Homeopathy -- fact or trifle?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0livia

It is actually so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregs656

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'

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR

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...

Hear! hear!

Quote:

Originally Posted by scruffy

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.

Though I congratulate you on your relief, and without wanting to be disrespectful, this is exactly the kind of nonsense I refered to. The idea of 'variation in the structure of water molecules' that, moreover, can be influenced by mixing, diluting and shaking and selectively 'remembers' these beneficial manipulations, but not previous contact with any possibly adversive substances, goes against all reason and everything we scientifically know about the world around us. Applying Occam's razor, one cannot but conclude that your recovery is due to chance or placebo effects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by majurey

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?

Exactly. It is/would be a disgrace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by majurey

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?

It needn't be prohibited. I wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldengaerde

and I think adherence to homeopathy for other reasons than ignorance, diplomacy and perceived placebo effects can safely be said to border on the stark raving mad.

but it is inexcusable to pay for it with public funds. The same bogus effect can be had for free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by majurey

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! :)

For the record: traditional acupuncture-theory (you know: energy lines, meridians and what not) is still regarded as preposterous nonsense. Some experiments do suggest there may be slight beneficial effects of acupuncture in a very limited number of ailments, most notably certain forms of pain, which, importantly, can be explained in terms of regular scientific understanding of our bodies.

As for your question: a scientist knows that it is fundamentally impossible to prove something doesn't exist. A scientist bases his ideas on what can and has been proven. And it has been proven that homeopathic treatment in controlled experiments does not improve on base levels of amelioration reached with placebos.

Science has not proven that Santa Claus or fairies do not exist outside our minds, yet claiming they do is unscientific and generally regarded as silly beyond boundaries. Why should homeopathy be viewed any differently?