Thread: Homeopathy -- fact or trifle?

Originally Posted by joke1176

It's completely bogus... but even placebo's have a measurable effect, and sometimes that's good enough.

That is how I view it, although I'm not satisfied to believe that it necessarily must be bogus.

My wife gets results with some homeopathic stuff she uses on her eye once in a great while. I always tell her she may as well just use a water drop, but since it works I can't argue with her - I think it's placebo but since it works then it doesn't really matter to me in this case

Well vets use it as well and the pets do recover.
Maybe a good example for an unbiased opinion.

Originally Posted by chee16

i have to question anyone who trusts the FDA. drugs are made to make the drug companies money nowadays. i know this might start a huge arguement but it is what i truly believe. if i am in an accident, i would go to a doctor and except minimal drugs, that is the only situation. other then that there are natural CURES for almost everything. again i know this will start an arguement that don't want to get into, but i have seen the effects first hand.

i will also note that i don't in any way mean to insult doctors as i do have the utmost respect for what they do. i just wish they would encorporate diet and prevention into what they do.

Chee, I agree with most of what you said.. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about the FDA, but I have an even less fuzzier feeling about going to an herbologist who starts shoving herbs in my face promising everything from a larger appendage to curing cancer. And have you ever read the small print on the herb bottles? It goes something like, this product is not intended to treat or cure any disease... yet the big print just told you it *was* gonna do some miraculous thing.

The perfect set of checks and balances doesn't exist yet, but when I'm getting ready to have surgery, you can bet I'll be hooked up to FDA approved drugs (and not popping herbs) for the general anesthesia, blood pressure control, septic control, and blood sugar control.

Ya gotta play the odds and what you feel safest with. And even though the FDA is not a completely trustworthy agency, I trust them a lot further than the local herbologist and homeopath.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I kinda have to question any one that says there is 'traditional' western medicine.

And "traditional" medicine in this sense is the medicine widely accepted as "the standard of care"; what you would receive at a hospital, for instance. Arguing such minutia...sheesh.

I think we need to separate a few threads here - the video didn't help by lumping together homeopathy, crystals, and herbalism. Those are very different treatment types, but one might argue equally baseless in western science.

But someone raised a valid point. If there can be a beneficial effect, even if it's indirect, then does it matter?

I think there IS a place for alternative medicine. In the UK, the NHS will even provide it in certain cases (acupuncture, homeopathy, etc.). But I think there has to be a very defined scope for it. I don't think it should be used in acute medical cases (accident and emergency, heart attacks, strokes, etc.). And although it probably doesn't harm (physiologically speaking) if used for terminal illness, if it gives false hope I think that can be damaging in different ways.

At university my roommate suffered from terrible psoriasis (skin complaint). His face was constantly red raw, flaking dead skin, and inflamed. He went to all manner of doctors, from his GP to skin specialists. He had all types of creams prescribed: from basic water-based creams to steroid-laced ones. Nothing ever lasted more than two weeks and his condition would return. Then one day he went to see a homeopathic doctor (at the suggestion of his GP). Classically, he was given a tincture, which of course had undetectable levels of 'active' ingredient in it. I remember him telling me about the theory of homeopathy -- it was the first I'd heard of it. I was studying medicine, he was studying Maths/Physics. Both of us understood enough science to realise that the basis of homeopathy ran contrary to scientific principles. But his skin condition cleared up and remains clear thereafter. As a mathematician, he found it very difficult to explain. EVerything he had learned and continued to learn told him this must be bogus, yet his psoriasis remained clear.

Sure, it might have been coincidence, or something else in his life might have changed (diet, exercise, or levels of stress), or there might just be something in homeopathy after all!

The latter. It all depends on the abilities of the diagnostic of course.
His seems to have been quite a good one.

he was given a tincture, which of course had undetectable levels of 'active' ingredient in it.

That's different to homeopathy, where you probably have zero active ingredient left at the end. The subastance is diluted so many times that the probability of having even one molecule of the original substance remaining is negligible.

Imagine throwing a green ball into a swimming pool that already contains 999 red balls, stirring it up, then pulling out a ball at random. Put that ball into another swimming pool having 999 red balls, stir it up and draw another ball at random.

You now have a 1 in a million chance of holding the green ball and 999,999 in a million of having a red ball.

Homeopathy is claiming that even though you (almost certainly) end up with a red ball, some of the green-bally-ness has rubbed off on to it and that attribute enables it to do something.

Except in homeopathy we aren't talking 1 in a million probabilities, we're talking 1 in billions of billions or more.

The ultimate form of homeopathy is walking past a pharmacy without going in!

Now, any treatment needs to be investigated thoroughly. But when it flies against all existing knowledge of physics and chemistry, the burden of proof is even higher.

If an effect exists in any significant measure, it can be proven to exist through properly conducted trials. If homeopathists are confident in the reality of their treatment, they should prove it works. They have not done so. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by FloorPizza

And "traditional" medicine in this sense is the medicine widely accepted as "the standard of care"; what you would receive at a hospital, for instance. Arguing such minutia...sheesh.

Ah, so you're allowed to apply meanings to words when you don't quite say what you mean and there are other words that do. That's handy. Western medicine based in science? I thought it was based in nature and takes advantage of science. More minutia? Why not.

Medicine is complex. Most medication is based on something found in nature, there have just been 'advancements' made due to the technology available.

The placebo affect is well know. Homeopathy claims to cure people, and sometimes it works. yay.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

That's different to homeopathy, where you probably have zero active ingredient left at the end.

Ray, you may be splitting hairs here. Would you say that zero active ingredient was an undetectable level? I'm not sure we're saying different things. In fact, I'm sure we're saying the same thing, just different ways.

My past with medical education tells me exactly what you've written. But then, as the NHS seems to think, if it can lead to a beneficial effect, why not support the service?

I used to think that it was ridiculous, but after some investigation into eastern medicine, I think there is something there. I don't think it's a cure all, but I do think that botheastern and western medicine have their place.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Ah, so you're allowed to apply meanings to words when you don't quite say what you mean and there are other words that do. That's handy. Western medicine based in science? I thought it was based in nature and takes advantage of science. More minutia? Why not.

Medicine is complex. Most medication is based on something found in nature, there have just been 'advancements' made due to the technology available.

The placebo affect is well know. Homeopathy claims to cure people, and sometimes it works. yay.

D'oh... gregs656 I apologize... I just assumed (inappropriately) that it was kinda common knowledge what was meant by traditional western medicine. There is a gap here in terminology between countries, and I apologize.

Your post is spot on.