homeopathy is one step away from John Edwards in its creepy, opportunistic preying upon the sick, saddened and depserate

the vehemence with which scientists and the scientifically-minded will refute it makes me all the more keen to support it

I am a creationist and feel the same way.

The very fact that it says that a compound increases it's efficacy the more diluted it becomes goes against everything science has found in the history of science.

most users of homeopathy are European middle class white people who aren't really that ill. That's it's main issue. I wouldn't, nor would any student or homeopath I know 'prey' on anyone. The very least you can do is see it as an alternative or adjunct to conventional therapy.

The USDA has said more than once that while they doubt the efficacy of homoeopathy and suspect it is fraudulent, they have not got the resources to investigate it thoroughly enough.

With most medical conditions, there are three possible outcomes:

1. Full recovery
2. Partial recovery (chronic impairment)
3. Death

Assuming the first is the most common, and usually occurs regardless of outside intervention, it's easy to claim effectiveness for many treatments.

With the second two, you get into territory where no treatment is particularly effective, and this automatically multiplies the number of potential treatments, as well as the willingness of patients to try anything.

That's the real problem I have with all quackery, is that the intent does not have to come from the practitioner to defraud, the desperation of the patient is enough motivation for both to embark on a course of ''treatment''

If something works really well, the number of alternatives is massively reduced. Hence why people are willing to try and ''cure'' their kids of autism. It would be like trying to ''cure'' someone with Don's Syndrome.

The very fact that it says that a compound increases it's efficacy the more diluted it becomes goes against everything science has found in the history of science.

That's where we differ Modi. I don't see it as 'going against everything science has found'.

Making a tuning fork from a piece of iron can see that piece of iron resonate at several hundred times per second Using that same piece of iron to make a bridge will see it resonate maybe once per second. You can also modify the structure of an object if you subject it to the appropriate frequency of vibration. Hence the maligned 'potentising' of homeopathic solutions.

Must go to school now, back to school. We're studying the methods of oestrogen clearance in endometriosis and PMS and neurohormonal pathways in Alzheimers Disease and dementia and other baloney like that.

I believe in the power of arnica, even if its powers are all in my head and that's why it works for me. I don't care, it works.

I have taken lots of other homeopathic remedies in my time and most of them have done jack. Although I was very young and was almost certainly not taking them as prescribed.

In any case, a homeopath is probably the last person I'd go to for a problem. I don't really buy it. But I'd be interested in reading more about it and I think whether or not you think it's a crock, it's good that someone who has studied it started this thread.

I don't think you can say ''that same piece of iron'' if you make a bridge out of it. It's a fucking shitload of iron, and yeah, the bigger something gets, the more energy it requires to make it move. But it's the same amount of energy per unit of material.

I really don't see how that analogy is relevant, let alone accurate.

this is mainly for modi, though i'm interested in everyone's opinion:

what do you think of Bach's Flower Remedies, specifically Rescue Remedy?

An interesting take on it from Cecil Adams:

Homeopathy was founded by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). He enunciated what remain today the guiding principles of homeopathic medicine, the foremost of which is the Law of Similars: if a large amount of medicine produces a given symptom, then a small amount of the medicine will stimulate the body to combat that symptom. This isn't a completely crazy concept; modern vaccines use the same basic idea. The twist with homeopathic medicines is that they reverse the usual understanding of dose effectiveness. Mainstream science holds that, generally speaking, the potency of a drug increases with the dose. Homeopathy--in particular, the Law of Infinitesimals--says the medicine's effectiveness decreases with the dose. The less you use, the better it works! Which would lead one to conclude that it works best if you don't use any at all.

Homeopaths don't say that, of course, but it's the practical impact of the fantastic dilutions they employ. Two scales are used, X and C. A 1X solution means the original medicine (the ''mother tincture'') was diluted with water, alcohol, or whatever to one part in ten, or 1/10; 2X is 1/100; 3X is 1/1,000; etc. A 1C solution is 1/100, 2C is 1/10,000, 3C is 1/1,000,000, and so on. Most homeopathic remedies range from 6X to 30X. At 30X, chances are that a given dose of the medicine doesn't contain a single molecule of the original, but some dilutions go a lot higher than that. I've heard of one cold remedy with a dilution of 200C, which mathematically is less than one molecule per all the known matter in the universe.

How, then, can homeopathy possibly work? Apologists fall back on far-fetched explanations involving energy and vibrations and so on. A key step in the manufacture of homeopathic medicines is ''succussion,'' in which the mixture is vigorously shaken at each stage of the dilution process. This miraculously unlocks the healing power of the medicinal substance. Could be just my Catholic background talking, but that sounds like making holy water to me.

