Thread: Homeopathy -- fact or trifle?

Can't say i've seen any real benefits from homeopathy.
I was, however, at school with David Mitchell. His chosen career being slightly more successful than mine.

Well, I have.
And that while avoiding the side effects of an equivalent pharmaceutical therapy.

Randi sums up homeopathy well:

James Randi explains homeopathy | Unreasonable Faith


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

I'm sure that using plant extracts & herbal remedies can be effective when their is an imbalance in the body, but i would feel safer with modern medicine if i was in real trouble. Crystals & the like strike me as complete nonsense.

yeah, but crystals are not homeopathy.

I'm having a heart attack! Quick, call a homeopath! Nah.... i think I'll stick with traditional Western medicine based in science.

As to herbs... yeah, there's some very potent stuff out there. One of the most effective drugs to treat breast cancer is made from the bark of a tree. But (and this is a big but(t) ) the medicine made from trees, plants, flowers, whatever is thoroughly processed to be pure. This is very important, as a lot of the other chemicals in the plant (other than the beneficial one) can be harmful or fatal. Once again, i'll take the one that is pure and has been tested and passed the (arguably) safe tests of the FDA.

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.

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!