Thread: Homeopathy -- fact or trifle?

I have a fistula that does not heal. I went to several doctors. They told me that it would require anywhere from one to five surgeries to repair. After looking at horrible stories on the internet, I decided to go the homeopathic route. While the fistula is not healed, it has subsided considerably. The homeopathic medicines do help.

After reading about how tinctures are made and diluted I became very sceptical of it. The best explanation that I have is that water has a memory. The tinctures alter the structure of the water molecules which they come in contact with. It is this variation in the structure of the water molecules that promotes the healing.

Originally Posted by chee16

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.

As a former practicing chiropractor, I agree that what an "honest" and ethical chiropractor can do is very limited. They are basically a one trick pony. There is little that a DC can do that an osteopath (DO) or a good physical therapist can't. Unfortunately, many chiros try, or promise, to do things that are not based in science and certainly mislead their patients and defraud the health insurance companies. I found that I couldn't make a living as a DC. I found that too many patients were not true candidates for manipulative therapy (there really was nothing wrong with them), or, they improved so much immediately that I released them from care after 1 or 2 visits instead of milking the system for months (or years as some chiros do), or until a certain "cap" was attained. I ended up sitting in an empty office much of the time. I usually try and steer potential chiropractic students I meet away from chiropractic and towards other less controversial health professions.

Originally Posted by honedright

As a former practicing chiropractor, I agree that what an "honest" and ethical chiropractor can do is very limited. They are basically a one trick pony. There is little that a DC can do that an osteopath (DO) or a good physical therapist can't. Unfortunately, many chiros try, or promise, to do things that are not based in science and certainly mislead their patients and defraud the health insurance companies. I found that I couldn't make a living as a DC. I found that too many patients were not true candidates for manipulative therapy (there really was nothing wrong with them), or, they improved so much immediately that I released them from care after 1 or 2 visits instead of milking the system for months (or years as some chiros do), or until a certain "cap" was attained. I ended up sitting in an empty office much of the time. I usually try and steer potential chiropractic students I meet away from chiropractic and towards other less controversial health professions.

really? that is seriously too bad. my g/f dad is a chiropractor and i swear by him. there are about 10 in town here and he is the only one i go to. i wonder if it is more popular in different areas.

so just out of curiousity what other health professions do steer your students towards ?

Originally Posted by honedright

As a former practicing chiropractor, I agree that what an "honest" and ethical chiropractor can do is very limited. They are basically a one trick pony. There is little that a DC can do that an osteopath (DO) or a good physical therapist can't. Unfortunately, many chiros try, or promise, to do things that are not based in science and certainly mislead their patients and defraud the health insurance companies. I found that I couldn't make a living as a DC. I found that too many patients were not true candidates for manipulative therapy (there really was nothing wrong with them), or, they improved so much immediately that I released them from care after 1 or 2 visits instead of milking the system for months (or years as some chiros do), or until a certain "cap" was attained. I ended up sitting in an empty office much of the time. I usually try and steer potential chiropractic students I meet away from chiropractic and towards other less controversial health professions.

how refreshing.

I have yet to meet someone who has seen a chiropractor and been told they are normal and need no treatment. Something (hip, spine, etc) is "out of place".

I remember being more than a little upset when my children were at the county fair and were given screening examinations (they were totally asymptomatic) and provided with a description of their spinal abnormalities and a treatment plan. All without any parental permission at all. No one in this group of children didn't need some kind of treatment.

Originally Posted by Pyment

how refreshing.

I have yet to meet someone who has seen a chiropractor and been told they are normal and need no treatment. Something (hip, spine, etc) is "out of place".

I remember being more than a little upset when my children were at the county fair and were given screening examinations (they were totally asymptomatic) and provided with a description of their spinal abnormalities and a treatment plan. All without any parental permission at all. No one in this group of children didn't need some kind of treatment.

All I will say is that modern medicine has only scratched the surface of knowledge, and there are many things out there in nature that likely could help us in ways we yet do not understand.

On the other hand, there are many unscrupulous snake oil salesmen who have no qualms profiting from the hope and suffering of people with chronic disease.

As far as homeopathy is concerned, I am open to the idea, but have not found anything in the literature, not just single case endorsements, but carefully controlled clinical trials, which prove that homeopathy works. So I remain a skeptic until proven otherwise.

Originally Posted by gregs656

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.

This is one of the basic ideas of Homeopathy, and it is one that homeopaths USE. If it is a mistranslation, then current homeopathy is based on a MISTAKE.

How can you use this fact to defend homeopathy? You are basically saying, the basic tenet of homeopathy is so stupd, it's obviously a mistake....