Homeopathic remedies can legally be sold as drugs in the U.S. owing to an odd circumstance--one of the key sponsors of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was a homeopathic physician, and he was able to get the entire homeopathic pharmacopoeia (nux vomica, arsenicum album, et al) officially recognized. Homeopathy has enjoyed a quasi-protected status ever since, with federal regulators generally taking the view that the practice is harmless and that any attempt to suppress it would likely have political repercussions. There have even been studies in journals with varying degrees of credibility purporting to show that homeopathy actually works. These have been roundly criticized on methodological grounds, and the universal view among scientists is that any perceived benefit is simply a placebo effect--you think something is going to help you, so it does.

Why does belief in homeopathy persist? Well, for most routine, common-cold-type health complaints, it's not noticeably less effective than mainstream medicine, or noticeably different in its therapeutic approach. People catch ''bugs'' that are never diagnosed (and which, if viral, have no cure anyway), take some over-the-counter remedy that claims to address the symptoms, and eventually get better. Did the over-the-counter remedy help? Who knows? It's silly to believe in homeopathic cures, but I'm not seeing that it's smarter to place your faith in Sudafed instead.

Link:

Here

Not much. Like I said before, if things actually work, people use them, if they don't certain people adhere to their use for reasons other than a measurable effectiveness.

The homoeopaths, and others, will refer to the individual patients different humors or whatever description they choose to explain a person's unique genetics, and say that their methods are so subtle that they rely on understanding those differences to such a great degree that no two patients are the same.

Modern ''traditional'' scientific medicine works for the most part by assuming that diseases and conditions have the same causes and effects in everyone, and they treat them as such, usually with a series of treatments beginning with least invasive and progressing to extremely radical.

This is basically why the two camps will never see eye to eye.

I reckon it's interesting that most antibiotic courses accelerate the speed of healing of infection by only a few hours, in most cases.

Basically, if you do nothing but rest and keep your fluids up, you will get better anyway.

Modern ''traditional'' scientific medicine works for the most part by assuming that diseases and conditions have the same causes and effects in everyone, and they treat them as such, usually with a series of treatments beginning with least invasive and progressing to extremely radical.

Which is where homeopathy differs.
20 people may catch the same cold but they'll exhibit 20 different colds. Scientific medicine looks at the 'bug' (or more often than not, fails to identify the 'bug' and if it does construct a vaccine the bug will have altered it's structure and evaded the scientists which is something that will keep on happening), whereas homeopathy (and naturopathy in general) will look at how you're expressing your symptoms and address those.

The reason it can't be judged by typical scientific standards is precisely because it is individualised medicine. You can't measure the results because you can't compare the expressions. Allopathic medicine's reductionist techniques (which are wholly useful in other fields) won't work here.

Studies into areas where homeopathy has traditionally excelled such as otitis media and their use on animals and plants have been shown to be reproducible and at the very least warrant being considered as a concurrent if not primary medicine in many conditions. I would never use it as a substitute for a proven therapy, and it is this that shows me at least, that orthodox medicine and homeopathy can co-exist.

The 'second curve' measure of a ultra-dilute solution has been a long-established phenomenon whereby the the effect of a diluted substances begins to increase in potency once it is diluted further and further examples of studies into this HERE and an explanation of the theories behind the term 'memory of water' below, referring to the mocked comment I made on the autism thread about water bonding altering over time:

There are several ways water can be shown to have a memory. As a simple example, human taste is quite capable of telling the difference between two glasses of water, processed in different ways (eg one fresh and one left undrunk for several days), where present analytical methods fail. There is a change, of course, but such a change would never be noticed by computer simulations on pure H2O. Vybíral and Voráček have shown that water changes its properties with time and its previous history.13 There is also a well-known ‘memory’ effect concerning the formation of clathrate hydrates from aqueous solutions whereby previously frozen clathrates within the solution, when subsequently melted, can predispose later to a more rapid clathrate formation.14 These examples may be explained, for example, by the presence of nanobubbles, extended chain silicates or induced clathrate initiators,15 respectively. Once an explanation is accepted, of course, the ‘memory of water’ seems no puzzle at all.

There is a strange occurrence, similar to the ‘memory of water’, in enzyme chemistry where an effectively non-existent material still has a major effect; enzymes prepared in buffers of known pH retain (remember) those specific pH-dependent kinetic properties even when the water is removed such that no hydrogen ions are present;22 these ions seemingly having an effect in their absence contrary to common sense at the simplistic level.

what do you think of Bach's Flower Remedies, specifically Rescue Remedy?

