Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on January 12, 2016, 06:38:21 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Well..well...here is something interesting about Homeopathy.....finally! :D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in
*************
Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine.
In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010, (1) Professor Luc Montagnier, has expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine. Although homeopathy has persisted for 200+ years throughout the world and has been the leading alternative treatment method used by physicians in Europe, (2) most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used.
Montagnier, who is also founder and president of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, asserted, "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules."
Here, Montagnier is making reference to his experimental research that confirms one of the controversial features of homeopathic medicine that uses doses of substances that undergo sequential dilution with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Although it is common for modern-day scientists to assume that none of the original molecules remain in solution, Montagnier's research (and other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects.
It is remarkable enough that many skeptics of homeopathy actually say that there is "no research" that has shows that homeopathic medicines work. Such statements are clearly false, and yet, such assertions are common on the Internet and even in some peer-review articles.
Misstatements and misinformation on homeopathy are predictable because this system of medicine provides a viable and significant threat to economic interests in medicine, let alone to the very philosophy and worldview of biomedicine.
In the light of this research, it can now be asserted that anyone who says or suggests that there is "nothing" in homeopathic medicines is either simply uninformed or is not being honest.
In addition to Benveniste and Montagnier is the weighty opinion of Brian Josephson, Ph.D., who, like Montagnier, is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist.
Josephson went on to describe how many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief;" that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it."
In closing, it should be noted that skepticism of any subject is important to the evolution of science and medicine. However, as noted above by Nobelist Brian Josephson, many scientists have a "pathological disbelief" in certain subjects that ultimately create an unhealthy and unscientific attitude blocks real truth and real science.
*************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
So 'finally' means an article that is 5 years old by a 'homeopath' about non peer reviewed, non replicable experiments
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier
When you read articles such as the one cited which make a lot of Nobel prize winner as if it is a magic wand, just say Linus Pauling 3 times.
-
Surely you know that if you put a magic exclamation mark at the end of a word it gives it special powers, NS?
-
My middle daughter is into homeopathy and reckon it works for her.
-
It would work for me if I believed in it.
But I prefer to believe in the curative powers of alcohol, and that works as well.
-
It would work for me if I believed in it.
But I prefer to believe in the curative powers of alcohol, and that works as well.
Yes my old mum reckons her shot of brandy in ginger before bed works a treat too ;
-
You will have to excuse me but it is rubbish. Sheer unmitigated nonsense.
It is infinitely more beneficial for you to drink a glass of water.
This puts me in mind of a byline on here which ran if I remember correctly "I see gullible people - everywhere"
-
She feels it does, it probably helps her sleep.
-
She feels it does, it probably helps her sleep.
Sorry Rose
I was talking about homeopathy - not Brandy and ginger which I am sure has a beneficial effect - no matter what the department of health are trying to tell us!
-
Although homeopathy has persisted for 200+ years throughout the world and has been the leading alternative treatment method used by physicians in Europe, (2) most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used.
No, most scientists and physicians express skepticism because a) it's the default position for science and b) because in repeated testing homeopathy has consistently proven to be no more effective than a placebo.
Physicians are skeptical because it's been repeatedly shown not to work, not purely because the mechanism makes no sense and defies the basic precepts of physics and chemistry, but because it demonstrably doesn't work.
It is remarkable enough that many skeptics of homeopathy actually say that there is "no research" that has shows that homeopathic medicines work. Such statements are clearly false, and yet, such assertions are common on the Internet and even in some peer-review articles.
No, what scientists asy is that there are no good quality, peer-reviewed papers that show homeopathy works. There are a number of low-grade, selective, poorly conducted (or all three) papers that have been put into the public domain that support homeopathy, but they're no more use than the 'remedies' themselves.
Misstatements and misinformation on homeopathy are predictable because this system of medicine provides a viable and significant threat to economic interests in medicine, let alone to the very philosophy and worldview of biomedicine.
Ah, yes, the 'Big Pharma' conspiracy. If homeopathy worked, big pharma wouldn't be supressing it, they'd be selling it.
Of course, if homeopathy worked, we'd have all died from shit poisoning, given how often the water we drink has been through other people's intestines.
O.
-
You will have to excuse me but it is rubbish. Sheer unmitigated nonsense.
It is infinitely more beneficial for you to drink a glass of water.
This puts me in mind of a byline on here which ran if I remember correctly "I see gullible people - everywhere"
Thank you Trentvoyager M D - NOT!
-
Thank you Trentvoyager M D - NOT!
If I had at any point claimed to be an MD then your post might have some relevance, as it is, it has none - except to prove that you think some youth terminology that is already more than somewhat outdated says anything about my position on this subject.
If you wish to portray yourself as a teenager do continue - but we all know you are not. Furthermore it does make you sound a little like your good friend JC, a comparison I'm sure you are happy with :P
-
At best I think homeopathy has a placebo effect, like prayer!
-
If I had at any point claimed to be an MD then your post might have some relevance, as it is, it has none - except to prove that you think some youth terminology that is already more than somewhat outdated says anything about my position on this subject.
If you wish to portray yourself as a teenager do continue - but we all know you are not. Furthermore it does make you sound a little like your good friend JC, a comparison I'm sure you are happy with :P
You made a comment on a medical procedure - a seriously dismissive comment - which, without a medical qualification is of no value whatsoever. It is a personal belief and not a professional, and therefore relevant, opinion. The evaluation, an evaluation worth taking note of, without medical knowledge is pointless, rubbish, sheer unmitigated nonsense..
-
You made a comment on a medical procedure - a seriously dismissive comment - which, without a medical qualification is of no value whatsoever. It is a personal belief and not a professional, and therefore relevant, opinion. The evaluation, an evaluation worth taking note of, without medical knowledge is pointless, rubbish, sheer unmitigated nonsense..
what medical procedure?
-
You made a comment on a medical procedure - a seriously dismissive comment - which, without a medical qualification is of no value whatsoever. It is a personal belief and not a professional, and therefore relevant, opinion. The evaluation, an evaluation worth taking note of, without medical knowledge is pointless, rubbish, sheer unmitigated nonsense..
Trent made no comment on any 'medical procedure'
-
Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo.
Apart from the obvious, what's the difference?
ippy
-
Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo.
Apart from the obvious, what's the difference?
ippy
But the placebo effect works and homeopathy is a harmless way of exploiting this phenomena - so where is the problem?
-
what medical procedure?
Therein lies the differnce in our perspective.
Homeopathy involves the administration of a substance, a medicine. The prescribing of medicines are recognised as being the area of expertise of the medical profession; therefore its adminstration to a patient is a "medical procedure".
-
Trent made no comment on any 'medical procedure'
See #18
-
Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo, Homeopathy placebo.
Apart from the obvious, what's the difference?
ippy
None - they both work.
