Thread: Homeopathy -- fact or trifle?

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 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 0livia

It is actually so.

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'

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!

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?