Thread: Homeopathy -- fact or trifle?

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Because science admits it is wrong when a better theory comes along. Unlike the alternatives.

And it isn't about being correct, it's about having the best model of how things work we can come up with. Newton's laws of motion don't apply so well under all circumstances, but they were good enough to put men on the moon.

If the Bible offered the most consistent explanation of things, it would be labelled a scientific journal.

Rajagra, that was *very* well put.

At least when science is wrong, they admit it, and continue working toward "the truth" instead of blaming their "wrongness" on the position of the Sun and Venus.

I've tried to post this a couple of times. I think I ran up against some length of post thing. It comes from a website I pay to have access to. It is peer reviewed and evidence based.

Quality — There are multiple determinants of the quality of an herbal product. These factors all impact the ability to insure consistency and standardization of herbal products.
Plant species used — Several common herbal products are drawn from closely related species. As an example, studies of echinacea for the treatment and prevention of the common cold utilize Echinacea purpurea, E. pallida, and/or E. angustifolia. The relative pharmacologic activity of these different species is unclear. Serious injury also has resulted from the misidentification of other plant species and subsequent mislabeling.
Plant parts used — Different plant parts from the same species may have different pharmacologic activity. As an example, echinacea products vary according to the proportion of root and aerial parts used. The relative activities of these different parts of the same plant are uncertain. Other inherent problems involve contamination by plant parts not normally utilized.
Harvesting and storage conditions — The strength of a plant's pharmacologic activity may also vary according to where it was raised, when it was harvested, and the length of time it was stored . Plant products and their active constituents can vary from year to year due to climatic changes involving rainfall, sunlight, and even genetic composition. A similar phenomenon is commonly experienced with wine grapes. Problems with prolonged storage may also lead to microbial contamination.
Processing — Herbs can be processed and formulated multiple ways. Whole herbs can be homogenized and extracted using solvents (eg, alcohol, glycerol, acetone, water). These extracts can be dried and encapsulated, or made into liquid tinctures. Whole herbs can also be consumed orally or packaged as loose teas. Topical applications can be made using poultices or creams. Different processing techniques can result in different chemical composition of the final product.
Accuracy of labeling — Multiple reports of inaccurate herb labeling have been documented. As an example, a study of commercially available Asian ginseng products showed that among products with a labeled concentration of ginsenosides, the actual measured ginsenoside varied from zero to over 300 percent of labeled concentrations. Similarly, in a study of valerian products, 4 out of 17 products tested had no detectable levels of the expected valerenic acids, while another four had only one-half the expected amount.
Furthermore, many brands of the same herb have labeling recommendations that vary greatly. Among 880 commercial products of the 10 most commonly purchased herbs, 43 percent were consistent with generally accepted benchmarks and 37 percent were either not consistent or were insufficiently labeled to determine whether or not it was consistent with generally accepted benchmarks. Cost per recommended daily dose was a significant predictor of consistency with the benchmark, but store type (ie, grocery, retail pharmacy, discount store, health food store) was not.
Standardization — Herbs are complex substances with dozens or hundreds of chemical constituents. Often it is unclear which of these chemicals play an important role in the herb's pharmacologic activity. Some herbal products are standardized to contain a specified amount of one or two chemicals or chemical groups thought to be the active ingredients for the herb. Examples include ginkgo extracts standardized to 24 percent flavonoid glycosides and 6 percent terpenoids, and St. John's wort standardized to 0.3 percent hypericin. The latter is an example of a product standardized to a component that many experts believe is not the most important component for antidepressant activity.
Even when herbal preparations are labeled "standardized," there may be significant variation. One study of echinacea found that the content did not match the labeling in 47 percent of samples labeled "standardized".
Purity — Reports of herbal medicines containing pharmaceuticals have occurred. Notable examples include the combination product PC-SPES used for prostate cancer that was found to contain DES, warfarin, and indomethacin. Reports of lead, mercury, and arsenic contamination in imported traditional Chinese and Indian herbal products have also occurred.