-
But the placebo effect works and homeopathy is a harmless way of exploiting this phenomena - so where is the problem?
The problem is non-medical pedants
-
Therein lies the differnce in our perspective.
Homeopathy involves the administration of a substance, a medicine.
Nope, it involves charging gullible people for sugar pills. The prescribing of medicines are recognised as being the area of expertise of the medical profession;
Which is why we have doctors and pharmacists to prescribe medicines. And why any old quack can sell homeopathic pills.
-
Therein lies the differnce in our perspective.
Homeopathy involves the administration of a substance, a medicine. The prescribing of medicines are recognised as being the area of expertise of the medical profession; therefore its adminstration to a patient is a "medical procedure".
So all witch doctors conduct 'medical procedures' - note prescription isn't usually seen as a medical procedure.
-
But the placebo effect works and homeopathy is a harmless way of exploiting this phenomena - so where is the problem?
Is it harmless tpo prescribe something such as homeopathy for Ebola p that doesn't work? That if the person uses it will die? Is that harmless?
-
The problem is non-medical pedants
If you are going to try and be superior here, you have to demonstrate it?I've seen too many snake oil saesman trot out your inept to put up with this idiocy. If you know anything about medical tests, you would realise your concept of 'worked' you are touting here is deeply non medical. You seem to show no understanding of science, medicine or testing.
-
The problem is non-medical pedants
Indeed it is Owlswing. That is why I would point you to the vast body of work conducted around the field of homeopathy by the medical profession which points to the fact that it has no benefits that are measurable in any meaningful way. There is also the added consideration that people will use these "medicines" in the mistaken belief that they will do them some good - thus not getting the treatment they actually need.
Procedures in the field I work in does not include prescription. I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding over terminology.
-
Nope, it involves charging gullible people for sugar pills. Which is why we have doctors and pharmacists to prescribe medicines. And why any old quack can sell homeopathic pills.
Your objection seems to be that the treatment doesn't work in the way that you believe a treatment ought to work?
As far as I am concerned, the only criteria should be - Does it work?
-
Your objection seems to be that the treatment doesn't work in the way that you believe a treatment ought to work?
As far as I am concerned, the only criteria should be - Does it work?
When you want prescribed a placebo or homeopathy for Ebola, get back to me.
-
When you want prescribed a placebo or homeopathy for Ebola, get back to me.
They don't prescribe Aspirin/paracetamol for Ebola either. That does not mean they don't work for other ailments.
-
They don't prescribe Aspirin/paracetamol for Ebola either. That does not mean they don't work for other ailments.
Aspirin isn't a method
-
Aspirin isn't a method
You were talking about prescribing drugs that are not relevant to Ebola. I said the same thing.
Homeopathy can't be used for fractures either. So what? Does not mean they are not useful in other areas.
We should stop taking political positions in favour of certain medical systems and against others. There are alternative medical systems that are very useful for certain ailments. Homeopathy is one such.
-
You were talking about prescribing drugs that are not relevant to Ebola. I said the same thing.
Homeopathy can't be used for fractures either. So what? Does not mean they are not useful in other areas.
We should stop taking political positions in favour of certain medical systems and against others. There are alternative medical systems that are very useful for certain ailments. Homeopathy is one such.
For a start placebo isn't a drug, and homeopathy isn't a drug, it's an attempt at a method. this isn't a political position
-
For a start placebo isn't a drug, and homeopathy isn't a drug, it's an attempt at a method. this isn't a political position
'Placebo' is a word that is beginning to be used as a dustbin... like the word 'woo'. Anything people don't understand they dump it in there and believe they are being very clever!
-
But the placebo effect works and homeopathy is a harmless way of exploiting this phenomena - so where is the problem?
I wasn't saying the placebo effect doesn't work, so as I was saying?
ippy
-
Homeopathy involves the administration of a substance, a medicine.
No, homeopathy involves the administration of water in expensive packaging.
The prescribing of medicines are recognised as being the area of expertise of the medical profession; therefore its adminstration to a patient is a "medical procedure".
Indeed. The administration of water in expensive packaging, however, is the area of expertise of Coca Cola.
O.
-
'Placebo' is a word that is beginning to be used as a dustbin... like the word 'woo'. Anything people don't understand they dump it in there and believe they are being very clever!
As opposed to claiming thety do understand things and making claims they can't back up
Sort of like posting 5 year od articles that they don't look at crtically and cite as if they are unchallenged
-
As opposed to claiming thety do understand things and making claims they can't back up
Like what? I have personally used homeopathy for decades and that is proof enough for me. And I am sure there are millions of others (some are on here and... you can ask your Queen and Prince Charles too).
I have also provided the opinion of some Nobel laureates in the OP. That's what this thread is about you know!
Stop being silly about this NS. You are taking political positions...because you know nothing about homeopathy except what you have read here and there.
-
You were talking about prescribing drugs that are not relevant to Ebola. I said the same thing.
Homeopathy can't be used for fractures either. So what? Does not mean they are not useful in other areas.
We should stop taking political positions in favour of certain medical systems and against others. There are alternative medical systems that are very useful for certain ailments. Homeopathy is one such.
Homeopathy nothing wrong with it provided you read the labels, can't remember which ones of the homeopathy remedies they are, but some of them conflict with prescribed medicines.
I might be wrong but I think I can remember St Johns Wort conflicts/reacts with lots of other medicines/remidies and I'm sure there are others that need caution, or perhaps a chat with your friendly local pharmacist before use.
Other than the above there is a lot of woo involved with a very high percentage of Homeopathic stuff.
Perhaps the religious with their penchant for anything involving woo, might find homeopathy with its accompanying foray s into woo might be more successful for them than it would be so for those of us that are less inclined toward towards woo, a guess, I don't know.
ippy
PS In addition I think the St Johns I mentioned above can be a danger to life if it's used without taking the appropriate care or advice.
-
Hello Trent! I was going to write, BITE ME, but you might find that way too much to handle, ya know, sounding too youthful. Which reminds me of that word I adopted from you. THINGY, ya thingy. (snork) And Matty's old enough to be my grandfather!
So what's up in your world these days?
But I must tell you that I do agree with your first post. Rock on dude!
-
And Matty, don't get your panties in a twist over the grandfather comment. My adopted parents was old enough to be my great grandparents.
-
Like what? I have personally used homeopathy for decades and that is proof enough for me. And I am sure there are millions of others (some are on here and... you can ask your Queen and Prince Charles too).
I have also provided the opinion of some Nobel laureates in the OP. That's what this thread is about you know!
Stop being silly about this NS. You are taking political positions...because you know nothing about homeopathy except what you have read here and there.
As already covered as regards Nobel Laureates - Linus Pauling, Linus Pauling, Linus Pauling.
