal, the pseudo-scientific and "woo-woo" for years. He regularly does talks where he consumes entire packets of homeopathic sleeping pills - nd guess what - not evena nap. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPQ1-KsBG0) is to the man himself. Its all worth listening to, but the homepathic bit starts at around 3.30 through to the end.

[lapsedhibee]

In keeping with the thread, heres the type of bomb you should use;

Light a match, and then stick it in a bucket of water. Throw out 99% of the water, and refill. Repeat thirty times.

Voila: A Homeopathic Fire Bomb!

You're just mocking that poor lassie in the videoclip. Harsh. If you were more tolerant and public-spirited, instead of dismissing her you might use your so-called "scientific knowledge" to guide her to a more appropriate place in her life.

For example, her worldview appears to be based on a belief that, in the equation e=mc2, if you show that m is nearly zero the equation can then be rewritten e=c2. In other words, she beLIEves that 0 x c2 = c2.

In the regular world, 0 x c2 = 0. But there may be other mathematical systems, in (say) a parallel universe, where 0 x c2 = c2. One such parallel universe, with its own alternative mathematical system, is known to currently exist in EH11. I thought she might perhaps be notified of its existence so that she might happily mix with 400,000 already likemindedly barking souls, and feel no more need to appear in proselytising youtube clips.

I have beamed her HOMFC's phone number.

[(((Fergus)))]

So given your very hardline and literal belief in your man, is there anything that he wrote in the mid 1850s that may, on your view, be open to question after 150 odd years of scientific advancement? It strikes me that pretty much every field of science, learning and technology has advanced since then, but that Hahnemanns word - in your opinion - remains inviolate.

If people don't take the trouble to read, understand and implement Hahnemann's system they don't have a rational basis on which to question it. Same applies to any school of thought.


So just so I'm absolutely clear, you dont believe that bacteria or viruses (lets just collectively call them germs) cause disease?

Do all people who come into contact with a particular germ get the same disease? If not, there must be other factors at work.

[Twa Cairpets]

If people don't take the trouble to read, understand and implement Hahnemann's system they don't have a rational basis on which to question it. Same applies to any school of thought.

That is not answer to the very specific question I asked. I said
"It strikes me that pretty much every field of science, learning and technology has advanced since then, but that Hahnemanns word - in your opinion - remains inviolate."
Do you believe that the advances made since the 1850s in fields as relevant and diverse as, say, microbiology, microscopy, physics, bacteriology and chemistry simply do not apply to homeopathy? The implication would be that Hahnemann stumbled upon/developed a theory that was formed complete and inviolate at inception. You have across this thread and others stated that - and I admit I paraphrase - "that if its not pure Hahnemanian, it cant be called Homeopathy".

So, is there anything from the original works of Hahnemann that should be altered in the light of advances in understanding made since?


Do all people who come into contact with a particular germ get the same disease? If not, there must be other factors at work.

Sorry Fergus, but this again is avoiding the question. The statement lifted direct from Hahnemann is "that no disease, in a word, is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health"

Notwithstanding the obvious logical error that medical infection is a question of absolutes in terms of infection rates, the above statement is very explicit that no material substance causes diseases. Bacteria and Viruses are quite clearly material substances. So is this correct or incorrect?

[Dinkydoo]

A brief history of medicine.

I have a stomach ache …….

2000 B.C. - Here, eat this root.
1000 A.D. - That root is heathen, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. - That prayer is superstition, drink this potion.
1940 A.D. - That potion is snake oil, swallow this pill.
1985 A.D. - That pill is ineffective, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. - That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root…



:top marks


Brilliant stuff.

[--------]

As the original thread seems to have been deleted, I make only limited apologies in raising this particular bugbear of mine again. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o&feature=player_embedded) to a woman explaining how Hahnemannian Homeopathy works is excrutiatingly barking. If your brain doesnt revolt by spontaneously combusting or shutting down your sensory organs, stick with it all the way through. OK, its eight minutes of your life you'll never get back, but its so entertainingly awful its might just be worth it.


My, that was an enjoyable wee interlude.

Tell me, TC, do YOU vibrate with a plant, a mineral, or an animal? "His squeaky knee went away" - and his lower leg fell off?

Thank you for this - I've put it in my favourites list and I'll use it whenever I feel down or depressed. It cheered me up no end. (Though I DO think someone should notify the asylum that that wumman's loose and talking.)

I agree with you - homoeopathy (that's how you spell it - not the way they do) is the bunk. That goes for Hahnemann's kind and every other kind.

The only thing I would say is that homoeopathy is only one 'alternative therapy'; there are others, and while most operate at about the same level as snake-oil and Christian Science, it doesn't harm to keep an open mind. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use common sense and a wee bit of intelligence, mind.

I've known a number of people who got great benefit from going to a chiropractor to be treated for joint and muscle pains. I use herbal remedies for certain minor ailments because they're kinder and less intrusive (and sometimes safer) than orthodox proprietary remedies. But I consult my GP or my (fully qualified) pharmacist first.

Peppermint tea's good for the guts (better and cheaper than all those 'pro-biotics'; camomile's a gentle relaxant when I'm stressed; garlic's good for the old immune system; fish-oil's good for the old dicky ticker. But I still listen to my GP.

[(((Fergus)))]

That is not answer to the very specific question I asked. I said
"It strikes me that pretty much every field of science, learning and technology has advanced since then, but that Hahnemanns word - in your opinion - remains inviolate."
Do you believe that the advances made since the 1850s in fields as relevant and diverse as, say, microbiology, microscopy, physics, bacteriology and chemistry simply do not apply to homeopathy? The implication would be that Hahnemann stumbled upon/developed a theory that was formed complete and inviolate at inception. You have across this thread and others stated that - and I admit I paraphrase - "that if its not pure Hahnemanian, it cant be called Homeopathy".

So, is there anything from the original works of Hahnemann that should be altered in the light of advances in understanding made since?


Homoeopathy is actually a very simple, yet highly exacting, discipline based on timeless principles, observation with the five senses, reasoned thought and a timeless materia medica. Given these parameters, there is nothing to change based on developments in the fields you mention.





Sorry Fergus, but this again is avoiding the question. The statement lifted direct from Hahnemann is "that no disease, in a word, is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health"

Notwithstanding the obvious logical error that medical infection is a question of absolutes in terms of infection rates, the above statement is very explicit that no material substance causes diseases. Bacteria and Viruses are quite clearly material substances. So is this correct or incorrect?

I don't understand the bit you have in bold, but I will try to clarify my answer.