Which is the point...

From the Glossary of Homeopathic Terms:

Thepotencyof a homeopathic remedy refers to the number of successive dilutions that a substance is subjected to before being used as a remedy. In contrast to conventional pharmacology, in homeopathy potency is directly proportional to the degree of dilution because a smaller and smaller concentration of the original substance is required to produce an effect. Thus when homeopaths speak of "high potency" remedies they are referring to solutions that have undergone a large number of dilutions. At a dilution of 30C (30 successive dilutions of 1:100) despite being very unlikely that any molecules of the original substance remain, the remedy's potency is perceived to be high because of extensive "dynamization."
Conventional pharmacology views potency as the concentration of a drug needed to elicit a specific effect. The potency of a drug is not thought to be changeable, except via chemical alterations of the drug (thereby creating a new drug). Conventional pharmacology therefore denies that one drug can have varying potencies or that physical acts such as agitation can affect potency. Generally different drugs are compared, with one being said to be more or less potent than the other.

Originally Posted by RazorPete

there are many unscrupulous snake oil salesmen

The irony is that snake oil can be good for you, being full of omega 3.

Originally Posted by scruffy

After reading about how tinctures are made and diluted I became very sceptical of it. The best explanation that I have is that water has a memory. The tinctures alter the structure of the water molecules which they come in contact with. It is this variation in the structure of the water molecules that promotes the healing.

Although I try to keep an open mind about alternative medicines, I do find this very hard to swallow. Water, H2O, having memory. Active ingredients altering the structure of water... how many ways can two hydrogen atoms bind to a single oxygen atom? I just don't buy it. If water has memory, then every organism it has ever passed through would have left an imprint on it, surely? I can't bear the idea of drinking a glass of water which has the memory of someone's p!ss.

Originally Posted by Pyment

I have yet to meet someone who has seen a chiropractor and been told they are normal and need no treatment. Something (hip, spine, etc) is "out of place".

My wife (a GP) once suggested I visit a chiropracter for a longstanding neck pain which a number of doctors had failed to treat successfully. I went for three sessions. The first two involved that horrific and clichéd twist-the-neck like Jean Claude van Damm does when breaking a terrorist's neck. Did nothing for me. Te third visit he sat me down and decided to take a VERY thorough medical history. We talked for 20 minutes on how I live, exercise, what I do, how my day is structured etc. From this session he found out that I was hitting the books and studying in the evenings after work. And from there the posture I use when bent over my books. So he tells me to go buy myself one of those book stand things so I don't need to bend over a desk anymore to read. And within two weeks the pain went and never returned, after suffering for 3 years!

He didn't do any mumbo jumbo. It was a simple and honest solution. And he was able to suggest it simply by spending the time to find out about me and how I live. It ain't rocket science, but every doctor I had visited in three years had failed to elicit that info from me.

The sad fact is that GPs can only afford to give patients here a 9-minute consultation (on average). Driven by one of the many government targets that doctors have to achieve. That got in the way of them finding out enough about me to discover the cause of my pain.

So consider this: the chircopracter was able to give me the focus and attention our GPs can't (due to time constraints). By referring me to this alternative health professional, the NHS saved money. How? I didn't need to revisit the doctor. All those consultations I received through my local surgery, without a result. And within 3 visits to a chiropracter the problem was resolved permanently. How many consultations would I have continued to require if I hadn't been referred? How much more money would I have cost the NHS?

I may not believe in the science behind chiropractic, but the SERVICE led directly to easing my suffering and reducing the strain on the NHS.

To me, that sums up why this is not a black and white issue -- forget the theory, it's about making people better. That's what's important.

Originally Posted by Pyment

I have yet to meet someone who has seen a chiropractor and been told they are normal and need no treatment. Something (hip, spine, etc) is "out of place".

this might have something to do with the fact that people who go to chiropractors are usually going there for a reason, whether their back hurts or their neck is sore. i know that i have never gone in if there is nothing wrong. that would be like going to the doctor when nothing is wrong, seems weird.

another big factor is how weak people are now joint wise and support muscle wise. sitting at desk all day performing repetitive movements all day isn't really what we would naturally be doing. so things tend to become weak and then misaligned. just look at how most people walk and you can see how weak they are.

And some people with back pain really have kidney stones, GB disease, colon cancer, diverticulitis, pancreatic cancers, perforated ulcers, appendicitis, bladder infections, etc. and still get an adjustment (maybe multiple) before they are sent on to a physician, nurse practitioner, Phys Asst, etc.