As for use of anecdote and proof (or indeed citing the Queen who really has nothing to do with me) - get back when you want to show any understanding of the scientific method.
-
Hello Trent! I was going to write, BITE ME, but you might find that way too much to handle, ya know, sounding too youthful. Which reminds me of that word I adopted from you. THINGY, ya thingy. (snork) And Matty's old enough to be my grandfather!
So what's up in your world these days?
But I must tell you that I do agree with your first post. Rock on dude!
Lol - good to hear from you - I'm busy with Mum and thingies - but I'm ok. Cheers
-
Homeopathy nothing wrong with it provided you read the labels, can't remember which ones of the homeopathy remedies they are, but some of them conflict with prescribed medicines.
I might be wrong but I think I can remember St Johns Wort conflicts/reacts with lots of other medicines/remidies and I'm sure there are others that need caution, or perhaps a chat with your friendly local pharmacist before use.
Other than the above there is a lot of woo involved with a very high percentage of Homeopathic stuff.
Perhaps the religious with their penchant for anything involving woo, might find homeopathy with its accompanying foray s into woo might be more successful for them than it would be so for those of us that are less inclined toward towards woo, a guess, I don't know.
ippy
PS In addition I think the St Johns I mentioned above can be a danger to life if it's used without taking the appropriate care or advice.
A true homeopathic product wouldn't actually contain any St John's Wort and so wouldn't cause any issues like that surely. A herbal product would but that's because it does actually have some St John's Wort in what you take.
-
Nope, it involves charging gullible people for sugar pills. Which is why we have doctors and pharmacists to prescribe medicines. And why any old quack can sell homeopathic pills.
Read the OP!
Quote:
. . . physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used.
Montagnier, who is also founder and president of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, asserted, "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. . . ."
Not sugar pills!
And more than a few homeopathicists are fully quallifed DM's
-
So all witch doctors conduct 'medical procedures' - note prescription isn't usually seen as a medical procedure.
No, but it is done by a person who is medically qualified
-
I give up on this thread.
People are demonising a form of medicine just because they have decided it doesn't work - fine, as long as those of you who are Christian etc give up prayer for the same reason because I say it doesn't work.
Nowhere have I seen any claim the homeopathic medicines will cure AIDS, Ebola, typhus, or syphilis but sure as the Goddess made little apples someone here will soon claim there has been.
As has been stated there have been cases where sugar pills have 'cured' illnesses, if it works don't knock it!
-
No, but it is done by a person who is medically qualified
And to give water to someone required no qualification. And the vast majority of water pushers have none. So what is your point, caller?
-
I give up on this thread.
People are demonising a form of medicine just because they have decided it doesn't work - fine, as long as those of you who are Christian etc give up prayer for the same reason because I say it doesn't work.
Nowhere have I seen any claim the homeopathic medicines will cure AIDS, Ebola, typhus, or syphilis but sure as the Goddess made little apples someone here will soon claim there has been.
As has been stated there have been cases where sugar pills have 'cured' illnesses, if it works don't knock it!
It isn't a form of medicine! That's the point. Can I suggest you stop misrepresenting what people say as it is tedious in the extreme.
-
Read the OP!
Quote:
. . . physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used.
Montagnier, who is also founder and president of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, asserted, "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. . . ."
Not sugar pills!
And more than a few homeopathicists are fully quallifed DM's
And you couldn't read the second post on this? Really?
-
And you couldn't read the second post on this? Really?
It works both ways - the Devil can quote scripture to his purpose!
-
From Sriram's post 37:
I have also provided the opinion of some Nobel laureates in the OP. That's what this thread is about you know!
Good, then you won't mind me mentioning the views of Venkatraman Ramakrishnan who is a structural biologist and current president of the Royal Society. He dismissed both homeopathy and astrology as 'bogus, harmful and useless'. I think he said this only a few days ago. Oh, I nearly forgot, he is also a Nobel laureate in Chemistry. ;)
-
From Sriram's post 37:
Good, then you won't mind me mentioning the views of Venkatraman Ramakrishnan who is a structural biologist and current president of the Royal Society. He dismissed both homeopathy and astrology as 'bogus, harmful and useless'. I think he said this only a few days ago. Oh, I nearly forgot, he is also a Nobel laureate in Chemistry. ;)
So these qualifications mean that he has never, ever, made a mistake?
The last man that perfect who was on this Earth wound up on a cross.
-
From Sriram's post 37:
Good, then you won't mind me mentioning the views of Venkatraman Ramakrishnan who is a structural biologist and current president of the Royal Society. He dismissed both homeopathy and astrology as 'bogus, harmful and useless'. I think he said this only a few days ago. Oh, I nearly forgot, he is also a Nobel laureate in Chemistry. ;)
enki,
I am not talking about a person offering just a random personal comment about something. V.Ramakrishnan is no different from anyone else when it comes to a off-the-cuff opinion on something including homeopathy. What has his Nobel prize got to do with it?
The Nobel Laureates I was referring to in the OP have actually done some work on homeopathy and are commenting based on that. They cannot be accused of not understanding the scientific method or of lying for some personal gain.
I am also commenting on homeopathy based on my personal experience with it for more than 30 years.
People don't seem to understand that different legitimate systems of medicine exist around the world all of which are useful in certain areas and not equally useful in all areas.
Equating systems such as Homeopathy, Ayurveda and Acupuncture with snake oil vending is ignorance born of lack of exposure. Dubbing something as 'just placebo' is also ignorance because no one knows what placebo really is.
-
When you want prescribed a placebo or homeopathy for Ebola, get back to me.
Hi NS,
most doctors would acknowledge that the 'white coat' and (unused)stethoscope can be an important part of the treatment. Drug trials often show little difference between the drug under test and the placebo (though both may be effective).
Psychological effects can have an enormous effect on the healing process and are not well understood, but the placebo effect is very real and homeopathy seems to exploit this to good effect.
-
Equating systems such as Homeopathy, Ayurveda and Acupuncture
Whoa hold on a minute. Nobody has done that with either Ayurveda or Acupuncture.
I know little about Ayurveda so cannot comment on that, but Acupuncture is recognised as a legitimate treatment especially for chronic lower back pain - and indeed is used by some hospitals in the UK. The reason for using Acupuncture is because there is scientific evidence that backs up the effectiveness of acupuncture - scientific evidence that is singularly lacking in the case of homeopathy.
-
Hi NS,
most doctors would acknowledge that the 'white coat' and (unused)stethoscope can be an important part of the treatment. Drug trials often show little difference between the drug under test and the placebo (though both may be effective).
Psychological effects can have an enormous effect on the healing process and are not well understood, but the placebo effect is very real and homeopathy seems to exploit this to good effect.
Or exploits it to very very bad effect.