If a man goes to a prostitute and contracts syphilis, what is the cause?

If I understand your position correctly, you would say the spirochete drilled into the man's organ and made him sick? Up until that point of material "infection" the man was "healthy"?

Hahnemann's position is that, unless you are first susceptible, it is impossible to contract anything. This susceptibility is a product of the internal "derangement of the health" he speaks about. If the internal health is not deranged, there is no susceptibility and the spirochete is not a problem.

Actually this is a key difference between the two schools of thought:

Allopathy (along with many religions and political philosophies), sees "evil" as a hidden, external force over which we have no power (bacteria, the devil, terrorists, etc.). This naturally induces a state of fear (among those who are susceptible) in which we require experts to protect us against a seemingly endless succession of external threats.

Homoeopathy, on the other hand, sees the primary "evil" as internal to the man. It is therefore - to a greater or lesser degree - under our own power to change.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're just mocking that poor lassie in the videoclip. Harsh. If you were more tolerant and public-spirited, instead of dismissing her you might use your so-called "scientific knowledge" to guide her to a more appropriate place in her life.

For example, her worldview appears to be based on a belief that, in the equation e=mc2, if you show that m is nearly zero the equation can then be rewritten e=c2. In other words, she beLIEves that 0 x c2 = c2.

In the regular world, 0 x c2 = 0. But there may be other mathematical systems, in (say) a parallel universe, where 0 x c2 = c2. One such parallel universe, with its own alternative mathematical system, is known to currently exist in EH11. I thought she might perhaps be notified of its existence so that she might happily mix with 400,000 already likemindedly barking souls, and feel no more need to appear in proselytising youtube clips.

I have beamed her HOMFC's phone number.

:tee hee:

[Twa Cairpets]

Homoeopathy is actually a very simple, yet highly exacting, discipline based on timeless principles, observation with the five senses, reasoned thought and a timeless materia medica. Given these parameters, there is nothing to change based on developments in the fields you mention.

Fergus, I genuinely admire the strength of your feeling on this, but seriously, reading the above almost made me keel over with laughter.

Your timeless principles were invented around 150 years ago. Every bit of real science and medicine since then has shown them to be further and further from any reality.

Reasoned thought? Observation? Fanatstic - you're almost describing the Scientific Method! Except of course when reasoned thought and observation in fair, double blind trials illustrate time after time after time that there is no clinical benefit above placebo for homeopathy. Thats when they are described as the result of closed minded attitudes to alternative medicine.


I don't understand the bit you have in bold, but I will try to clarify my answer.

To clarify, my point was that you wondered why didnt everyone exposed to an infectious agent become ill with the disease. My answer would be because people are individuals, and have different genes, strengths, weaknesess and propensity to disease.


If a man goes to a prostitute and contracts syphilis, what is the cause?

If I understand your position correctly, you would say the spirochete drilled into the man's organ and made him sick? Up until that point of material "infection" the man was "healthy"?

I'm delighted to say I have no in depth knowledge of syphillis, so cant answer specifically, but would suggest that the risk of infection would vary depending on such factors as length of contact, the presence or otherwise of cut skin, the general health of the man, the level of infection within the woman and the use or otherwise of condoms.


Hahnemann's position is that, unless you are first susceptible, it is impossible to contract anything. This susceptibility is a product of the internal "derangement of the health" he speaks about. If the internal health is not deranged, there is no susceptibility and the spirochete is not a problem.

Actually this is a key difference between the two schools of thought:

Allopathy (along with many religions and political philosophies), sees "evil" as a hidden, external force over which we have no power (bacteria, the devil, terrorists, etc.). This naturally induces a state of fear (among those who are susceptible) in which we require experts to protect us against a seemingly endless succession of external threats.

Homoeopathy, on the other hand, sees the primary "evil" as internal to the man. It is therefore - to a greater or lesser degree - under our own power to change.

There you go again with this made up word "allopathy". You do know it is only ever used by homeopathic nuts?

In these last two paragraphs you've wandered off into some bizarre world of psychic mumbo-jumbo which cant be described even as pseudoscience. What you call allopathy, and almost everyone else calls medicine, has no view on "evil". It views bacteria (I'll ignore the other two as utterly irrelevant) as a completely unhidden, known force over which we have significant power.

If you believe what you write, would you be happy (from a purely risk of infection vewpoint) with people sneezing in your face? With people not washing their hands? With hospital wards not being cleaned to prevent MRSA?

Youve still not answered the following question. A simple yes or no will do.

... the above statement is very explicit that no material substance causes diseases. Bacteria and Viruses are quite clearly material substances. So is this correct or incorrect? Do you belive bacteria cause infection?

[Twa Cairpets]

Boots admit they only sell homeopathy "because it is popular not because it works" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6658864/Boots-we-sell-homeopathic-remedies-because-they-sell-not-because-they-work.html).

Good good. Next step is to have the courage of your convictions Boots,and take it off the shelves and remove the veneer of respectability.

[GlesgaeHibby]

As the original thread seems to have been deleted, I make only limited apologies in raising this particular bugbear of mine again. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o&feature=player_embedded) to a woman explaining how Hahnemannian Homeopathy works is excrutiatingly barking. If your brain doesnt revolt by spontaneously combusting or shutting down your sensory organs, stick with it all the way through. OK, its eight minutes of your life you'll never get back, but its so entertainingly awful its might just be worth it.

Cannot believe that people are taken in by people like her. She has no grasp on basic science.

I don't know what she means by the fact we can just "ignore mass" or where she gets her information on the mass of the universe for that bowling ball analogy. It is simply bad science, yet she is passing it off as fact.

[Twa Cairpets]

Woo-hoo.

Go the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee!!

The NHS should stop funding homeopathy, MPs say.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said using public money on the highly-diluted remedies could not be justified.

The cross-party group said there was no evidence beyond a placebo effect, when a patient gets better because of their belief that the treatment works... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8524926.stm)

Also, there was a mass overdose of homeopathic treatments (http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php) bought from boots a couple of weeks ago. Hundreds of people took entire bottles of homeopathic remedies each. The worst that happened? Sugar rushes.

Only a matter of time before this ridiculous pseudoscience is removed completely from any reputable health organisation, and is relegated to the quack shops and internet sellers.

[steakbake]

http://www.badscience.net/ is a great website which debunks the superstitious mumbo jumbo and pseudo-science which passes for "alternative" medicine.

I never really had any strong feelings about homeopathy and other alternative therapies until I read Ben Goldacre's book "BadScience" (from whence his blog comes).