These work because they contain alcohol.

The first study you cite shows that a replication of an experiment showed the opposite effect of another experiment. That's not replication, that shows there is a need to reassess the method.

My rejection of homoeopathy is not based on the lack of an explanation of how it might work, it's based on the observation that it doesn't appear to work at all.

Scientific medicine looks at the 'bug' (or more often than not, fails to identify the 'bug' and if it does construct a vaccine the bug will have altered it's structure and evaded the scientists which is something that will keep on happening

Sorry, just want to be clear on this. Are you actually saying that vaccines are bullshit because pathogens evolve too quickly for scientists to make them?

Homeopathy is a crime. I prefer to cure my ailments by dangling fresh goats entrails over the threshold of a witch's cave on Walpurgisnacht. Then suckling on a Cyclops teat.

Then suckling on a Cyclops teat.

I have some of those going for cheap if you're interested, 'Nacty.

I would never use it as a substitute for a proven therapy

So, you'd only use it where everything else has failed?

Homeopathy DEFINITELY works for some ailments......although it is indistinguishable from the placebo effect. A rose by any other name and all that.

dazmurray said 13 minutes ago:
Random: I did a history thesis on this kind of shit.

And what was your conclusion, out of curiosity?

anonymous said 10 hours ago:
That's a silly conclusion.
I like rock and roll, but it shouldn't be taught at higher education.

But they teach music at University! :P

Cough....

Yeah, I guess, but my opinion is, is that if someone is gonna fuck with my body I'd like them educated about it. Nursing for example is taught at Tafe and University level depending on what you are doing and the level of care you are providing, I'm probably not educated enough to guess who would be the best provider of education and at what level, but if you are fucking with my spine I'd like you as educated as possible. Better than a 'friend' giving it a crack I guess the article isn't clear enough for me to understand the complexities of what they are after (plus I'm too lazy to go through it again)

You want complimentary medicines gone? Not taught at Unis? Or not subsidized through health care funds?

All of the above.

How come?

Random: I did a history thesis on this kind of shit.
And what was your conclusion, out of curiosity?

It wasn't specifically on homeopathy, though I read a lot about it. I was studying phrenology in 19th century America, and it's change from a true science to a fad one - it was more about cultural shifts in the American medical profession. This is a sentence I wrote about it:

''These newly professionalised classes asserted the dominance of ‘scientific medicine’ which demanded empirical results from disciplines claiming to be science, as well as
claimed authority over all forms of medicine, which served to undermine the confidence in heterodox medical sects such as homeopathy.''

I can't personally claim to know if homepathy works or not, or if it's any better than 'scientific medicine'. However, I believe that regardless of the effectiveness of any particular method of healing, there are always power dimensions in any of these debates.

$100 dollars says that in 100 years, healers of the future will look back at current dominant practices and say 'what the fuck were they thinking?'

Sorry, bit off topic there...

That's pretty interesting actually dazmurray. I hope you did well in the thesis!

$100 dollars says that in 100 years, healers of the future will look back at current dominant practices and say 'what the fuck were they thinking?'

that's true, but that's what is being said about homeopathy now (and when it was first introduced), with the current best knowledge.

I dislike the idea that all the 'alternative medicines' are are seeming to be lumped in the same 'nutty medicine' basket.

homeopathy is completely different to osteopathy etc

true. i mainly dislike osteopathy because i had an ex who was studying it while i was doing pharmacy and at the end of her course she got the 'Dr' title, while i just got a white coat and lots of jelly beans.

Wait....you got JELLY BEANS?!

I'd prefer that over a Dr tittle anyway

while i just got a white coat and lots of jelly beans

You mean you have unlimited access to all that glucose? No wonder you can run so far.

i'd love a dr tittle. hmmm... tittles.

and running with those jelly beans is a bad idea. they get sweaty, the colour runs, and then you don't know if you are eating a rubbish black one, or a regular tasty one.

........ha! Whoops!

$100 dollars says that in 100 years, healers of the future will look back at current dominant practices and say 'what the fuck were they thinking?'

Of course they will. That's the wonderful thing about science; it's self correcting.

Check out this dude and his 'cures'.

I'd love to become an esoteric breast massage therapist.

A little of topic, but CANCER IS A FUNGUS ... ... AND IT IS CURABLE. Thanx David Icke! If you disagree you are obviously a lizard person. adjusts tinfoil hat

Mother gets the real news from a judge - Homeopathy is rubbish!

That is pure gold Tramdriver.

If you laughed at that comic, then that means homeopathy works, right?

fzchk - Yeah genius, I can't take credit though.