I find the use of placebo, which as Sriram rightly points out we don't understand, to back up an argument for something that performs no better than it, just bizarre.
If this is, and I suspect you are right, about psychology then we should not be dressing it up in clothes for a real effect from shaken water. The claims being made for homeopathy are precisely snake oil claims since the same would literally be true if snake oil. Investigate placebo certainly, don't use it to give faux respectability to claims that are not validated.
There are too many exploitative wanks across the Web and in real life waving their 'cures' and telling people to throw away their treatments to ignore. This sort of stuff is not only no better, it is way worse than the dangers of the anti vaxxer loons.
-
Manuka Honey isn't homeopathy is it?
-
People are demonising a form of medicine just because they have decided it doesn't work - fine, as long as those of you who are Christian etc give up prayer for the same reason because I say it doesn't work.
No, they haven't 'decided' it doesn't work, they've tested it and concluded from the evidence that it doesn't work.
Nowhere have I seen any claim the homeopathic medicines will cure AIDS, Ebola, typhus, or syphilis but sure as the Goddess made little apples someone here will soon claim there has been.
There have been claims that homeopathy can immunise against certain conditions (malaria and measles are two I've seen alleged), there have been claims that it can reduce bruising and swelling, cure earache and hayfever - no evidence supports any of these claims.
As has been stated there have been cases where sugar pills have 'cured' illnesses, if it works don't knock it!
The placebo effect is well-documented, if not well understood. The placebo effect works even if you know you're getting a placebo. No amount of placebo can immunise you from malaria or measles.
Homeopathy lies, and charges over the odds for the privilege of lying to you. It's fraud.
O.
-
If people are wondering why I mentioned Ebola, see link below
http://tinyurl.com/ldykl4a
-
Or exploits it to very very bad effect.
I find the use of placebo, which as Sriram rightly points out we don't understand, to back up an argument for something that performs no better than it, just bizarre.
If this is, and I suspect you are right, about psychology then we should not be dressing it up in clothes for a real effect from shaken water. The claims being made for homeopathy are precisely snake oil claims since the same would literally be true if snake oil. Investigate placebo certainly, don't use it to give faux respectability to claims that are not validated.
There are too many exploitative wanks across the Web and in real life waving their 'cures' and telling people to throw away their treatments to ignore. This sort of stuff is not only no better, it is way worse than the dangers of the anti vaxxer loons.
I agree that their are charlatans who will quite cynically rip people off but I don't think that Homeopathic Practitioners generally fall into this category.
-
I agree that their are charlatans who will quite cynically rip people off but I don't think that Homeopathic Practitioners generally fall into this category.
Touting non evidenced claims is charlatanry.
-
Manuka Honey isn't homeopathy is it?
No it's not, but at the time it was controversial.
:)
-
Indeed - but just wanted to highlight that often discussions about homeopathy drift off into other areas such as herbalism, accupunture, sugar pills etc and this can muddy the waters. Homeopathy is specifically about whether huge dilutions of certain materials (curing like with like), which mean that you are actually not taking in any of that material, can have a health benefit due to some memory of that material retained by the water you are drinking isn't it? There is no scientific evidence that such a phenomena exists or that such treatments have any greater effect than the placebo effect (whatever that truely is).
Sriram, when you talk about your positive effects through using homeopathy are you talking about such materials (memory water?) or something else?
-
Touting non evidenced claims is charlatanry.
If you go to a Homeopathic practitioner with (say) bad hayfever and you are given a 'remedy' that greatly relieves you symptoms - how is that charlatanry?
If it works it works! and you would probably be very great full, and that kind of scenario seems to be typical of what happens.
-
If you go to a Homeopathic practitioner with (say) bad hayfever and you are given a 'remedy' that greatly relieves you symptoms - how is that charlatanry?
Because the evidence suggests that the remedy doesn't do anything. You might well feel better, but that could be due to any number of factors (regression to the mean, confirmation bias and the placebo effect being amongst them). I recommend the section in Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' on homeopathy for a great explanation.
If it works it works! and you would probably be very great full, and that kind of scenario seems to be typical of what happens.
It doesn't work. The remedy itself doesn't work.
The 'treatment experience', to an extent, might, but the remedy doesn't, and being charged that much for something that doesn't work is fraudulent.
O.
-
You made a comment on a medical procedure - a seriously dismissive comment
Homeopathy is not a medical procedure, it's actually a fraudulent procedure.
which, without a medical qualification is of no value whatsoever. It is a personal belief and not a professional, and therefore relevant, opinion.
Is an opinion backed by scientific research.
-
Therein lies the differnce in our perspective.
Homeopathy involves the administration of a substance, a medicine.
I had a glass of a medicine this morning - dihydrogen monoxide in fact. Maybe it should be available only on prescription.
-
Indeed. The administration of water in expensive packaging, however, is the area of expertise of Coca Cola.
O.
Coca cola does at least contain a drug.
-
So these qualifications mean that he has never, ever, made a mistake?
The last man that perfect who was on this Earth wound up on a cross.
No, David Bowie died of cancer.
-
The reason for using Acupuncture is because there is scientific evidence that backs up the effectiveness of acupuncture.
Is there? Can you provide a reference please.
-
Quote from: L.A. on Today at 11:26:35 AM
If you go to a Homeopathic practitioner with (say) bad hayfever and you are given a 'remedy' that greatly relieves you symptoms - how is that charlatanry?
Because the evidence suggests that the remedy doesn't do anything. You might well feel better, but that could be due to any number of factors (regression to the mean, confirmation bias and the placebo effect being amongst them). I recommend the section in Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' on homeopathy for a great explanation.
Outsider,
the whole object of the exercise is to make the patient feel better. If the treatment achieves this - then it has worked even if the exact mechanism is not understood.
-
The problem comes though when such treatments are extended into trying to treat more serious conditions. if you give a veneer of scientific credibility this is more likely to happen.
-
Because the evidence suggests that the remedy doesn't do anything. You might well feel better, but that could be due to any number of factors (regression to the mean, confirmation bias and the placebo effect being amongst them). I recommend the section in Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' on homeopathy for a great explanation.
Outsider,
the whole object of the exercise is to make the patient feel better. If the treatment achieves this - then it has worked even if the exact mechanism is not understood.
No, the treatment hasn't worked as Outrider had already pointed out.
-
the whole object of the exercise is to make the patient feel better.
No, the whole object is to make the patient better.
-
No, the treatment hasn't worked as Outrider had already pointed out.
NS - do you visit your doctor as an academic exercise to investigate the scientific authenticity of the treatment on offer, or do you just want to get better?
-
No, the whole object is to make the patient better.
In many cases (eg hay fever) - it amounts to the same thing.
-
NS - do you visit your doctor as an academic exercise to investigate the scientific authenticity of the treatment on offer, or do you just want to get better?