He describes various serious and rigorous scientific tests done on all kinds of medicine, such as acupuncture, superfoods etc etc and it's all very well marketed to sound plausible but not much more than that.

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.badscience.net/ is a great website which debunks the superstitious mumbo jumbo and pseudo-science which passes for "alternative" medicine.

I never really had any strong feelings about homeopathy and other alternative therapies until I read Ben Goldacre's book "BadScience" (from whence his blog comes).

He describes various serious and rigorous scientific tests done on all kinds of medicine, such as acupuncture, superfoods etc etc and it's all very well marketed to sound plausible but not much more than that.

Its an excellent book blacksaltire, totally agree. I can also recommend "How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world" by Francis Wheen and "Voodoo Science" by Richard Park - both get ripped into pseudoscientific fluff and flim-flam.

[PeeJay]

I found this interesting article on the subject, which is well worth reading. It suggests to me that homeopathy is indeed 'bunkum' - big business won't agree with its finding though I assume?

[LiverpoolHibs]

T.C., just out of interest and given the mention above, what do you make of acupuncture?

I don't know anyone who, to my knowledge, has had anything to do with homeopathy; but my Dad's had acupuncture done by his local G.P. for his arthritis and says that while it's not particularly long-lasting (a week to two at most) the relief can be quite incredible.

Obviously that's the sort of 'evidence' people who believe in homeopathy come out with, but y'know.

[Twa Cairpets]

T.C., just out of interest and given the mention above, what do you make of acupuncture?

I don't know anyone who, to my knowledge, has had anything to do with homeopathy; but my Dad's had acupuncture done by his local G.P. for his arthritis and says that while it's not particularly long-lasting (a week to two at most) the relief can be quite incredible.

Obviously that's the sort of 'evidence' people who believe in homeopathy come out with, but y'know.

I'm not quite as rabidly anti acupuncture as I am anti-homeopathy, nor do I have as much info on it, but the evidence supporting the clinical benefits of certain types of acupuncture does suggest that it has benefit above placebo, I think.

The issue is with some of the "older" type of acupuncture where mystical links between certain points link to other points is I think bollox. Anything you hear that mentions energy lines or chakra should be instantly consigned to the gobbledegook cupboard in a sealed container.

I've had acupuncture myself for a bad back ten years or so ago - after I left the sessions I felt better but looking back I'm not convinced if it was the acupuncture itself or the fact that I was in a relaxed position/atmosphere for half an hour or so, forcing the muscles to unclamp. Even then it was temporary easing rather than a cure.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not quite as rabidly anti acupuncture as I am anti-homeopathy, nor do I have as much info on it, but the evidence supporting the clinical benefits of certain types of acupuncture does suggest that it has benefit above placebo, I think.

The issue is with some of the "older" type of acupuncture where mystical links between certain points link to other points is I think bollox. Anything you hear that mentions energy lines or chakra should be instantly consigned to the gobbledegook cupboard in a sealed container.

I've had acupuncture myself for a bad back ten years or so ago - after I left the sessions I felt better but looking back I'm not convinced if it was the acupuncture itself or the fact that I was in a relaxed position/atmosphere for half an hour or so, forcing the muscles to unclamp. Even then it was temporary easing rather than a cure.

That's good to hear, ta.

I can't imagine a G.P. is likely to be into 'chakras' or 'energy lines'. :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

I take it that we've all read about the NHS being bolloked by a parliamentary comittee for spending 4 million a year on it? (£4 frikkin million! :bitchy:) It was interesting to hear that even one of the MP's (I won't mention his colour) on the comittee was whining that they didn't take into account some of the evidence presented by one of the Homeopathic groups?

Are (some) MP's really that scientifically illiterate?

Here's the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8524926.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8524926.stm)

Watch the clip where the Boots rep, when asked about efficacy, starts talking about demand! Made me giggle....

[Twa Cairpets]

The Government Science and Technology Committee - a relatively new body set up to help policy be dictated by evidence (an excellent concept in itself) - have issued a thumping, unambiguous dismissal of Homeopathy.

Heres the link (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_homeopathy_inquiry.cfm)

But for those too lazy to click, here's a few extracts:

"In a report published today, the Science and Technology Committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy."

"The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible."

"The product labelling for homeopathic products under all current licensing schemes fails to inform the public that homeopathic products are sugar pills containing no active ingredients. The licensing regimes and deficient labelling lend a spurious medical legitimacy to homeopathic products."

I think they've just defined the phrase "damning indictment"

(Incidentally, it coccurred to me last night driving back from Dingwall that Yogi must believe in homeopathy, diluting skill, fight and width to an infitessimal level on the basis that the less there is the better we become...)

[paullotion]

Well shock `o` ronney, what a surprise, my how did the come to that conclusion, not really a surprise when you dig deeper.
http://vonsyhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/stop-funding-nhs-homeopathy-mps-urge-who-are-these-mps/ (http://vonsyhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/stop-funding-nhs-homeopathy-mps-urge-who-are-these-mps/)

[--------]

A brief history of medicine.

I have a stomach ache …….

2000 B.C. - Here, eat this root.
1000 A.D. - That root is heathen, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. - That prayer is superstition, drink this potion.
1940 A.D. - That potion is snake oil, swallow this pill.
1985 A.D. - That pill is ineffective, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. - That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root…


The root didn't work?



Well, why not take less of it?

In fact, why not take infinitesimally tiny quantities of it, diluted in our special super-distilled ultra-pure detoxifying water?

(It's good for the ozone layer, too. :devil: )

[steakbake]

The root didn't work?



Well, why not take less of it?

In fact, why not take infinitesimally tiny quantities of it, diluted in our special super-distilled ultra-pure detoxifying water?

(It's good for the ozone layer, too. :devil: )

You forgot to tap it 10 times for luck.

[hibsbollah]

:whistle:
From the link provided above;

At the meeting of Feb 8th 2010 the S and T committee met to ratify the report.
Present was: Phil Willis in the Chair, Evan Harris, Tim Boswell, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith and Ian Stewart.
Ian Stewart put forward an amendment not to ratify the report as it stood but to call upon government to “fund a rigorous research programme into homeopathy”
Voting was: Ayes: Ian Stewart Noes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith. Presumably Tim Boswell abstained though his vote was not recorded.

A second vote was taken on the specific paragraph relating to research – to retain as written and not insert Stewart’s amendment: paragraph 77. “There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities.”

Voting was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith Noes: Ian Stewart Paragraph was agreed to as was. Tim Boswell abstained? Vote not recorded.

