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.

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 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.

My problem with most homeopathy/herbalism are many. Here aresome off the top of my head.

There is so little well done science that it is really hard to draw any conclusions at all. Often the research has no control group.

There is seldom any data on the side effects of the treatment.

There is no standardization of product. Method of processing can dramatically affect the chemical composition of an herbal product. Since we don't know what the active ingredient is, we can't know which processing method works best. (this is better in Germany where this is better regulated).

If the benefit is present in the fresh product, does it degrade over time

By the time most "natural" products reach the consumer it has been processed so much that it isn't natural anymore.

Many ingredients come from places where insecticides on crops for human consumption is poorly regulated. Same goes for sanitation.

So, basically you are at the mercy of the ethics of the producing company.

I would rather trust the FDA.

Using herbs and plants is a no brainer. Long before we had "modern" medicine people were treated with herbal remedies and in fact many of our modern medicines come from plant extracts. What has given herbal remidies a bad name are charletons who claim they will cure everything and others who combine ingredients and claim miraculous outcomes and many of these things are actually harmful. If you want to look at herbal treatments you need to look at the things that have been used over the past few thousand years over and over again.

Homeopathy is totally different the idea you can take an offending item and take it in small quantities and your body will fight off the illness.

Over the years many studies have been done and the results were clear that Homeopathy had no positive result. When offered to take part in scientific studies homeopthy practicioners have always refused.

As far as xtls and stuff like these bracelets they sell those are out and out fraud.

Originally Posted by Pyment

My problem with most homeopathy/herbalism are many. Here aresome off the top of my head.

There is so little well done science that it is really hard to draw any conclusions at all. Often the research has no control group.

There is seldom any data on the side effects of the treatment.

There is no standardization of product. Method of processing can dramatically affect the chemical composition of an herbal product. Since we don't know what the active ingredient is, we can't know which processing method works best. (this is better in Germany where this is better regulated).

If the benefit is present in the fresh product, does it degrade over time

By the time most "natural" products reach the consumer it has been processed so much that it isn't natural anymore.

Many ingredients come from places where insecticides on crops for human consumption is poorly regulated. Same goes for sanitation.

So, basically you are at the mercy of the ethics of the producing company.

I would rather trust the FDA.

You trust science and the FDA alot more than I do. The FDA,remember said Sacharin was safe, then decided it caused cancer,has approved growth hormones for livestock etc. I'm sure more could be came up with given the time and research, but suffice it to say, imho the FDA isn't the be all end all.

Control groups? Herbs were used for years by Native Americans with no problems. As with anything,one should let their Doctors know that they are taking herbs.

I believe that herbs were placed on earth for a purpose,not just to flavor food. I'm not so hardcore that I think herbs will cure some diseases, Diabetes for example,but, I do believe that they can help control it,which is all science has been able to do. I use herbs along side my insulin etc to help aid in my diabetes,and pain control. Cinnamon, for instance helps one to control blood sugar.

There is a homeopathic that I take that helps with sports injuries (sprains etc), called Traumeel,I took some after injuring a rib and for a diabetic that doesn't heal quickly, I was over the injury alot quicker than I thought I would be.

I agree, there is no standardization ofthe various products, but some manufacturers DO stringent testing before they sell them. For instance Nature's Sunshine does quite a number of tests on their products, up to 588. Here's a link to their page on testing.

Actually, the herbs do lose some strength over time,but just as anything fresh is best.

Like I said, I'm a skeptic about such things,but do believe that in times past, before we had "medicine" as such, herbs were what people used for headaches, sprains, cuts, burns etc.