Eh? I want properly effective treatments from my doctor, not something that works as well as a sugar pill.
-
Eh? I want properly effective treatments from my doctor, not something that works as well as a sugar pill.
OK, so how do you judge how effective the treatment is?
-
OK, so how do you judge how effective the treatment is?
Scientific trials. Not anecdote.
-
To expand that last answer we are scarily easily able to fall into post hoc ergo propter hoc on pretty much everything, which is why we believe shite like walking under ladders being bad luck. We are crap at the whole causation thing. Homeopathy is another example. As noted it isn't, despite Sriram's misrepresentations, that people refuse to investigate it, it is that it has been investigated and doesn't work.
-
Sriram, I'm interested in this:
..... Montagnier's research (and other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects.....
because one of my lads was treated successfully by homeopathy, for eczema. The homeopath, explained that all that is required is the energy pattern of the substance being used. This is why only a small amount of water is required to carry and transfer the energy pattern.
-
Is there? Can you provide a reference please.
You could start here although it is a medical resource and as such is difficult to read. There is a plain speaking section in each report however(iirc) which gives an outline of the effectiveness.
Acupuncture works well for some problems and not at all for others.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search
-
Outsider,
the whole object of the exercise is to make the patient feel better. If the treatment achieves this - then it has worked even if the exact mechanism is not understood.
If the treatment as a whole has made them feel better, and the homeopathy part is just a placebo, why not ditch the homeopathy and just provide the rest, with the commensurate reduction in cost and increase in honesty?
O.
-
OK, so how do you judge how effective the treatment is?
For conditions like hayfever, you will eventually feel better anyway - you may acclimatise, or you might just outlast the pollen.
After your consultation you might feel better simply because someone has spent some time with you, taking your issue seriously (and their air-conditioned office reduced the pollen count :) ). You might feel better because the thought that someone was doing something has reduced your stress-levels.
I'm not for a moment denying that people undergoing homeopathic treatments feel better - however, when tested against a placebo, people undergoing homeopathic remedies don't feel any more better than people taking a placebo (in part because a homeopathic remedy is only distinguishable from a placebo by looking at the price tag).
O.
-
So these qualifications mean that he has never, ever, made a mistake?
The last man that perfect who was on this Earth wound up on a cross.
And I agree with you, Owlswing. I think you miss my point completely. Of course it's possible he could be mistaken. However it was Sriram who said:
I have also provided the opinion of some Nobel laureates in the OP. That's what this thread is about you know!
So please take this up with Sriram. :)
-
If the treatment as a whole has made them feel better, and the homeopathy part is just a placebo, why not ditch the homeopathy and just provide the rest, with the commensurate reduction in cost and increase in honesty?
O.
Wasn't there a study that found that expensive placebos were more effective than cheaper ones?
-
Wasn't there a study that found that expensive placebos were more effective than cheaper ones?
I caught a bit of Ben Goldacre on QI a few days ago saying that bigger sugar pills were a more effective placebo than smaller ones and giving someone a salt water injection was a better placebo than pills.
It seems the more 'complex' the intervention is the better people respond to it. I suppose spending more on Lemsip (TM) might seem more effective than Wilko's paracetamol and lemon flavouring for a similar reason.
-
And on acupuncture...
http://www.dcscience.net/2013/05/30/acupuncture-is-a-theatrical-placebo-the-end-of-a-myth/
Large multicenter clinical trails conducted in Germany {Linde et al; Melchart et, 2005; Haake et al, Witt et al), and in the United States {Cherkin et al) consistently revealed that verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels across multiple chronic pain disorders: migraine, tension headache, low back pain, and osteoarthritis of the knee.
If, indeed, sham acupuncture is no different from real acupuncture the apparent improvement that may be seen after acupuncture is merely a placebo effect. Furthermore it shows meridians don’t exist, so the "theory" memorized by qualified acupuncturists is just myth. All that remains to be discussed is whether or not the placebo effect is big enough to be useful, and whether it is ethical to prescribe placebos.
-
Pain is probably mostly in the mind - the feeling being far out of proportion to the "size" of the actual signals being transmitted by the nerves so anything allowing the brain to ignore the signals or for the signals to be blocked or redirected could work.
My chiropractor has worked wonders on my various injuries by pressing certain points to "relieve tension" and some pulling and pushing. Maybe it is all in the mind and I should just stay in and take painkillers?
-
I have, on three, possibly four, occasions, bought a homeopathic 'remedy' on the advice of family and friends, but have never actually believed they would work. I believe I have swallowed a pill or two. but The rest remained in a drawer, forgotten and then were eventually thrown away. I'm very much a sceptic about chiropractic too.
There was an excellent Inside Health programme (BBC Radio 4) this week on the benefits of exercise; definitely recommended.
-
Pain is probably mostly in the mind - the feeling being far out of proportion to the "size" of the actual signals being transmitted by the nerves so anything allowing the brain to ignore the signals or for the signals to be blocked or redirected could work.
My chiropractor has worked wonders on my various injuries by pressing certain points to "relieve tension" and some pulling and pushing. Maybe it is all in the mind and I should just stay in and take painkillers?
I don't know, trigger points are well-known within physiotherapy, and also problems in the back radiate into the rest of the body. I have a back problem and when my physio works on it I get pain release elsewhere - must admit to being surprised when my sinuses unblocked as a result once but she wasn't.
-
Wasn't there a study that found that expensive placebos were more effective than cheaper ones?
Given that entire field is 'odd', there are still a few stand-out oddities in there:
- branded packaged placebos work better than plain packaged placebos
- two placebos work better than one placebo
- placebos administered by a man in a white coat work better than ones administered by a man in a shirt
- injected placebos work better than tablet placebos
- red-coloured placebos work better for some conditions than blue-coloured ones, and vice versa
The human mind is still a vast, unknown expanse.
O.
-
And even when patients were told that they are getting placebos...it still worked! In other words, when it no longer served as a 'placebo'....it still worked.
The unconscious mind is said to play a role in how a placebo works. So...unless we know more about the unconscious mind...we are unlikely to know more about how a placebo works.
-
And even when patients were told that they are getting placebos...it still worked! In other words, when it no longer served as a 'placebo'....it still worked.
How is it not a placebo just because you know it's not an active ingredient?
The unconscious mind is said to play a role in how a placebo works. So...unless we know more about the unconscious mind...we are unlikely to know more about how a placebo works.
Indeed :)
O.
-
How is it not a placebo just because you know it's not an active ingredient?
O.
Because by definition a placebo is a sham medicine meant to make the patient believe that he is getting a real medicine.
-
Because by definition a placebo is a sham medicine meant to make the patient believe that he is getting a real medicine.