The vote to accept the report and its recommendations to stop funding NHS homeopathy on the basis that the evidence did not support government policy was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith Noes: Ian Stewart. Tim Boswell abstained again? We’ll never know.

SO this report was ratified by just THREE MPs:

1.Evan Harris, associate of Sense About Science and it’s fair to say rabid anti-homeopathy campaigner, 1023 participant and ’senior counsel for the prosecution’.

2.Ian Cawsey – IT expert, who joined the S and T committee in October 2009, just a month before the meetings and yet chose not to attend the committee’s investigation – in fact was nowhere to be seen until the ratification meeting.

3.Doug Naysmith – an immunologist – did not join the S and T committee until January 2010 – so was not even on the committee until after all the hearings – yet was present for the ratification of the report. And he is standing down at the next election.

A committee would invite a new member to join knowing that in a matter of a few months he would be leaving again? Surely not?

So let’s get this straight – the report and its recommendations that led to the media snow this week, and the dramatic assertion that the public have been duped since 1948 by NHS placebos masquerading as medicine, is the result of a report ratified by THREE MPs: TWO of whom were NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS – and ONE of the two was NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE when the hearings were held, and is due to stand down at the election in May this year.

This Science and Technology Committee investigation into homeopathy was a set up and a sham from its inception to the final meeting and delivery of the report to the UK press. And there’s no “surely not” about it.

[--------]

You forgot to tap it 10 times for luck.


Drat! THAT's why it didn't cure my arthritis.... :grr:

[hibsbollah]

Its an excellent book blacksaltire, totally agree. I can also recommend "How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world" by Francis Wheen and "Voodoo Science" by Richard Park - both get ripped into pseudoscientific fluff and flim-flam.

A bit disingenious there, TC; 'How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World' is indeed an excellent book, ive got it on my shelf here. However there are only 2 pages dealing with homeopathy, and the 2 pages describe in amusing terms the dilution theory and which members of the Royal Family use what remedy. Its more a 'pause' between other issues. Its other 300 pages are about a range of other subjects that offend Wheen's enlightenment sensibilities.

Its not a book that manages to debunk alternative medicine, and indeed I dont think it was even Wheen's intention to do so. There are much more deserving targets for his talents.

p.s-His biography of Marx is one of the funniest politics books you are ever likely to read.

[Twa Cairpets]

Well shock `o` ronney, what a surprise, my how did the come to that conclusion, not really a surprise when you dig deeper.
http://vonsyhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/stop-funding-nhs-homeopathy-mps-urge-who-are-these-mps/ (http://vonsyhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/stop-funding-nhs-homeopathy-mps-urge-who-are-these-mps/)

Well, why don't you read the whole report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf) then rather than the synopsis. I doubt if it will change your mind, because in your world everything would seem to be done solely for the benefit of shadowy "Big pharma".

Given your dangerous personal views on vaccination, it was especially gratifying to read Edzard Ernst's contribution to the committee. It's on page 86, and I make no apologies for quoting it length below. The highlight is mine.

"Memorandum submitted by Professor Edzard Ernst (HO 16)

Many years ago, I have worked as a homeopath and therefore understand the concepts of homeopathy (eg like cures like and dilution increases eVectiveness). These concepts are not supported by science and most homeopaths would probably admit that. However, they claim that several in vitro experiments suggest that the homeopathic dilution process does demonstrably alter the structure of water. The counter-arguments are that this only happens for nano-seconds; it also does not explain how such dilutions generate health effects in vivo; nor does it explain why (water-free) globuli used widely in homeopathy should be effective.

Homeopaths claim that, while we do not understand how their remedies work, clinical evidence shows that they work. The truth, however, is that systematic reviews or meta-analyses of the totality of the clinical data fail to show that homeopathic remedies generate clinical effects beyond those of placebo. Homeopaths counter by criticising the methodology of the latest Lancet meta-analyses by Shang et al. This, however, ignores the fact that over a dozen similar systematic evaluations have all come to the same conclusion.

Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 27
Homeopaths furthermore claim that animal studies also show the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. This implies that they must be more than placebos. Yet, if one reviews the totality of these data, a picture emerges which closely resembles the human trial data alluded to above.
Homeopaths also often refer to large observational studies, for instance, one from the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, which imply that x70% of patients improve after homeopathic treatment. Such “real life” studies and their years of experience, they claim, is more meaningful than clinical trials. Yet the discrepancy between the two sets of results is easy to explain: the patients in observational studies improved because of placebo-effects, regression towards the mean, concomitant treatments and many other confounders. In clinical trials, all of these factors are eliminated and therefore no differences are observed between homeopathic remedies and placebos.

Finally homeopaths claim that their approach is risk-free. This is, clearly not true. Highly dilute homeopathic remedies may well be free of side-effects. But forfeiting or delaying effective treatments, as homeopathy often does, can cause real harm. This issue is not well-researched, except for one particular area: many studies have confirmed that (lay) homeopaths tend to discourage parents from immunizing their children, often recommending using homeopathic vaccinations (which are ineffective) instead. In conclusion, there is no good evidence to suggest that homeopathic remedies have any specific therapeutic effects and there is some evidence to show that homeopathy can cause harm. Thus its risk-benefit profile is negative.

E Ernst MD, PhD, F Med Sci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd
Complementary Medicine"

[Twa Cairpets]

A bit disingenious there, TC; 'How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World' is indeed an excellent book, ive got it on my shelf here. However there are only 2 pages dealing with homeopathy, and the 2 pages describe in amusing terms the dilution theory and which members of the Royal Family use what remedy. Its more a 'pause' between other issues. Its other 300 pages are about a range of other subjects that offend Wheen's enlightenment sensibilities.

Its not a book that manages to debunk alternative medicine, and indeed I dont think it was even Wheen's intention to do so. There are much more deserving targets for his talents.

p.s-His biography of Marx is one of the funniest politics books you are ever likely to read.

The Wheen book was really just about critical thinking and the ease with which people will believe things without thinking, it wasnt really meant to be a pointer to an anti-homeopathic tome. The best one fo rthat is the goldacre book by a mile.

Thanks for the tip about the Marx book - Ive been toying with getting it a couple of times, and think I will now.

[steakbake]

Drat! THAT's why it didn't cure my arthritis.... :grr:

Check your farmer giles though - unintended consequences and all that.

[paullotion]

Well, why don't you read the whole report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf) then rather than the synopsis. I doubt if it will change your mind, because in your world everything would seem to be done solely for the benefit of shadowy "Big pharma".