Originally Posted by Oldengaerde

Its two basics, 'if something causes a symptom it can induce curement of the same' and 'the further you dilute the more powerful the effects', are too ridiculous for words

Why are they too ridiculous for words? That's a very easy statement to make, slightly more difficult to justify. The former, at least, is more difficult. The further the dilute the more powerful the effects, I think is probably a bad translation somewhere a long the line, personally.

It is actually so.
A D4 is stronger than a D3.

Its really strange. A friend of mine did an extensive research.
He's both. School medicine as well as homeopath.
In germany he got bashed and ignored and the funds for the research cut off.
In the US he is almost a god.

I know that's what they say, but I really wouldn't be surprised if someone miss read that once apon a time. In the same sense that 'Walked on water' could just have easily have been translated to 'walked through water'

If you take the stuff, you can feel the difference.

Originally Posted by Oldengaerde

But homeopathy - vehemently no!
...
To be even more pronounced: I honestly and strongly think that general practitioner's and other scientifically trained medical professionals who practise homeopathy are frauds at worst or short-sighted and not worthy to be called academics at least. I don't know which is worse. Both ought to lead to stripping of academic titles and revoking all license in regular medicine.

I can understand your objection on the basis of homeopathy. But I'm surprised by your view of how medically trained doctors should be treated for supporting homeopathy as an alternative treatment.

What if your nation's medical association, chief medical officer, and state health department supported it as a practice? In fact, decided to spend state money on it, by offering it as a treatment available to all? Over here in the UK family doctors can (and do) regularly refer their patients to homeopathic practitioners as an option and alternative -- as supported by the entire health system. Are you suggesting they should be struck off?

Indeed, it's about offering patients (tax payers) the choice. Let's put aside whether the science is real, bogus or simply explained by something else (such as psychology). The fact that it can offer relief to patients... doesn't that mean it should be considered?

One other thought --as recently as 30 years ago science ridiculed acupuncture. It was baseless (according to western scientific principles) and there was absolutely no way science could endorse it. It was seen as quackery. As Ray pointed out earlier, science has moved on and adapted its view, which is what science does! We're now told there may be some explanation after all (neurological and nervous-system related). So... might there be some valid explanation of homeopathy in 30 years' time perhaps?

Would you be willing to at least hold that as a possibility? Because if not, you're no scientist really!

so what do we all think of chiropractors then? for some reason the Ontario government deemed them non essential and won't cover part of the visit costs anymore, yet the things they can do have HUGE benefits that are proven and don't use drugs. i know lots of doctors that don't believe chiropractors do anything which simply makes me respect them less.

there are quack doctors just as there are quack natural practitioners. i can honestly say that i have only met 2 doctors that i liked and respected in my life, the rest weren't what i describe as quacks but i wouldn't trust their 2 min diagnosis opinions. plus i find it VERY hard to take medical advice from someone who isn't healthy. thats like hiring a personal trainer that is over wieght, just wrong.

PS i sincerely hope i am not offending anyone with any of my statements, i mean no harm or insult, just to state my opinion.

I'd say they are victims to lobbyism.
The pharma companies are tremendously powerful and constantly try to put everything into discredit, they don't make money from.

Originally Posted by 0livia

I'd say they are victims to lobbyism.
The pharma companies are tremendously powerful and constantly try to put everything into discredit, they don't make money from.

I wanted to say that, but my internet cut out.

A lot of the problems I foresee with national health insurance is that instantly medical decisions become political decisions subject to lobbyists, special interests, etc....

For instance Wisconsin mandates that every health plan in the state provide chiropractic service coverage. Do you think chiropractors didn't lobby hard for that?

for a while Physician's Assistants were mandated coverage under insurances and Nurse practitioners were not. This was purely because the PA's lobby was well organized and focused in it's approach and the NP's didn't even have lobbyists at the time.

If a SPS (single payor system) becomes a reality, lobbying by pharmaceutical companies and others that want to be covered will become very intense because the prize becomes that much bigger. Kind of like lottery ticket sales when there is a huge jackpot. There will be huge dollars spent in lobbying. Every medical decision becomes a political one.

sorry about the digression...

Maybe I should become a lobbyist.