Not quite. A placebo is an inert or inactive substance given in place of an active ingredient to more closely match the process of medicating to get an accurate base-line measurement when testing medicines.
That placebos are more effective than nothing does not make them intended as a 'sham medicine' in the majority of cases. What the patient believes about their treatment is, indeed, part of the process and ritual of treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from, but placebo is a description of the chemical content of the medication given to the patient, not a description of the purpose of giving it.
You can give a placebo deceptively or openly and it remains a placebo, because it's chemically not relevant to the condition.
O.
-
I don't know, trigger points are well-known within physiotherapy, and also problems in the back radiate into the rest of the body. I have a back problem and when my physio works on it I get pain release elsewhere - must admit to being surprised when my sinuses unblocked as a result once but she wasn't.
I think doctors and therapists vary enormously in their knowledge of the body and their attention to detail.
Many homeopaths are also fully qualified doctors, so if they were great conventional doctors they could also be effective using homeopathy (despite the theory being rubbish) given that they are likely to spend more time and attention on the (paying) patient. If they were not great doctors then their homeopathic treatments won't work either.
Similarly with physios, osteopaths and chiropractors - it is probably not the theory and routine treatments that count - but the extent to which they understand how all the "bits" fit and work together and the issues affecting the patient.
-
And even when patients were told that they are getting placebos...it still worked! In other words, when it no longer served as a 'placebo'....it still worked.
The unconscious mind is said to play a role in how a placebo works. So...unless we know more about the unconscious mind...we are unlikely to know more about how a placebo works.
I've just come around after falling off of my chair Sriram, you've come out with something realistic that makes sense, good for you, I'm going to have a lay down now it's the shock, I'll feel better later, don't worry about me too much Sriram, I'll be OK.
ippy
-
Not quite. A placebo is an inert or inactive substance given in place of an active ingredient to more closely match the process of medicating to get an accurate base-line measurement when testing medicines.
That placebos are more effective than nothing does not make them intended as a 'sham medicine' in the majority of cases. What the patient believes about their treatment is, indeed, part of the process and ritual of treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from, but placebo is a description of the chemical content of the medication given to the patient, not a description of the purpose of giving it.
You can give a placebo deceptively or openly and it remains a placebo, because it's chemically not relevant to the condition.
O.
From the online dictionary.....a placeo is
"a substance having no pharmacological effect but given merely to satisfy a patient who supposes it to be a medicine."
While its true that a placebo is a chemically inert substance....the purpose is to mentally deceive the patient and to bring about a psychological and perhaps psychosomatic cure/relief.
So...if a person knows that a placebo is being given...it should not (theoretically) have any beneficial effect. But the fact that there is a beneficial effect....means there is something going on that we don't understand.
-
While its true that a placebo is a chemically inert substance....the purpose is to mentally deceive the patient and to bring about a psychological and perhaps psychosomatic cure/relief.
That can be one of the purposes, but it's not the only one - when you're conducting medical trials, you can trial your pill against a placebo in order to eliminate the placebo effect and see what difference in outcomes is purely due to the treatment you are trialling.
O.
-
In many cases (eg hay fever) - it amounts to the same thing.
No it doesn't. If it did, the pharmaceuticals industry would produce nothing but pain killers.
-
You could start here although it is a medical resource and as such is difficult to read. There is a plain speaking section in each report however(iirc) which gives an outline of the effectiveness.
Acupuncture works well for some problems and not at all for others.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search
Acupuncture is just sticking pins into people. People can't even agree on which places to put the pins for which ailments.
It's just another placebo.
-
because one of my lads was treated successfully by homeopathy, for eczema.
Eczema will clear up on its own if left to its own devices.
The homeopath, explained that all that is required is the energy pattern of the substance being used.
That's pseudo science. Water consists of huge quantities of molecules all moving about, making and breaking bonds with other molecules all the time. The only way to sustain a pattern of any sort is to stop them from moving about so much. We call it ice when it is in that state.
-
Wasn't there a study that found that expensive placebos were more effective than cheaper ones?
No.
The important thing is they have to look expensive. It's not the cost of the pills that matters but how expensive looking the packaging is. e.g. Nurofen works better than generic ibuprofen unless you put the generic ibuprofen in the Nurofen packaging.
Another effect is that placebos become more effective depending on how serious the treatment looks. A neutral saline injection works better than a sugar pill.
-
Incidentally, even though I know about the expensiveness effect, it still works on me. Nurofen works better on me than Boots own brand.
-
Right, so it is a matter of confidence in the product. Wonder if there is a general principle to be extracted - maybe this could explain why people think private medicine is more effective than the NHS, or private schools better than state schools?
"Free" indicating that things have no value.
-
Right, so it is a matter of confidence in the product. Wonder if there is a general principle to be extracted - maybe this could explain why people think private medicine is more effective than the NHS, or private schools better than state schools?
There might be something in it as far as the hospitals go but with private schooling, the person paying is not the person receiving the "treatment".
There is a different process at work in the case of schools (in my opinion). People often defend their own choices, especially if they have spent their money on them. In the UK you can get your children educated for free but if you have chosen to spend vast quantities of cash on it, of course you are going to be defensive.
Do you remember Top Gear used to do a customer satisfaction survey of car owners in Britain and Vauxhall Vectras consistently did very badly. Was this because they were bad cars or because the majority of them were company cars "forced" on their keepers.
I spend a lot of money on Apple products. I would claim this is because their laptops are the best money can buy. Is that really the case or am I just rationalising my choice?
-
Acupuncture is just sticking pins into people. People can't even agree on which places to put the pins for which ailments.
It's just another placebo.
I remember hearing someone that obviously was healthily sceptical about such things as acupuncture I think he was a vet, yes, he was trying acupuncture, with some success on animals, that's all I remember.
I share your view and can't remember where or when I saw or heard this, but I can remember thinking to myself to put my previous view, not unlike yours, on hold, a kind of, watch this space.
ippy
-
I remember hearing someone that obviously was healthily sceptical about such things as acupuncture I think he was a vet, yes, he was trying acupuncture, with some success on animals, that's all I remember.
And there are vets who use homeopathy on animals with some success. The reason it works is the same though: confirmation bias. Obviously, with acupuncture it is very hard to do a double blind trial, but some attempts have been made with no sign of a real effect.
-
And there are vets who use homeopathy on animals with some success. The reason it works is the same though: confirmation bias. Obviously, with acupuncture it is very hard to do a double blind trial, but some attempts have been made with no sign of a real effect.
Yes J P, I agree with you, I'm more or less on hold with this one, sort of you prove it, I'll believe it.
ippy
-
Wasn't there a study that found that expensive placebos were more effective than cheaper ones?
Yes the expensive placebos were more effective than cheaper ones at making supplier of the placebos happy.