Why would i read the report when i knew what the outcome was going to be, i would have been shocked if they came to any other conclusion, they were only in session for 4 and half hours, open and shut case.



The committee spent a total of 4 and half hours questioning 12 witnesses – 7 of whom also have NO expertise or understanding of the homeopathic method – 5 of the 9 non-governmental witnesses had previously publicly declared they were vehemently opposed to homeopathy. Only 1 witness is in clinical practice. Biased? Surely not?
Given your dangerous personal views on vaccination, it was especially gratifying to read Edzard Ernst's contribution to the committee. It's on page 86, and I make no apologies for quoting it length below. The highlight is mine.

They maybe dangerous in your eyes, but not for me. I do believe that we should do more research on Homeopathy as put forward by Ian Stewart:

Ian Stewart put forward an amendment not to ratify the report as it stood but to call upon government to “fund a rigorous research programme into homeopathy”It does not surprise me that the amendment was defeated.

[--------]

Check your farmer giles though - unintended consequences and all that.


Naw - natural medicine cured all that - good old-fashioned remedy.



Leeches. :devil:


EDIT: I'm joking, of course. But the usual treatment for haemorrhoids in the 18th and 19th century was to attach leeches to the affected blood-vessels and leave them there overnight. Napoleon underwent this treatment the night before the battle of Waterloo. No surprise then that he lost the battle.

I find it strange to say the least that advocates of "natural medicine" don't advocate this therapy along with acupuncture and colonic irrigation....

[Twa Cairpets]

Why would i read the report when i knew what the outcome was going to be, i would have been shocked if they came to any other conclusion, they were only in session for 4 and half hours, open and shut case.

They maybe dangerous in your eyes, but not for me. I do believe that we should do more research on Homeopathy as put forward by Ian Stewart:
It does not surprise me that the amendment was defeated.

Read the report. Your frankly infantile response is equivalent to you sticking your fingers in your ears repeating "I cant hear you I cant hear you" because you dont like the outcome.

The evidence given was from all sides. There is a huge amount of written evidence attached, there are vast amounts of references given. The amount of time the committee physically sat is completely immaterial. How many hours would they have to listen to doctor after doctor, scientist after scientist saying "there is no evidence of efficacy" for it to be enough? Ten, fifty, three hundred, six thousand two hundred?

If you read it, you would see it addresses many areas of the homeopathic "question". One is that claims made relating to medical efficacy should be subject to at least the same basis of evidence and proof for claims as real medicine. I dont see how that could be described by anyone as an unreasonable requirement (unless, of course, it cant be provided because that evidence doest exist...).

I could pick hole after hole in the blog post - it is full of errors, assumptions and unsubstantiated claims, but I'll pick just one.

Quote from blog: "homeopathy...which uses just 0.004% of the NHS budget" in the context of "why is the nasty Government picking on little old homeopathy, must be afraid of something, eh?"

Quote from report: "We recommend that the Government determine the total amount of money spent bythe NHS on homeopathy annually over the past 10 years, differentiating homeopathic products, patient referrals and maintenance and refurbishment of homeopathic hospitals, and publish the figures. (Paragraph 15)" in the context of there is no definitive figure covering all the costs associated with NHS homeopathy provision.

[Beefster]

Why would i read the report when i knew what the outcome was going to be, i would have been shocked if they came to any other conclusion, they were only in session for 4 and half hours, open and shut case.




They maybe dangerous in your eyes, but not for me. I do believe that we should do more research on Homeopathy as put forward by Ian Stewart:
It does not surprise me that the amendment was defeated.

How much more research will it take before you'll accept that it doesn't work?

[HibsMax]

I didn't make it to the 4th minute. Disease is energy? Isn't everything energy?

It's been a while since I took physics (um, like 20+ years) but I thought that mass is mass? Who cares if you condense everything down into a bowling ball sized object, the mass is still the same. You can't just say that m is almost 0 because relatively speaking the object is tiny. If we condensed the universe into an object the size of a bowling ball then we would also be much smaller and, relatively speaking, the universe would still seem as big to us as it does now.

I wish I listened to the rest of the video now to see where she was going with that point. LOL.

[HibsMax]

Just a couple of quick points:
1. Who cares? If people want to spend their money on homeopathic remedies then I say let them. All I ask is that if I am ever involved in some horrible accident that puts me in great pain, make sure to pick up the morphine vial, not the slightly-tainted sugar water.

2. The whole "if that doesn't work try taking some more" is something that can be said of some real medicine too, so I don't think it's a fair argument to use against homeopathic remedies.

3. Placebos work so maybe homeopathic remedies work too? :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Just a couple of quick points:
1. Who cares? If people want to spend their money on homeopathic remedies then I say let them. All I ask is that if I am ever involved in some horrible accident that puts me in great pain, make sure to pick up the morphine vial, not the slightly-tainted sugar water.

I thought the same for a long time - "if people want to be gullible, then let them", but the more I looked into it, the angrier I got. The "principles" upon which it is based is such palpable nonsense that it is an affront that it has any foothold in modern medicine. The fact that it just doesnt work, yet is sold in real pharmacies like Boots blurs the line between true medicine that will cure you and snake-oil that won't. It is the acceptance of this type of pseudoscience that allows people to be duped into believing in other types of similar rubbish such as reiki, crystal healing and chakra. In the UK, the fact that one penny is spent on homeopathy within the NHS is appalling, and that does annoy me hugely when every penny should be directed into care that will have some medical benefit.


2. The whole "if that doesn't work try taking some more" is something that can be said of some real medicine too, so I don't think it's a fair argument to use against homeopathic remedies.

Not really. If you take too much of a real medicine you'll very possibly die. If you take too much of a homeopathic, you'll get a sugar rush and possible mild dental decay.


3. Placebos work so maybe homeopathic remedies work too? :wink: The point is (wink smiley noted) is that some of the other stuff surrounding homeopathic treatments, such as taking longer to talk through symptoms, and generally having a more "touchy feely" approach is the reason for the placebo effect. The pill given as the medicine could be anything - maybe midget gems or tic tacs - and it would have exactly the same clinical effect. The key thing is that pill given with the belief that it will have some physical effect on your body, through some unknown magical mechanism, just doesnt have that effect whatsoever.

[paullotion]

Well, why don't you read the whole report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf) then rather than the synopsis. I doubt if it will change your mind, because in your world everything would seem to be done solely for the benefit of shadowy "Big pharma".

