Hello escapists! Following the thread I made (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...ll-Homeopathy-Please-help-inside#comment_form) where I asked for help to try and convinced my father Homeopathy is bollocks (I SUCCEED!!!), I want to ask the general public of their opinion.
In this post I will use some of the better arguments I've seen written by the Religion And Politics Forum's finest.
You're awesome, guys and gals.
recruit00 said:
I will take the first line out of wikipedia as my remark
Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or hom?opathy; from the Greek hómoios- ὅμοιος- "like-" + páthos πάθος "suffering" ) is a form of alternative medicine. Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations[1][2] believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated. Scientific evidence has found homeopathy no more effective than a placebo.[1][2][3][4][5]
Summary
Homeopathy claims to stimulate the body?s own healing response to disease using highly diluted preparations (potentising). Homeopaths claim to treat the symptoms of a wide range of illnesses. However, homeopathic medicines are not vaccines and are not a replacement for conventional medical treatment of serious diseases or infections. Always consult your doctor if you plan to start homeopathic treatment.
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Homeopathy?open
This might be correct, incorrect or an oversimplification , but I would like to ask for your help and tell me more about this and how I can convince my father it is Bollocks. Sources are advised.
That's actually not an oversimplification - it really is that stupid. In terms of evidence, Ben Goldacre is well known for his criticism of 'quack' medicine. Here's some links:
In a report published today, the Science and Technology Committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.
The Committee carried out an evidence check to test if the Government's policies on homeopathy were based on sound evidence. The Committee found a mismatch between the evidence and policy. While the Government acknowledges there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect (where a patient gets better because of their belief in the treatment), it does not intend to change or review its policies on NHS funding of homeopathy.
The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.
The Committee concluded - given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy - that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified. In the Committee's view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice - which the Government claims is very important - as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.
The report also examines the MHRA licensing regime for homeopathic products. The Committee is particularly concerned over the introduction of the National Rules Scheme (NRS) in 2006, as it allows medical indications on the basis of study reports, literature and homeopathic provings and not on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) - the normal requirement for medicines that make medical claims.
The MHRA?s user-testing of the label for Arnica Montana 30C - the only product currently
licensed under the NRS - was poorly designed, with some parts of the test little more than a
superficial comprehension test of the label and other parts actively misleading participants to
believe that the product contains an active ingredient.
The product labelling for homeopathic products under all current licensing schemes fails to inform the public that homeopathic products are sugar pills containing no active ingredients.
The licensing regimes and deficient labelling lend a spurious medical legitimacy to homeopathic
products.
The Chairman of the Committee, Phil Willis MP, said:
"This was a challenging inquiry which provoked strong reactions. We were seeking to
determine whether the Government?s policies on homeopathy are evidence based on
current evidence. They are not.
"It sets an unfortunate precedent for the Department of Health to consider that the
existence of a community which believes that homeopathy works is 'evidence'
enough to continue spending public money on it. This also sends out a confused
message, and has potentially harmful consequences. We await the Government's
response to our report with interest."
Also, if you can get hold of the book "Bad Science [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_%28book%29]", it's fantastic for debunking all kinds of quackery including homeopathy, magnetic bracelets, Brain Gym, Penta water, and all that kind of crap. It's pretty funny too!
I actually did a paper on this recently. Most of the sources I've used are for homeopathy and I pointed out their flaws or at the end the conclusion was that more testing needs to be done to put the nail in the coffin. The problem is a definitive answer for homeopathy won't be found because the methodology used in experiments sucks. As an example there was a study about fibromyalgia or random pain in the joints which has been linked to stress but we really don't know that much about the disorder and have a lot of guesses about what causes it. Even diagnosing it is a problem. So there is a study that proved that homeopathic remedies where more effective than placebo by a lot and even some other treatments prescribed by MDs. Well one thing that should be known about homeopathy is that diagnosing a patient involves knowing every aspect of the person including if they are stressed and why, homeopaths take an hour to diagnose their patients talking to them the whole time touching them moving their joints trying to determine their problem. My conclusion if something is caused by stress like fibromyalgia, depression etc and you talk to your doctor for a long time listing your problems and getting comfortable with him wouldn't you have a more optimistic approach to the treatment? Does a homeopath almost act like a psychiatrist? The placebo affect could very well be altered by these same diagnostic methods. It's pointless to try using the evidence based medicine approach because experiments performed by medical doctors will be ignored or called into question by homeopathic doctors and vica versa. It's like global warming you can have all the evidence in the world but when someone thinks its a conspiracy there is no longer a point to showing the evidence, they won't believe you anyways after all.
So there is no proven reason for homeopathy to work first and foremost. It goes about "treating" symptoms and when I say treating I mean... moving them. To explain if you have a disease that causes bloody urine, runny nose, and fatigue you create a remedy that has water down ingredients that cause the same symptoms. Why do you do this? Well it's to push out the other disease because there is some belief that ailments causing the same symptom can't coexist in the body at once, the other belief is that you build up your immune system against something(not pathogens) that fight these symptoms.
First off different ailments can cause the same symptoms that should be common knowledge. I think the belief that two diseases can't coexist in the same body was brought about by some weird interpretation of vaccines. Like when cow pox was used to treat small pox.
Second the immune system isn't equipped to fight things that aren't cancer, bacteria, viruses, or parasites. What do you do when your immune system is the one causing the problem like with allergies or asthma, or in the case of genetic diseases.