Which proves that they do work.
ippy
-
because one of my lads was treated successfully by homeopathy, for eczema
Eczema will clear up on its own if left to its own devices.
Yoiu wish!
Eczema is a bloody nasty thing to have; a continual itch that cannot be scratched without serious coonsequential physical injury. I used to suffer as part of the problems with my asthma. The two are often linked.
Thankfully, after about two years of treatment, it cleared up and has not returned.
To leave it to its own devices can end up in one of two ways - serious injury from scratching to relieve the itch or raving insanity from the inability to do anything about the itch.
Fortunately most sufferers give up on the first fairly rapidly and seek treatment and those who try the second seek treatment even more quickly.
-
I think it depends on how old Sweet Pea's 'lad' was. Childhood eczema usually clears up on its own I believe but adult eczema is a different matter.
-
Yoiu wish!
Eczema is a bloody nasty thing to have; a continual itch that cannot be scratched without serious coonsequential physical injury. I used to suffer as part of the problems with my asthma. The two are often linked.
And yet it will clear up on its own, perhaps not in all cases, otherwise homeopathy would not be effective.
-
And yet it will clear up on its own, perhaps not in all cases, otherwise homeopathy would not be effective.
There are none as blind as they who will not see! And you sure won't even look.
-
There are none as blind as they who will not see! And you sure won't even look.
Homeopathy. does. not. work.
There is no way it does anything. It's bollocks, crap, snake oil. It's just water. People who sell homeopathic remedies while claiming they do anything are committing fraud.
-
There are none as blind as they who will not see! And you sure won't even look.
Nope. We looked. It's shit. We just don't know why you're still looking at shit.
-
And yet it will clear up on its own, perhaps not in all cases, otherwise homeopathy would not be effective.
Not if it's caused by an allergy. Unless the allergen's removed it won't resolve.
-
Homeopathy. does. not. work.
There is no way it does anything. It's bollocks, crap, snake oil. It's just water. People who sell homeopathic remedies while claiming they do anything are committing fraud.
The way they dilute whatever they think works, I suppose it would be safe to take cyanide prepared in the same way as homeopathic, so called, medicine is prepared.
ippy
-
Homeopathy. does. not. work.
There is no way it does anything. It's bollocks, crap, snake oil. It's just water. People who sell homeopathic remedies while claiming they do anything are committing fraud.
You live up to your byline!
You really will not see that there can be any view but your own. If YOU do not believe in it, it MUST be wrong. There can be no alternative to Jeremyp's way, oipinion, worldview. On anything.
-
Nope. We looked. It's shit. We just don't know why you're still looking at shit.
You really will not see that there can be any view but your own. If YOU do not believe in it, it MUST be wrong. There can be no alternative to Jeremyp's way, oipinion, worldview. On anything.
-
The way they dilute whatever they think works, I suppose it would be safe to take cyanide prepared in the same way as homeopathic, so called, medicine is prepared.
ippy
No homeopathist ever administered a known lethal poison - not even someone a stupid as JeremyP and SqueakyVoice believe homeopathists to be would, without deliberate murderous intent, do so.
-
Not if it's caused by an allergy. Unless the allergen's removed it won't resolve.
It might if you encourage the body to produce adrenalin or steroids.
-
Homeopathy. does. not. work.
Yes it does. Psychosomatic illnesses are real illnesses, and very common, and can be cured by appropriate treatment.
But the medical profession will just say "it's all in the mind" and leave you to die.
Yes, it's all in the mind, but you still need help. If that means being conned, well, the mind's like that. If it's not kept conned, it loses the will to live.
Placebos are especially appropriate for children who are made ill by their mothers. They get better when their mothers expect them to.
This may be why acupuncture works on dogs. I bet it wouldn't work on cats.
-
Hi everyone,
1. The idea of the OP was precisely to highlight the research done by some eminent scientists in proving that homeopathy works.
2. Merely asserting that homeopathy does not work is blind skepticism.
3. Commenting against homeopathy is a matter of affiliation. Some people just want to be seen speaking against it regardless of whether they have actually had any experience with it at all.
4. Dismissing it as placebo is meaningless because no one knows how placebo actually works.
5. Infant and animal illnesses treated successfully prove that homeopathy cannot be just placebo. Dismissing these cases as due to confirmation bias on the part of parents and animal owners is a case of confirmation bias itself.
6. How homeopathy works is of secondary importance as long as it works. And that fact has ample evidence in the form of millions/billions of satisfied patients around the world.
7. Some cases of research that try to establish that homeopathy does not work is clearly about confirmation bias. And we have seen in cases like the Cholesterol controversy that clinical trials and medical opinion can be pretty messed up.
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
-
Sriram
Please read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, particularly the section on homeopathic "medicine".
I notice that your post does not quote any work that provides a proper scientific Theory.
-
It might be a good idea to write down all of the various homeopathic cures for various ailments on to a card system and then some kind of exotic bird with psychic powers, of course, was trained to pick cards from this system, with the prospective patient present, then use whatever cure on the card chosen is used to aid this victim, sorry patient, to recover from whatever may have been wrong with them.
I've seen this method used for reading horoscopes, now where did I see that practice being used and what country did the people involved come from?
Now if the above methods were used when administering homeopathy it would certainly boost the already enormous amount of confidence I have in homeopathy, way beyond the placebo, as it would no doubt boost JP's confidence too.
What is it Siriam? This brave new word frightens you, so you're trying to get back to your roots, a bit like going back to that worn out, leaky but comfortable pair of old shoes?
ippy
-
No homeopathist ever administered a known lethal poison - not even someone a stupid as JeremyP and SqueakyVoice believe homeopathists to be would, without deliberate murderous intent, do so.
The way homeopaths water things down would it matter if they did administer poison, prepared as per the homeopathic norm?
ippy
-
It might be a good idea to write down all of the various homeopathic cures for various ailments on to a card system and then some kind of exotic bird with psychic powers, of course, was trained to pick cards from this system, with the prospective patient present, then use whatever cure on the card chosen is used to aid this victim, sorry patient, to recover from whatever may have been wrong with them.
I've seen this method used for reading horoscopes, now where did I see that practice being used and what country did the people involved come from?
Now if the above methods were used when administering homeopathy it would certainly boost the already enormous amount of confidence I have in homeopathy, way beyond the placebo, as it would no doubt boost JP's confidence too.
What is it Siriam? This brave new word frightens you, so you're trying to get back to your roots, a bit like going back to that worn out, leaky but comfortable pair of old shoes?
ippy
Sarcasm - the lowest form of wit.
-
Sarcasm - the lowest form of wit.
How original, I'm impressed.
ippy
-
How original, I'm impressed.
ippy
Doesn't take much to impress you then! That expression is vastly older than I am!
-
Yes it does. Psychosomatic illnesses are real illnesses, and very common, and can be cured by appropriate treatment.