Nice little rant you had there. As i said previously, i was not surprised that they came to those conclusions, so why would i want to read a report when it was obvious that this was going to be the outcome. Furthermore, it does not matter if you had 10 or 100 pro-homeopathy witness at the hearings, the result would be the same.

The only thing that has changed is that people will not be able to get Homeopathy treatment on the NHS. They could have had witness`s from France and Germany, where provisions for Homeopathy is more common in their health service than it is in the NHS, or even India where it is part of the health service, as i said before, open and shut case.

[Twa Cairpets]

Nice little rant you had there. As i said previously, i was not surprised that they came to those conclusions, so why would i want to read a report when it was obvious that this was going to be the outcome.

So just so as I am absolutely clear, your objection to actually educating yourself - at the very least into the arguments of the other side of the debate - is based upon a preconceived idea that has been confirmed. Tell me, did the metamorphosis into an ostrich hurt? You would want to read the report so at the very least you could attempt to to argue against what was said on the basis of fact rather than a hugely biased, quote-mined blog.


Furthermore, it does not matter if you had 10 or 100 pro-homeopathy witness at the hearings, the result would be the same.

Well, we'll agree here. You could have hundreds of palm readers and astrologers presenting evidence that they're beliefs are true, and they'd still be wrong as well.


The only thing that has changed is that people will not be able to get Homeopathy treatment on the NHS. They could have had witness`s from France and Germany, where provisions for Homeopathy is more common in their health service than it is in the NHS, or even India where it is part of the health service, as i said before, open and shut case.

I agree with you here too, it is open and shut. But again, as you haven't read the report, you are (sadly) wrong about the continued availability of diluted pixie dust being available on the NHS. The report is a series of recommendations, not legislation, so sadly you can still be treated in a woo-woo hospital with Tate and Lyle tablets.

[heretoday]

It's all in the mind. Like a lot of things that alleviate physical and mental suffering, Homeopathy is just one more.

[HibsMax]

I thought the same for a long time - "if people want to be gullible, then let them", but the more I looked into it, the angrier I got. The "principles" upon which it is based is such palpable nonsense that it is an affront that it has any foothold in modern medicine. The fact that it just doesnt work, yet is sold in real pharmacies like Boots blurs the line between true medicine that will cure you and snake-oil that won't. It is the acceptance of this type of pseudoscience that allows people to be duped into believing in other types of similar rubbish such as reiki, crystal healing and chakra. In the UK, the fact that one penny is spent on homeopathy within the NHS is appalling, and that does annoy me hugely when every penny should be directed into care that will have some medical benefit.



Not really. If you take too much of a real medicine you'll very possibly die. If you take too much of a homeopathic, you'll get a sugar rush and possible mild dental decay.

The point is (wink smiley noted) is that some of the other stuff surrounding homeopathic treatments, such as taking longer to talk through symptoms, and generally having a more "touchy feely" approach is the reason for the placebo effect. The pill given as the medicine could be anything - maybe midget gems or tic tacs - and it would have exactly the same clinical effect. The key thing is that pill given with the belief that it will have some physical effect on your body, through some unknown magical mechanism, just doesnt have that effect whatsoever.

1. I understand being annoyed at the government spending tax pounds on this. I would be annoyed too. I just meant that I think the option should be there for people who want to try alternative........medicine. Let people dabble if they want to but they should be properly fore-warned, like the mandatory warning that is printed on smoking products.

2. I know you can overdose on real drugs. My point was that some drugs say on the label that if you take 1 tablet and that doesn't fix you up you can take 2 more....don't take more unless instructed to by your doctor. You know what I mean. I'm just saying that even real medicine is not an exact science. One table might work for you but the same drug might do nothing at all for me. Don't get me wrong, I'll still stick with real medicine.

---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------


It's all in the mind. Like a lot of things that alleviate physical and mental suffering, Homeopathy is just one more.

It sure is and just as soon as I figure out how to get my brain to release endorphins at any given time, I'll let you know. ;)

[haagsehibby]

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/04/20/new-age-terrorists-develop-homeopathic-bomb/

[Jack]

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/04/20/new-age-terrorists-develop-homeopathic-bomb/ (http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/04/20/new-age-terrorists-develop-homeopathic-bomb/)


In a similar vein …

A group of over 100 homeopathic experts today held a mass suicide outside the Scottish Parliament.

As a show of the power of homeopathy a cyanide capsule was diluted until only a trace of the original capsule was evident. It was then further diluted and diluted again … and again … and again. The resulting mixture was drunk as grieving friends and relatives mourned in anticipation of the imminent death of their loved ones.

When, after an hour, the homeopathic mixture had not in fact resulted in the expected mass suicide, or even so much as a headache, the now non-believers went home via the chemist* for some proven medicines.

And they all lived happily ever after.


* Not Boots, who sell homeopathic medicines. Apparently Boots said the homeopathic medicines were there because it had been proven they sell, not because its been proven they are effective.

[Twa Cairpets]

* Not Boots, who sell homeopathic medicines. Apparently Boots said the homeopathic medicines were there because it had been proven they sell, not because its been proven they are effective.

Indeed they did. Here is one of very many links. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6658864/Boots-we-sell-homeopathic-remedies-because-they-sell-not-because-they-work.html)

I look forward to Paullotion or Fergus coming on to spin this some other way.

[Beefster]

Indeed they did. Here is one of very many links. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6658864/Boots-we-sell-homeopathic-remedies-because-they-sell-not-because-they-work.html)

I look forward to Paullotion or Fergus coming on to spin this some other way.

It's corporate bull**** from Boots to avoid having to explain, yet again, the proven benefits of homeopathy (if you believe).

I look forward to the further research to prove all the doubters wrong conclusively. Just like when they proved that rubbing squid on your nose cured piles. Worked for me.

[Twa Cairpets]

Just another update. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland have issued guidelines that suggest that pharmacists should, in essence, tell purchasers that it does not work

Link (http://www.psni.org.uk/documents/566/PN+Homeopathy+consultation.pdf)

Another little step towards the death of woo-woo and pseudoscience.

As a footnote, very sad that Evan Harris lost his seat at the election. One of the few genuine believers in evidence based policy in areas such as this in parliament.

[HibsMax]

Just another update. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland have issued guidelines that suggest that pharmacists should, in essence, tell purchasers that it does not work

Link (http://www.psni.org.uk/documents/566/PN+Homeopathy+consultation.pdf)

Another little step towards the death of woo-woo and pseudoscience.