Now as other people stated most homeopathic remedies don't have a single molecule of the substance in the final product. Well the modern homeopath wouldn't be discouraged by this and would instead say the innate memory effect of water is what causes it. Wiki memory effect of water for your own benefit on that one. While there has been a lot of materials research proving that water's shape can be altered significantly by bombarding it with radiation, electricity, pressure, and temperature without these things how can a homeopathic remedy cause the same differences? My conclusion and from the evidence presented thus far it can't. And why is water different from any other substance that can be deformed using the same methods just at different levels of intensity?
Homeopathy is nothing more than playing to the subconscious that this "treatment" will work when there is no scientific reason it should. The Homeopathic medicine if you can call it that is typically in a liquid form and is so diluted down that in 99.9999998% of the time what you are putting in your body is plain water.
.
Funny and informing videos are always welcomed, so are explanations for ignorant folk that don't know Chemistry and Physics. Not all of us can study science, me included.
If something has a clear and empirically verifiable theory[footnote]In this case basically dilute harmful stuff enough and people will get better when it's given to them (moreso than when given placebo). It's not a theory that makes much sense in-between those, but it's clear and empirically verifiable enough when it comes to the proposed method and its effect.[/footnote] behind it, and that theory has consistently been rejected by everyone who isn't making money off it, then it's bollocks. Clear and verifiable theories which aren't bollocks can't stay at the absolute fringes of worldwide academia for as long as this one has.
You ninja'd me on both the videos I might post to a thread such as this - that Mitchell and Webb sketch is a classic, but I like Dara O'Brian's statement in the show after the one you posted.
'The last show I did, I had a 10 minute routine about homoeopathy, and what a crock of shit homoeopathy is. I don't have any homoeopathy jokes in this year's show - I feel that if I dilute my homoeopathy material it'll become much more powerful.'
Yay, you reposted my post of c0nc0rdance's video. I think James Randi (yes THAT James Randi) has some stuff on homeopathy quackery but I don't have any links handy right now, check his channel on youtube.
Homeopathy is an ancient healing science invented in the late 18th century. Homeopaths understand the law of similars and and the law of infinitesimals. If a substance can create a symptom, the same substance given in very dilute solution has an opposite, therapeutic effect. For instance, homeopathic preparations of coffee are used as a treatment for insomnia. Homeopathic remedies are often diluted to such a degree that not a single molecule of the active ingredient remains, however, the memory of the original substance alters the energetic field of the solvent, enhancing the therapeutic effect.
It has recently been discovered that the principles of homeopathy can be applied to firefighting. Sodium is an alkali metal. In its elemental form it is highly reactive, and will spontaneously burst into flame when exposed to moisture. A homeopathic preparation of sodium (200C or 1 part sodium in 100²ºº parts water) is an excellent remedy for combustion. In accordance with the law of infinitesimals, higher dilutions are even more effective. In a recent study, fires treated with homeopathic sodium were extinguished much faster, and caused significantly less structural damage than untreated fire
Plus the principle of "regression to the mean". Basically that most of the time, if you do feel sick you will end up getting better of your own accord. So taking it and getting better is correlation not causation.
The theory basically states that an extremely dilluted solution of the stuff that caused the symptoms will cure it. This is, of course, completely moronic.
There's a great video by James Randi regarding homeopathy.
I say this only because of my mother's personal experience. She suffered from migraines all her life. Despite seeing several different doctors and trying various different treatments, nothing helped her out.
After about 40 years of that she finally tried homeopathic medicine and it worked for her. Her migraines were entirely gone save a few normal headaches on occasion.
I find it hard to believe this could have finally been the one placebo effect that actually worked. As such, I choose to believe that homeopathic medicine genuinely worked for my mother.
The Homeopathic medicine if you can call it that is typically in a liquid form and is so diluted down that in 99.9999998% of the time what you are putting in your body is plain water.
Not to mention if that were a method of transferring any kind of properties, we'd be under assault every time we have ANY water from any source, since it's not exactly pure in the first place.
I say this only because of my mother's personal experience. She suffered from migraines all her life. Despite seeing several different doctors and trying various different treatments, nothing helped her out.
After about 40 years of that she finally tried homeopathic medicine and it worked for her. Her migraines were entirely gone save a few normal headaches on occasion.
I find it hard to believe this could have finally been the one placebo effect that actually worked. As such, I choose to believe that homeopathic medicine genuinely worked for my mother.
If your mother took a properly prepared homeopathic remedy (going by their standards) then what she took was water (or, if it was in pill form, sugar). None of the active ingredients (that is, the stuff the homeopath says will cure the ailment) should have remained after all the dilutions.
So either water really does have a memory, diluting things really does make them stronger, and all chemists are wrong about one of the most basic aspects of their field (and 'chemists' in this case includes cooks, since the concept of dilution making things stronger would seriously fuck up a lot of recipes), or homeopathy had nothing to do with your mom's recovery and was just a coincidence.
I say this only because of my mother's personal experience. She suffered from migraines all her life. Despite seeing several different doctors and trying various different treatments, nothing helped her out.
After about 40 years of that she finally tried homeopathic medicine and it worked for her. Her migraines were entirely gone save a few normal headaches on occasion.
I find it hard to believe this could have finally been the one placebo effect that actually worked. As such, I choose to believe that homeopathic medicine genuinely worked for my mother.
My father got into Homeopathy with a similar reason. A Homeopathic drug helped my brother's headaches and so he began believing the stuff worked. Lo and Behold, what was given to him didn't actually work but what my mother bought at the pharma.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