Yes, but the appropriate treatment for a psychosomatic illness is psycho-therapy. Homeopathic remedies will not do anything, although the pretense of treatment might. Treatment works, but homeopathy doesn't.
But the medical profession will just say "it's all in the mind" and leave you to die.
Not in my experience, they won't.
Yes, it's all in the mind, but you still need help. If that means being conned, well, the mind's like that. If it's not kept conned, it loses the will to live.
Actually treating the condition rather than the symptom requires something more than merely a pretense of treatment - psychosomatic conditions are still caused by something, and that something may need to be addressed.
Placebos are especially appropriate for children who are made ill by their mothers. They get better when their mothers expect them to.
Again, the appropriate treatment for Munchausen's-by-proxy is therapy for the parent, not lying to both parent and child - and even if it were, not at the inflated prices charged by homeopaths for a methodology that is proven to be ineffective for anything.
O.
-
1. The idea of the OP was precisely to highlight the research done by some eminent scientists in proving that homeopathy works.
And, as was pointed out, the accumulated review of the available data shows that it doesn't work. Those trials which have produced positive results have typically been either too small to be reliable or too poorly conducted to be reliable. (http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/homeopathy)
2. Merely asserting that homeopathy does not work is blind skepticism.
Firstly, skepticism is inherently 'blind' - it's for the claimant to illuminate the evidence supporting their position. For homeopathy, that has still not been done. Secondly, it's not an 'assertion' - the evidence has consistently gone against homeopathy, and the methodology defies all known scientific principles.
3. Commenting against homeopathy is a matter of affiliation. Some people just want to be seen speaking against it regardless of whether they have actually had any experience with it at all.
Whereas some people support anything that's not the mainstream, for a variety of reasons. The motivations are irrelevant, it's the arguments that stand or fall on their own merits. The argument for homeopathy fails on the basis that, when tested, it fails to achieve anything more than a placebo.
4. Dismissing it as placebo is meaningless because no one knows how placebo actually works.
It's not meaningless. You don't need to know how placebo works to know that it does work. Equally, you don't need to know how homeopathy might work if it behaves exactly the same as a placebo in order to classify it as a placebo. Treatments that work outperform placebo, that's the basis of medical trials.
5. Infant and animal illnesses treated successfully prove that homeopathy cannot be just placebo.
No, they don't. There are any number of reasons why anecdotes of successful treatment (for any methodology) could be unrepresentative, that's why we conduct controlled trials. When we do, homeopathy doesn't work.
Dismissing these cases as due to confirmation bias on the part of parents and animal owners is a case of confirmation bias itself.
That's not what's being done. The anecdotes are being rejected because they're anecdotes - the methodological trials show that homeopathy doesn't work.
6. How homeopathy works is of secondary importance as long as it works.
Yes. It doesn't work. It's been repeatedly shown not to work.
And that fact has ample evidence in the form of millions/billions of satisfied patients around the world.
No, millions/billions of people support all sorts of bullshit - the argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy.
7. Some cases of research that try to establish that homeopathy does not work is clearly about confirmation bias.
Again, the motivation or the interpretation? Motivation doesn't matter, the data shows what it shows. The interpretation is open to scrutiny, and if anyone's seen confirmation bias in the published data they've not cited it - I'm sure you'll do so now, though, right?
And we have seen in cases like the Cholesterol controversy that clinical trials and medical opinion can be pretty messed up.
The problems with the clinical trials on Cholesterol are many and varied, ranging from the influence of vested interests through to poorly designed trials and the systematic evidence hiding of large pharmaceutical firms. Underlying the problem, though, isnt' that the treatments don't have the claimed effect (lowering cholesterol) but rather whether cholesterol is actually a reliable indicator of negative health outcomes in the first place.
That's not going to be an issue for homeopathy, given that it isn't limited to claiming efficacy for a singular condition or symptom.
O.
-
Hi everyone,
1. The idea of the OP was precisely to highlight the research done by some eminent scientists in proving that homeopathy works.
...
Well ... that's a problem as that research was not peer reviewed and does not hold up. Even the paper "Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242."
supposedly adding to Montagnier, does not get anywhere. Even if these results could be reproduced it is still a far way from proving that homeopathic remedies work for any conditions.
Dana Ullman, the writer of the article you linked, is himself far from independent in these matters.
-
The way they dilute whatever they think works, I suppose it would be safe to take cyanide prepared in the same way as homeopathic, so called, medicine is prepared.
ippy
That's exactly the kind of thing they do. Some idiot invented a principle called "like cures like" from which he concluded that you treat the symptoms with a very dilute version of the cause. Got arsenic poisoning? Take this homeopathic arsenic. Fortunately, it is diluted well beyond the possibility of having any arsenic in it.
-
You live up to your byline!
You really will not see that there can be any view but your own.
On the subject of homeopathy, my view is correct. Just because there is an alternative and wrong view that homeopathy works doesn't mean I have to apologise to you for being right.
If YOU do not believe in it, it MUST be wrong. There can be no alternative to Jeremyp's way, oipinion, worldview. On anything.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Homeopathy MUST be wrong, because there is no possible mechanism by which it could work and when tested properly it is found that it does not work.
If you want to prove me wrong, you don't do it by sneering at the fact that I am right. Bring some evidence to the table.
-
Yes it does. Psychosomatic illnesses are real illnesses, and very common, and can be cured by appropriate treatment.
Yes but the fake "cure" does not need to be a homeopathic remedy.
-
Yes, but the appropriate treatment for a psychosomatic illness is psycho-therapy. Homeopathic remedies will not do anything, although the pretense of treatment might. Treatment works, but homeopathy doesn't.
The pretence of treatment is the psycho-therapy.
Obviously it doesn't matter if they skipped the dilution lark and filled the bottle from the tap. It'll work just as well.
The bottled water did wonders for a former colleague, who believed in all sorts of woo. Did nothing for me. But if they'd told me it was a new superdrug, who knows.
-
The pretence of treatment is the psycho-therapy.
So, again, homeopathy doesn't work. The trappings of pseudo-treatment work to treat the 'pseudo' illness, but that doesn't vindicate homeopathy in the slightest.
The bottled water did wonders for a former colleague, who believed in all sorts of woo. Did nothing for me. But if they'd told me it was a new superdrug, who knows.
That, of course, validates the placebo effect.
O.
-
The pretence of treatment is the psycho-therapy.
And what happens when the patient realises they were lied to?
Obviously it doesn't matter if they skipped the dilution lark and filled the bottle from the tap. It'll work just as well.
So any placebo - which is what we have been saying all along.
-
And what happens when the patient realises they were lied to?
So any placebo - which is what we have been saying all along.
Made me laugh, love it.
This post sums up homeopathy, in a nutshell.
ippy