As a footnote, very sad that Evan Harris lost his seat at the election. One of the few genuine believers in evidence based policy in areas such as this in parliament.
Pah! What do pharmacists really know? ;)

[(((Fergus)))]

It's all in the mind. Like a lot of things that alleviate physical and mental suffering, Homeopathy is just one more.

Are there any placebos that cause an aggravation of symptoms first, followed by amelioration?

[Twa Cairpets]

Are there any placebos that cause an aggravation of symptoms first, followed by amelioration?

No, but then neither does homeopathy.

[(((Fergus)))]

No, but then neither does homeopathy.

Aye it does

[Twa Cairpets]

Aye it does

Fergus, I know we've been down this road before, but there is no study of any validity that shows this to be true. None. Not one. Show me a link and I'll go and have a look with an open mind, but I suspect you wont be able to.

What is undeniably true is that some people will get worse after taking a homeopathic remedy. Why? Because their illness has not reached its worst. If you start feeling ill and reach for your homeopathic remedy as soon as the sore throat starts, the odds are that it will continue to get a bit worse before, you know what, you start to improve regardless of any homeopathic remedy you are taking. This is generally called "regression to the mean", where for non serious illnesses, the body will pretty much sort itself out. I'm guessing you're not suggesting homeopathy for anything serious though, where its lack of efficacy would be deeply unethical to prove.

As an aside, you never did answer the question earlier in the thread about whether or not you believe that bacteria / viruses are the cause of disease, or if as Hahnemann (the inventor of Homeopathy) says that no disease, in a word, is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health. See post #18 for the full quote.

[(((Fergus)))]

Fergus, I know we've been down this road before, but there is no study of any validity that shows this to be true. None. Not one. Show me a link and I'll go and have a look with an open mind, but I suspect you wont be able to.

I have no idea whether there are any "studies of any validity" (not sure what you mean by that) as I have never needed to look for any. The only study I have done of Homoeopathy is observing my own treatment and that of my family and many friends. Not from the NHS (God bless them) or self-medicating from Boots but from a proper homoeopath. The reason I went to see them is because a friend of mine had treatment and I was struck by her improvement. The reason I continue is because I am happy with the results. You can read all the restaurant reviews in the world but for me you never know what a place is like unless you go there yourself.




As an aside, you never did answer the question earlier in the thread about whether or not you believe that bacteria / viruses are the cause of disease, or if as Hahnemann (the inventor of Homeopathy) says that no disease, in a word, is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health. See post #18 for the full quote.

I thought I did answer that question. Sorry if I missed it.

As far as I understand it, diseases are not caused by external things, e.g., if everyone eats cauliflower for dinner and only one person gets ill, then the problem isn't with the cauliflower - it's in the person who got ill. This latent susceptibility (part of the person's unique and individual "disease") exists regardless of whether they eat cauliflower or not. The value of the external exciting cause (the cauliflower, which inevitably gets blamed and helps to save face) is that it facilitates the expression of the internal cause. Hahnemann called the external 'cause' the most probable exciting cause' as there is no way of proving with certainty that the cauliflower was even responsible.

[One Day Soon]

Good grief, this thread is even more contentious and bile ridden than the election ones I have been enjoying recently. I'm feeling quite constructive and conciliatory by comparison - do you think that's just a placebo effect?

[Twa Cairpets]

I have no idea whether there are any "studies of any validity" (not sure what you mean by that) as I have never needed to look for any. The only study I have done of Homoeopathy is observing my own treatment and that of my family and many friends. Not from the NHS (God bless them) or self-medicating from Boots but from a proper homoeopath. The reason I went to see them is because a friend of mine had treatment and I was struck by her improvement. The reason I continue is because I am happy with the results. You can read all the restaurant reviews in the world but for me you never know what a place is like unless you go there yourself.

Fair enough. If you had a friend who swore by crystal healing, say, would you automatically believe them in face of a torrent of evidence, science and common sense that it was nonsense. If you think of someone and they ring you is that evidence enough for you of your psychic ability?

I've been accused of arrogance often enough, but I think your view of homeopathy is wilfully and obstinately arrogant - no evidence is going to be good enough for you to stop believing because you apparently refuse to read or look at opposing views. I'm more than happy to become a rooftop screaming advocate of homeopathy if someone shows me any evidence it works. you aint going to change your mind regardless of any evidence anyone puts forward to the contrary.





I thought I did answer that question. Sorry if I missed it.

As far as I understand it, diseases are not caused by external things, e.g., if everyone eats cauliflower for dinner and only one person gets ill, then the problem isn't with the cauliflower - it's in the person who got ill. This latent susceptibility (part of the person's unique and individual "disease") exists regardless of whether they eat cauliflower or not. The value of the external exciting cause (the cauliflower, which inevitably gets blamed and helps to save face) is that it facilitates the expression of the internal cause. Hahnemann called the external 'cause' the most probable exciting cause' as there is no way of proving with certainty that the cauliflower was even responsible.

Well,thats certainly a novel view. Cauliflower, eh? I was thinking more about e-coli bacteria, the AIDS virus, cholera, the 'flu virus. You know, physical things that really do cause illness, and the discovery of which was the basis of all real medicine, that weren't understood (or even known about) when Hahnemann invented his voodoo.

[Twa Cairpets]

The BMA have now hardened their stance on Homeopathy, likening it to witchcraft and calling for it to be withdrawn from NHS provision. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7728281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html)

Good stuff, and not a mention of cauliflower...:wink:

[One Day Soon]

The BMA have now hardened their stance on Homeopathy, likening it to witchcraft and calling for it to be withdrawn from NHS provision. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7728281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html)

Good stuff, and not a mention of cauliflower...:wink:

I'm not sure that a statement of that sort from what is effectively one of the UK's most aggressively protectionist trade unions stengthens your case!

[RyeSloan]

I have no idea whether there are any "studies of any validity" (not sure what you mean by that) as I have never needed to look for any. The only study I have done of Homoeopathy is observing my own treatment and that of my family and many friends. Not from the NHS (God bless them) or self-medicating from Boots but from a proper homoeopath. The reason I went to see them is because a friend of mine had treatment and I was struck by her improvement. The reason I continue is because I am happy with the results. You can read all the restaurant reviews in the world but for me you never know what a place is like unless you go there yourself.


Quality...so you are a total believer and defender in something touted as a medical solution but yet have not bothered to see if there us an studies of any validity supporting that stance!!

You as well as I know that the reson you say you have not looked is that there is of course ZERO medical evidence to show the efficacy of homeopathy as a medical treatment and as for the get worse before you get better argument.......TC has explained that one perfectly to you so please please stop using that as some sort of evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy.

[lyonhibs]

The BMA have now hardened their stance on Homeopathy, likening it to witchcraft and calling for it to be withdrawn from NHS provision. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7728281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html)

Good stuff, and not a mention of cauliflower...:wink:

This article is old and obviously not to be taken seriously, but very, very funny.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/nhs-to-replace-homeopathy-with-medicine-20080131691/

:faf:

[Jack]

I was listening to a senior medic the other day who was a member of BUPA or one of these things.

He was looking at what was available through his membership, sort of bemoaning the fact that although he had paid all this money neither he nor his family had claimed for anything remotely close to what he had paid over the years - although at the same time obviously happy for the good health of his family.

He was stunned to see all the alternative treatments available, none of which he would every consider as a form of medicine.

He was a wee bit ragin’ that his monthly ‘contribution’ was being spent this way and stopped his premiums immediately.



I cant remember all of this thread but did we discuss the financial jiggery pokery and misleading statements around some HRH Prince of Wales foundation set up to promote alternative treatments and their role within the NHS? Shocking!

[HibeeB]

I was listening to a senior medic the other day who was a member of BUPA or one of these things.

He was looking at what was available through his membership, sort of bemoaning the fact that although he had paid all this money neither he nor his family had claimed for anything remotely close to what he had paid over the years - although at the same time obviously happy for the good health of his family.

He was stunned to see all the alternative treatments available, none of which he would every consider as a form of medicine.

He was a wee bit ragin’ that his monthly ‘contribution’ was being spent this way and stopped his premiums immediately.



I cant remember all of this thread but did we discuss the financial jiggery pokery and misleading statements around some HRH Prince of Wales foundation set up to promote alternative treatments and their role within the NHS? Shocking!

Despite the huge savings the NHS, like all publicly funded bodies, are having to find homeopathy continues to be funded from NHS coffers.

If the government is suffering from a lack of money maybe we could give it a small tincture of water with just the memory of a trace on money in it and everything will be fine :rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

Good article in the Sunday Herald on Homeopathy (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/bma-pull-the-plug-on-unproven-glasgow-homeopathy-hospital-1.1054489). Glad to see the BMA driving for the eradication of (diluted) snake oil.

There's also a programme on tonight on BBC (7.30) regarding Homeopathic vaccines. Looks like it'll be worth watching.

[Beefster]

I was listening to a senior medic the other day who was a member of BUPA or one of these things.

He was looking at what was available through his membership, sort of bemoaning the fact that although he had paid all this money neither he nor his family had claimed for anything remotely close to what he had paid over the years - although at the same time obviously happy for the good health of his family.

He was stunned to see all the alternative treatments available, none of which he would every consider as a form of medicine.

He was a wee bit ragin’ that his monthly ‘contribution’ was being spent this way and stopped his premiums immediately.



I cant remember all of this thread but did we discuss the financial jiggery pokery and misleading statements around some HRH Prince of Wales foundation set up to promote alternative treatments and their role within the NHS? Shocking!

As much as I'm against homeopathy, BUPA are a private business and are obviously just catering for a demand, which they've got to do. He's well within his rights to cancel his insurance though.

The problem is the NHS spending money on it. For the NHS, the demand for homeopathy or otherwise should be irrelevant. It should be purely based on clinical/research evidence.

[heretoday]

Does it work? If it does, fund it.

[Borders Hibby]

St Johns wort works for depression, is that homeopathy? Is accupuncture a treatment that should be available on the NHS. Complementary methods should help traditional drugs treatment, surely these drugs treatments come from naturally produced materials eg penicillin. The fear I have is that damage could be done to patients when tests havent been done rigourously on the "remedies".

[Twa Cairpets]

St Johns wort works for depression, is that homeopathy? Is accupuncture a treatment that should be available on the NHS. Complementary methods should help traditional drugs treatment, surely these drugs treatments come from naturally produced materials eg penicillin. The fear I have is that damage could be done to patients when tests havent been done rigourously on the "remedies".

No, St Johns Wart is a herbal remedy.

It's a very common confusion as people tend to lump it all in together. Homeopathy is very different in its approach in terms of its alleged medical benefits to other complementary medicines. Wikipedia gives a fairly neutral description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy), Here's the society of homeopaths (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/) view, and here's the 10-23 campaigns (http://www.1023.org.uk/) (anti-homeopathy) take on it.

You're absolutely right about what is important though. If something has a proven benefit, then it can be called a medicine. It's not complementary or alternative, it just is.

Unfortunately, for the advocates of homeopathy, there is zero clinical evidence for efficacy above placebo.

[Borders Hibby]

No, St Johns Wart is a herbal remedy.

It's a very common confusion as people tend to lump it all in together. Homeopathy is very different in its approach in terms of its alleged medical benefits to other complementary medicines. Wikipedia gives a fairly neutral description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy), Here's the society of homeopaths (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/) view, and here's the 10-23 campaigns (http://www.1023.org.uk/) (anti-homeopathy) take on it.

You're absolutely right about what is important though. If something has a proven benefit, then it can be called a medicine. It's not complementary or alternative, it just is.

Unfortunately, for the advocates of homeopathy, there is zero clinical evidence for efficacy above placebo.

Thanks for the links, does seem like mumbo jumbo, but then so are clairvoyants but everyone has the right to try anything that will make them feel better. The real threat does seem to be when you replace conventional medicine for homeopathy, and they should definately be distinguished from natural remedies, it confused me.:agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

Thanks for the links, does seem like mumbo jumbo, but then so are clairvoyants but everyone has the right to try anything that will make them feel better. The real threat does seem to be when you replace conventional medicine for homeopathy, and they should definately be distinguished from natural remedies, it confused me.:agree:

Absolutely, but it should be at their own expense and risk (and they should be informed of what the efficacy is). It certainly should not be part of the NHS. If people were to insist on a course of crystal healing, ear-candling or reiki for example ("treatments" with exactly the same ability to heal) through their GP, we'd rightly be up in arms. To my mind homeopathy is exactly the same thing - nonsense earnestly believed.

[Borders Hibby]

Absolutely, but it should be at their own expense and risk (and they should be informed of what the efficacy is). It certainly should not be part of the NHS. If people were to insist on a course of crystal healing, ear-candling or reiki for example ("treatments" with exactly the same ability to heal) through their GP, we'd rightly be up in arms. To my mind homeopathy is exactly the same thing - nonsense earnestly believed.

I agree.:agree: