# Conventional medicine vs. homeopathy



## sureño

In my country, Argentina, the situation indeed is like the title suggests: “versus”.
It means conventional physicians refuse to regard any kind of homeopathy, acupuncture etc. as an alternative, giving to them more or less the same status that wizards. 
However I know the situation in other countries is more respectful and even some doctors admit these kinds of medicine as complement. 
Well, my question is then, how is the relationship between conventional medicine and alternative ones in your country? 

P.S. Regarding I'm a non native English speaker I'll be grateful for corrections.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


sureño said:


> In my country, Argentina, the situation indeed is like the title suggests: “versus”. It means conventional physicians refuse to regard any kind of homeopathy, acupuncture etc. as an alternative, giving to them more or less the same status that wizards.


That's called common sense.



> However I know the situation in other countries is more respectful and even some doctors admit these kinds of medicine as complement.
> Well, my question is then, how is the relationship between conventional medicine and alternative ones in your country?


Despite all the critical information available, homeopathy (and similar quackery) is still presented as being on the rise among the public (although this Dutch article claims that the stats have been manipulated, but then, there are lies, damned lies and statistics).

It sounds great, it is backed up by a huge industry and hence by the 'feel-good' magazines (is it a coincidence that the most enthusiastic buyers of homeopathic stuff are higher educated women (_and_ men) between 30 and 50, generally considered to be the public of those feel-good magazines?).

Contrary to the situation in Argentina (if I understood your post well) over here in Belgium some so-called 'conventional' physicians have the guts to defend the use of homepathy e.a., see here, sorry, it's in Dutch .

As for the public, it's very hard to find statistics (see above). But the overall popularity is reflected by the enormous number of homeopaths and by the fact that some of the organisations which take care of the health insurance (_mutualiteiten_ in Dutch), pay back 20% of the price of homeopathetic 'medicines' (up to €75,00). Well, not 'some', but all of them, since they can't afford to loose members. In other words, the principle of solidarity is abused to cover the use of quack 'medicines'.
Even the Belgian governmental RIZIV (INAMI, Institut _national_ d'assurance maladie-invalidité) started to endorse homeopathy, by backing up the organisation responsible for this website (Du, also in French).
Also the Belgian and Dutch consumer organisations (Test Aankoop (Du), Test Achats (Fr) / Consumentenbond (Du)) don't really protect their costumers against homeopathy and other 'alternatives', although the Belgian one is very ambiguous. The last 10 years it published a series of very positive articles, but their book _Handboek andere Geneeswijzen _(+/- Manual alternative medicins) is overal negative.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Meeracat

My local medical practice has a Doctor who is also a homeopathic practitioner and will offer homeopathic advice and treatment. However, while complimentary teatments of all kinds are on the increase in the UK, there is definitely a louder dissenting voice being raised. 
The argument as Frank06 states is the unscientific basis of the claims being made. A major part of the conflict seems to revolve around whether these treatments are 'complimentary' or 'alternative'. The words are often used interchangeably and not always with agreed meanings. 
Frank06 appeals to the common sense argument. However, that a "sense" (meaning) is "common" (agreed) does not exhaust the claims for "truth". A flat world was common sense once. 
Complimentary treatments offer a different perspective to 'scientific' medicine in that more of the individual's experiences of life are taken into account (the physical, emotional, social, 'spiritual') which often leaves the person with a feeling of having been 'listened to' and 'understood'. 
These 'world-view' clashes can become sterile if we fail to make an effort to understand the other.


----------



## Outsider

sureño said:


> Well, my question is then, what is the relationship between conventional medicine and alternative ones like in your country?
> 
> P.S. Since I'm not a native English speaker I'll be grateful for corrections.


My impression is that the situation in Portugal is quite different for homeopathy and acupuncture. I think that doctors in general do not take homeopathy seriously. As for acupuncture, there are some who try it. They think it may be beneficial for some ailments, even though what makes it work is still not well understood scientifically.

As for popular medicine in general, the doctors I have seen talk about it seemed to be cautious. There is a notion that, although the methods of traditional medicine were primitive, sometimes it stumbled on useful remedies that were later rediscovered by conventional medicine. Some of it may be of value, but it needs to be justified from a scientific basis.

Well, this is just my vague impression. No doubt different medical professionals have different opinions.  

I found an article.


----------



## sokol

In Austria it depends on the doctor mainly: there are some general practitioners who would give you homeopathic treatment, and some that wouldn't.

In hospitals I don't think that homeopathic treatment is given but of that I am not sure; I think this is more a GP thing here (and practiced only by a few). (And if it helps, why not use it; it would only be hopeless to use homeopathics with people like me who won't believe that it helps. ;-)

Acupuncture on the other hand is not seen any more as an "obscure medical art" here I'd say: it is an accepted method of treating symptoms (but not the illness directly) and therefore certainly at least as good as the painkillers you usually get. It is only that public health care only pays for traditional painkillers but not for acupuncture, usually.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Here there's quite a bit of overlap.  Homeopathy and acupuncture are occasionally practiced by MD's, and our experience with acupuncture as anaesthetic parallels that of Austria.  There isn't usually outright rejection by members of the medical community.

Other processes, like hair analysis or analysis of the iris of the eye, are generally viewed as quackery.


----------



## mirx

As far as I am concerned in México, for someone to be a homeopath he first needs to finish a normal general medicine course and then specialize in homeopathy. This makes them expensive and only some people visit them, usually the same gruop that Frank 06 described for the Netherlands.

And then at the very bottom of the ladder we have "brujos", who may just know as much about herbs and medical plants but who don't possess a title in medicine, they are visited by all types of people, the least educated being the biggest believers. Although this practices are -as far as I know- illegal, they are very much tolerated by the authorities as it is also a part of the culture.

Cheers.


----------



## alexacohen

sokol said:


> In Austria it depends on the doctor mainly: there are some general practitioners who would give you homeopathic treatment, and some that wouldn't.


More or less the same here, though it seems more of a "if the patients believe it will cure them then it will, and if not, it will do them no harm" thing.



> In hospitals I don't think that homeopathic treatment is given but of that I am not sure; I think this is more a GP thing here (and practiced only by a few).


The National Health Service in Spain does not cover this kind of medicine; if one wants it, then one pays for it. And dearly.



> And then at the very bottom of the ladder we have "brujos", who may just know as much about herbs and medical plants but who don't possess a title in medicine, they are visited by all types of people, the least educated being the biggest believers.


In Galicia we have the menciñeiras, curandeiras, compoñedoras (usually women). 
They are widely accepted and have a steady flow of clients. They usually have a very deep knowledge of plants (willow bark for headache, iris-root as antiseptic, powdered hops or mushrooms as soporifics). Some of them are as highly respected as a famous doctor.


----------



## xqby

In the States the divide may be a bit more complex, as I see three factions here. There is, I think, a growing disgust with the tendency of modern medicine to treat illnesses with the near-reflexive dispensation of pills instead of attacking the roots of the problem. This is spreading to some degree into the medical profession. 

So, there's that. To be more topical, I'd say that government bodies like the FDA have historically been pretty lenient on the sale of homeopathic products, but that actual doctors in general are pretty critical of the stuff; I can't recall ever hearing of it being prescribed. Acupuncture is more generally accepted by the public of the horoscope-following mystical sort, but I don't think it's prescribed very often either.

To (mis-)quote James Randi on homeopathy: "Homeopaths believe that medicine is more effective the more you dilute it. This may well be true: I heard of a man who died when he overdosed on his homeopathic cure. He forgot to take it."


----------



## anothersmith

I've known a couple of doctors who have recommended acupuncture for certain conditions, but they are in the minority here.  I don't know of any who recommend homeopathy.

One strange thing I've noticed as a dog-owner, though:  a number of veterinarians are trained in acupuncture and use it to treat arthritis and other conditions in dogs.


----------



## gurseal

sureño said:


> In my country, Argentina, the situation indeed is like the title suggests: “versus”.
> It means conventional physicians refuse to regard any kind of homeopathy, acupuncture etc. as an alternative, giving to them more or less the same status that wizards.
> However I know the situation in other countries is more respectful and even some doctors admit these kinds of medicine as complement.
> Well, my question is then, how is the relationship between conventional medicine and alternative ones in your country?
> 
> P.S. Regarding I'm a non native English speaker I'll be grateful for corrections.


I am reluctant to correct you, but here goes. I think the following is correct, but I don't have the lenguaje to explain it the way an expert would.
*Elliptical phrase as an option:*
...the same status _*as*_ wizards. = (the same status as wizards are given.)
*Cannot be elliptical: (*the same status *that wizards.)*
...the same status *that* wizards *are given*.  or
...the same status *that they give (to) wizards.*


----------



## xqby

sureño said:


> As far as I know, with homeopathic medicines there are no side effects.


 
Well, yes, but there are also no _main _effects (e.g. curing diseases) capable of being demonstrated in an unbiased setting. In the medical culture of your country, and certainly in mine, these "medicines" are reviled because they're an illogical premise backed by bad science.


----------



## sokol

sureño said:


> As far as I know, with homeopathic medicines there are no side effects. If you take the wrong one nothing happens.


There probably _would _be some side effects if you tell the patients that the wrong homeopathic medicine was prescribed. 
(That is, the homeopathic effect reversed.)



sureño said:


> Expense is also an important issue there. It is quite clear, that homeopathy, acupuncture and other modalities have been systematically persecuted because they took business away.


Not in Austria, not to my knowledge: homeopathic medicine are used by many people. And if German Wiki is correct then what I wrote above about national health care not paying for homeopathic medicine isn't even correct: according to Wiki in Germany doctors may prescribe homeopathic medicine since 1978, in Austria this is possible since 1983, and in Switzerland since 1999. So in the three German speaking nations homeopathic treatment even is *recognised *by national health care.
(There even is homeopathic medicine for animals, especially cats and dogs - believe it or not. ;-)

With acupuncture the viewpoint of national health care is different: it seems to be accepted that acupuncture is an alternative to painkillers but certainly no treatment for serious illnesses (so, acupuncture as a treatment of symptoms rather than a method of curing); nevertheless national health care does not pay for acupuncture, according to Wiki, in Germany, Switzerland and Austria except in special cases in Germany (e. g. treatment of chronical diseases).


----------



## Etcetera

Homeopathy was officially forbidden in the USSR, but is well-respected in the present-day Russia, and our Ministry of Health seemingly approves of it. Homeopathic pills may be sold by pharmacies located inside hospitals. 

I used to take homeopathic pills, and they did help me. However, I wouldn't recommend to confine yourself to homeopathy: conventional medicine can do wonders, too.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Well, watching all the chemist's that sell Bach flower remedies in Argentina, and the bunch of people feeling well with them -it is not clear if  this is caused by the brandy content or the "energetic signature" of the flowers-, without any noticeable side effect -other than that of draining the patient's wallets- I would say that homeopathy, iridology, and other "medicines" are in good health here.

Though specific techniques and treatments are included in the health system and insurance, like specific acupuncture for cervical vertebrae pain or reflexes that lead to faints or lack of equilibrium, most of these "alternative" treatments, including many provided by traditional practitioners, are not covered by insurance or social services, and indeed some of them are very very expensive, surely because the real costs involved and not for any blatant ambition on side of their practitioners, as mean malevolent people like to assert.

Fortunately, good physicians, well trained in scientific method and without prejudices, every now and then send their patients to quacks, the most noticeable case is herpes zoster neuralgia (shingles), relieved by rubbing a frog or ink drops. It seems to be that the nerve under attack emits nervous signal that the brain interprets by default as pain. An ambience and "rituals" that favor autosuggestion promotes along with new tactile signals -say, droplets of cold ink- the brain reinterpreting those signals as something to be ignored, thus wiping the pain. Later, the immune system, aided or not by antivirals, will get rid of the cause.

Traditional medicine continue to accept or develop all what can be proved as a treatment. Then, why do people search other believing systems but science? Well, impersonal medicine and overspecializing have driven people to the hands of quacks. Besides, nobody can judge hard a terminally ill person looking for a dose of hope.

If you know a person you think is being swindled by a "marvelous treatment", take a look to http://www.quackwatch.org/ . I got informed there about chelation treatment and render all the information to a friend who was being plundered under false promises. It doesn't work at all with him, as he continued to get his chelations until his physician died instead of him. It was like saying to a smoker "quit and you will feel better in the long run". You are right, the smoker knows you're right, but for now, you are only suggesting to deprive the smoker of something he needs now. Depriving him from something without giving something in exchange but a promise. Like tobacco, or alcohol, or weed, or whatever, much alternative medicine prosper because it offers hope just in exchange for money, no side effects, no core effects, as said, but sometimes preventing people for getting the right treatment on due time. A pity, but sometimes you can do nothing at all and the issue is kept in the hands of God and Darwin.


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> Not in Austria, not to my knowledge: homeopathic medicine are used by many people. And if German Wiki is correct then what I wrote above about national health care not paying for homeopathic medicine isn't even correct: according to Wiki in Germany doctors may prescribe homeopathic medicine since 1978, in Austria this is possible since 1983, and in Switzerland since 1999. So in the three German speaking nations homeopathic treatment even is *recognised *by national health care.



I would really like to hear an honest answer from these doctors about their real motivation for prescribing these homeopathic "medicines". Do they do it because they really believe that homeopathy might be effective, or as an easy way to deal with annoying patients whose only real problem is hypochondria or Münchhausen syndrome? 

The latter possibility sounds quite plausible to me, since as far as I know,  homeopathic "medicines" are supposed to have some mumbo-jumbo magical properties, but chemically, they are just pure water. Thus, I can imagine a doctor prescribing them as harmless entertainment to people who would otherwise medicate themselves unnecessarily and obsessively in potentially dangerous ways.


----------



## TimLA

My approach to homeopathy, chiropractic medicine, and alternative/complementary therapies is exactly the approach I might take with traditional medicine.
In my opinion, any therapy should have its proported effects proven, or at least a clear, demonstrated physiological basis should be provided to justify a therapy.

Over the last ten years we have now seen some of the alternative therapies being tested in a randomized fashion, and published in the traditional medical literature (Lancet, NEJM, etc).

Every study that I know of regarding homeopathy has not demonstrated any significant benefit.

Acupunture is of marginal benefit is very narrow pathologies.

Chelation, often prescribed by tradional practitioners, has not been demonstrated to provide any benefit in terms of atherosclerosis (and perhaps other pathology), and yet patients continue to pay huge sums for the procedures.

But let's not leave out traditional medicine. The STA-MCA bypass - PTCA does not provide any survival benefit outside of acute MI, and even then, a small incremental survival benefit - bone marrow transplant in advanced metastatic CA - and a raft of "new" drugs that have no advantage over older, proven ones.

But, on the other hand, I also believe in freedom. I believe that someone who wishes to purchase something with their own funds, and believes it might provide them benefit, should be allowed to do so. I do NOT believe that a third party payor should be required to pay for therapies of no proven benefit.


----------



## sokol

Athaulf said:


> I would really like to hear an honest answer from these doctors about their real motivation for prescribing these homeopathic "medicines". Do they do it because they really believe that homeopathy might be effective, or as an easy way to deal with annoying patients whose only real problem is hypochondria or Münchhausen syndrome?



Well, I don't know any doctors intimate enough to trying to talk about them wether they _do _believe in homeopathic medicine.

My guess would be that some doctors indeed will do this without really believing in homeopathy (wether they have hypochondriacs or simply patients who don't have a serious illness where homeopathics couldn't do any harm), but I think that some doctors _really _believe in homeopathics - again, this can only be a guess of mine as already stated. (And who knows, probably the placebo effect gets boosted if the doctor too is part of it. ;-)

Homeopathics are very fashionable here in Austria, and if they do help this is a good thing in any case except if it results in the patient rejecting "conservative" treatment at all (which really could be dangerous); the placebo effect is well documented and if doctors heal with it this is okay with me. Problems only occur if you put _too _much belief into homeopathics ...


----------



## aleCcowaN

sokol said:


> (And who knows, probably the placebo effect gets boosted if the doctor too is part of it. ;-)


It's a fact that expectations of the authority figures have influence in the performance of subordinates, meaning parents in respect of their spring, teachers in respect of their students, and surely physicians in respect of their patients.

As in many things in life, a good deceiver should have the ability of being the first customer in buying his deception. This is true as for homeopaths, politicians and many more.


----------



## Meeracat

aleCcowaN said:


> It's a fact that expectations of the authority figures have influence in the performance of subordinates, meaning parents in respect of their spring, teachers in respect of their students, and surely physicians in respect of their patients.
> 
> As in many things in life, a good deceiver should have the ability of being the first customer in buying his deception. This is true as for homeopaths, politicians and many more.


Many people believe that homeopathy works for them, most homeopaths believe that their treatments work. Other people do not believe in the efficacy of these treatments. However, I see no reason to accuse those who do of being 'deceivers'. Argumentum ad hominem is not an argument at all.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Meeracat said:


> Many people believe that homeopathy works for them, most homeopaths believe that their treatments work. Other people do not believe in the efficacy of these treatments. However, I see no reason to accuse those who do of being 'deceivers'. Argumentum ad hominem is not an argument at all.


You said it! *Do believe, do not believe!* and then you spilled two non sequitur in a row that just looked sound.

Things don't vary much from country to country: it's a matter of public interest. Human societies are very strange if you try to look at them in a rational fashion; murder is bad, but the state can wrap you up in a uniform, send you to Iraq and tell you that killing is OK; also you may kill the enemy but you can't eat them provided they are already dead and you hungry; bury them and you'll get a medal, eat them and you'll be regarded as a monster. You also may *believe* there is one or several supreme beings that take care of you or give a darn thing for you, you may *believe* you have a soul and it'll be kept forever in a shiny state in an ideal place, but you are prevented from performing human sacrifices to those deities, even to sacrifice animals. You may also *believe* that praying is the only medicine the supreme being of your choice allows, but you'll go to jail if you practise it with you children and they die.

*Believing* is in human nature, and it surely exists because it helped us to reach this point in evolution, and it'll stay with us while it do not jeopardize our survival. Back to homeopathy, most of its practitioners are MD, and they are mainly mere general practitioners who took some courses with a master homeopath, or a local society. A good homeopath contains his/her patients and give them what is regarded as treatment until he observes some symptoms that requires other kind of medicine. He may measure a 220/130 blood pressure and deduct that low sodium and personalized elixirs don't do the trick. He may hear a heart murmur and send immediately the patient to a cardiologist. How is he going to detect most kinds of cancer before metastasis? Good homeopaths will ask for studies and send their patients to the appropriate specialist. Will most of them do? Do most of them know enough?

You may *believe* that is a matter of freedom of choice or consumer rights, but it is not. The same system that declares unlawful that you might decide not sending your children to school because of some illiteration wishes is the system that states what is medicine and what is not, and the same way most countries have illegal medical practise in their penal laws. Within those who practise medicine legally, many of them are charged with malpractice; well look up how many of them are homeopaths; even better, ask your insurance company about a medical malpractice and professional liability insurance and say "yes, I'm a doctor... homeopath". This last simple question would answer the state of "conventional medicine vs. homeopathy" in any country.

Back to the 'deceiving' part, magicians are good deceivers and I don't think nobody here have any problem with them. The problem arises when they claim the coin really disappeared, or worse, they think it really disappeared.  This may be ridiculous speaking of magicians but there are (less important?) fields where this happens, politics, medicine, even science itself, as for the climate change peripheries. Regarding homeopaths, I don't judge badly a butcher who says "eat more meat, it'll make you stronger", but I find despicable one who say "don't eat vegetables, eat more meat instead, it'll make you stronger". That butcher can *believe* what he says, but he's still deceiving people. Most people think they shouldn't go to jail for running over a family after a couple of beers, as they "didn't mean it" and *believe* themselves free from guilt. But any grown person knows what is behind, and that we are meant to avoid to the others all the risks emerged from our own behaviour.

How easy is *believing* instead!


----------



## Meeracat

It is quite clear that a belief claim should not excuse the breaking of law (although there are times when one's belief demands that the law should be broken. If some believe that nuclear weapons are morally bad, despite the fact that the law of the land accepts them, they might believe that they have a duty to protest in ways that break other laws). However, belief in homeopathy and belief in medicine does not lead people into legal conflict but rather into conflicts of belief systems (although most practitioners and users of homeopathy would se themselves as complimentary to standard medicine). It is right to use belief in this context because the average patient, not being expert in either scientific medicine or complementary medicine, to a large degree takes what the doctor or practitioner recomends as treatment with a certain degree of 'faith'. It is whether the prescription works or not that is important to the patient. 

Scientists operate within belief systems (the earth is flat until, with a paradigm leap it is declared round; the sun goes round the earth until with a similar leap it becomes accepted that the reverse is true). Currently scientists in the field of physics are waiting to see if the Higgs Bosun particle exists at an atomic particle level. They believe it does for all kinds of mathematical reasons, but they don't know. Will their belief be justified in the end? Belief is not to be confused with blind faith ( although there are many examples where this is the case). If people believe that Bach or Homeopathy is beneficial for them, and when they experience that benefit in their lives, then I see no reason to be patronising of them or the practitioners who believe in what they are doing.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Meeracat said:


> Many people believe that homeopathy works for them, most homeopaths believe that their treatments work. Other people do not believe in the efficacy of these treatments. However, I see no reason to accuse those who do of being 'deceivers'. Argumentum ad hominem is not an argument at all.


I fail to see the ad hominem argument. There is enough scientific literature on the non-effects of homeopathy (okay, apart from a kind of minor placebo-effect), many of which is readily available in libraries and even on line. 
And aren't people working in the medical field supposed to know their scientific literature?

I see three possibilities:
1. They don't read their literature (Is that deceiving or just bad doctors/homeopaths?);
2. They read it and are aware of the placebo effect and that's the reason why they prescribe it (Is that deceiving? Depends what they tell their patients, no?);
3. They read it and ignore the scientific results, because for whatever reason. (Is that deceiving?)

For more information on homeopathy, see here (I just googled for 'homeopathy industry'), here (continue with a "ctr+f" search; this is the website of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe in cooperation with the (previously mentioned) James Randy); here (Quackwatch); here (article on the Lancet v.a.v homeopathy); here (homeowatch); ...

I am writing this while drinking a "homeopathic" coffee, which is (or rather would be, because it's just a comparison) a coffee which is so diluted that there is not one single coffee molecule in it anymore. So, you could also call it, m.m., "homeopathic" beer or "homeopathic" orange juice.
The normal word for it, though, would be water. And it's curing my current 'disease' (viz. thirst) really well!

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## TimLA

Frank06 said:


> I see three possibilities:
> 1. They don't read their literature (Is that deceiving or just bad doctors/homeopaths?);
> 2. They read it and are aware of the placebo effect and that's the reason why they prescribe it (Is that deceiving? Depends what they tell their patients, no?);
> 3. They read it and ignore the scientific results, because for whatever reason. (Is that deceiving?)


 
You forgot the most compelling reason...#4...someone can make a buck from those less than "well informed".


----------



## aleCcowaN

Meeracat said:


> Scientists operate within belief systems (the earth is flat until, with a paradigm leap it is declared round; the sun goes round the earth until with a similar leap it becomes accepted that the reverse is true). Currently scientists in the field of physics are waiting to see if the Higgs Bosun particle exists at an atomic particle level. They believe it does for all kinds of mathematical reasons, but they don't know. Will their belief be justified in the end?


I would like to continue discussing your point of view, but it'd be out of this thread's subject. Though, I think you might be mixing up belief with informed choice, trust, public faith and hypothesis. What I addressed in former posts as "believing" is the poor epistemological mechanism behind the choice of a physician (regarded doctor-patient relationship is a social institution that every person, even the always-healthy, knows and respects). As for Higgs *bosons*, a *sub*atomic particle, it's not about a "belief" originated in mathematical tricks that looks for a palpable piece of evidence. Science backs on a series of principles like falsifiability, reproducibility, etc.


Meeracat said:


> If people believe that Bach or Homeopathy is beneficial for them, and when they experience that benefit in their lives, then I see no reason to be patronising of them or the practitioners who believe in what they are doing.


I've heard often the same _prêt-à-penser_   structure: some supposed human quality freely exercised and the patronizing/condescending approach from whom, surely in an arrogant fashion, intend to humiliate them and also surely try to deprive people from their natural and constitutional rights. Yeah! surely it violates constitutional rights saying people not always decide the better when they have free choice (for example, more money to enjoy life now while you are still young and healthy versus less money now and some money for a retirement fund and a health insurance). Yeah! surely it is arrogant to interfere with an activity that demands money from our own pocket or put us in risk when it fails (as a case in my neighbourhood of a woman treated with thyroid hormones to lose weight, and ended up with brain damage, getting now a pension everybody pay) . "Patronizing", the easy cliché: break the glass and use it any time you have no arguments.

Well, homeopathy, as other cultural developments, is simply out there. In many ways we have the example of prostitution in every society and every age: no matter it is regarded illegal or immoral, it is out there. Nobody teaches us formally or directly about prostitution. But each of us reaches an adult age with a minimal knowledge of its general features, if not angles, and a position taken (no pun intended) about its role in our societies. Well, homeopathy is also out there, as astrology is. Both get money. One of them drains its energy from a well established science. Guess which one.


----------



## Meeracat

I seem to be setting myself up as a defender of homeopathy. I would never dream of using this treatment in my own life. I find its claims of a 'signature' remaining in the water as implausable and would need a new theory of physics to explain it. However, I have met many people who have or still do avail themselves of this treatment, many of whom are not gullible people in other areas of their lives and many of whom are academics and professional people. My local G.P practice offers homeopathy (free by the way) and I know a number of people who have used it. Some report benefits from the treatment, others have expressed dissapointment. I also know many other people who have similar trust in religious belief, which I do not share. I have no more reason to believe in a creator God than I do to believe in 'signatures' in water. Both homeopathy and religion make claims about 'truth' (putting aside unscrupulous exploitation for money which occurs in all walks of life, even science - just look at the make-up industry). What I argue for is a more generous aceptance of other people's views, beliefs, practices. 'Truth' claims and appeals to 'certainty' can be maddening to those like myself who believe neither in 'truth' nor 'certainty' but wild and universal condemnation achieves little. Quackwatch and Richard Dawkins might both rail against the unscientific beliefs but people will continue to believe nevertheless because we do not construct our lives from pure science or logic. It all makes for good debate but people will continue to construct meanings in their lives with a whole variety of tools. What is interesting in homeopathy is not its scientific credentials (it doesn't have any) but why many people find it beneficial. Accusations of gullibility or economic exploitation distract us from the deeper human mystery of how people make meaning and how the body and the mind function in ways that can still surprise us.


----------



## Sepia

Homoeopathic treatment of animals - not only pets, but farm live stock - is growing increasingly popular in Germany.

Many farmers say, same or better results and 30% lower costs.

Some critics still claim that homoeopathic medicin is only placebo, but have trouble explaining why this would work when treating a cow.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Sepia said:


> Homoeopathic treatment of animals - not only pets, but farm live stock - is growing increasingly popular in Germany.
> Many farmers say, same or better results and 30% lower costs.
> Some critics still claim that homoeopathic medicin is only placebo, but have trouble explaining why this would work when treating a cow.


1.


> “Homeopathy works on animals” is a very common claim that is used to support the idea that homeopathy works better than placebo; in fact that it must therefore work _per se_. It’s a false claim though. Continue here.


2.


> Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials. Continue here


 
Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## aleCcowaN

Frank06 said:


> 1.
> 2.


And also der Kluge Hans, a noted case of observer-expectancy effect.

People is so keen in the art of deceiving themselves that they can even displace placebo effect onto creatures different that them. 

This made me remind, don't forget homeopathic pediatrics, and its treatments for -not surprisingly- the teething stage.


----------



## Sepia

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank




Now, is this a discussion about how accepted H is in the various cultures or is it one more of situations where we repeatedly are going to hear the usual arguments against H? 

Whether you agree or not the growing acceptance is a fact. Just as well as the placebo claim is heard ... well argumented or not.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Meeracat said:


> ...
> What I argue for is a more generous aceptance of other people's views, beliefs, practices. 'Truth' claims and appeals to 'certainty' can be maddening to those like myself who believe neither in 'truth' nor 'certainty' but wild and universal condemnation achieves little.
> ...
> Accusations of gullibility or economic exploitation distract us from the deeper human mystery of how people make meaning and how the body and the mind function in ways that can still surprise us.


I thought that way maybe 10 or 15 years ago, and I still think the same way about things that are truly personal choices or things that doesn't sum or subtract much to society as a whole. 

We are living in an unprecedented era when human beings have available an astounding deal of goods, resources and technology, thus they haven't to rely exclusively on their immune system to fight a bronchitis, nor in their homeostatic mechanisms and field resources to feel comfortable, nor in their intelligence to survive, as they have antibiotics, air conditioning and civilization, respectively.

This is why we can afford alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, weed, gambling, being sport fans, prostitution, speed racing, etc. We can also afford to believe in runes, Chaldean horoscopes, aphrodisiacs, crop circles, sensitive vegetables and Nessie. We can pay boob enlargements and viagra pills. We even can afford along decades, being the vast majority against it, the cost of a great deal of crime in our societies, just for not paying the cost of law enforcement or slightly limited liberties. In this kind of world we can surely have homeopathy remaining unnoticed. Probably tobacco has reduced overall life expectancy  in a couple of years more than all the errors committed by homeopath along all the history of this practise.

I just don't want to say that tobacco is good to some people's health, and that's it. They are free to smoke. They are not free to promote tobacco is healthy.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Sepia said:


> Now, is this a discussion about how accepted H is in the various cultures or is it one more of situations where we repeatedly are going to hear the usual arguments against H?
> Whether you agree or not the growing acceptance is a fact. Just as well as the placebo claim is heard ... well argumented or not.


 
I just wanted to point out that your statement, viz. "Some critics [...] have trouble explaining why this would work when treating a cow" doesn't hold water. I do realise that it is difficult to stick to facts when discussing homeopathy, but let's not exaggerate.

Frank


----------



## Porteño

First I would like to say that here in Argentina one cannot practice homeopathy without first being a qualified medical doctor. One can therefore deduce that there are many doctors who believe in homeopathy down here. Also, homeopathic doctors do not charge excessively for their services, being in general on a par with their ‘traditional’ counterparts. 

My family and I have been treated with homeopathic medicine for some 18 years with excellent results and personally I feel a lot safer with that than with proprietary medicines where there are often a host of very unpleasant side-effects. Sometimes, I am obliged to go to a traditional doctor for treatment where homeopathy does not have a proven remedy, but I am not always happy about the medication prescribed. In one extreme instance, the prospectus stated that in a very few cases one of the side effects was death! Can you believe it?

Although I cannot say what things are like nowadays, when I grew up in the UK, GPs seldom prescribed proprietary medicines. Usually you got an illegible note which you took to the local chemist’s where the pharmacist made it up for you. The inside of the chemist’s was a wonder-world, reminiscent of the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, where on the shelves there were large oddly-shaped bottles containing brightly-coloured liquids that presumably formed the basis of one’s prescription. I have always believed that those bottles contained nothing more than coloured tap water and that in effect the medicine was a placebo. Nevertheless, the patient duly followed the doctor’s instructions and got better. I think it was largely a matter of faith and psychology, which is probably also true of homeopathy.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Porteño said:


> First I would like to say that here in Argentina one cannot practice homeopathy without first being a qualified medical doctor. One can therefore deduce that there are many doctors who believe in homeopathy down here.


We have penalties for illegal practise of medicine, and the only legal practice is provided by a medical doctor, or a qualified assistant supervised by a medical doctor. That is the case of many acupuncturists that have no degree in medicine or can't have a license transfered, but they pay an MD to supervise their practise.

Therefore, one can deduce anything about how many doctors believe in homeopathy "down here" (under the carpet? in the basement? the catacombs?). In fact, reading this editorial (es-ar) from a homeopathy journal, one can think that just small fraction of local physicians "believe", mainly concentrated in upper-mid class neighbourhoods of big cities. Most homeopathy practitioners announce their services telling they use both homeopathic and "allopathic" medicine, the best of both worlds for the patient's sake.  





Porteño said:


> ...
> proprietary medicines where there are often a host of very unpleasant side-effects
> ...
> the prospectus stated that in a very few cases one of the side effects was death! Can you believe it?


Sure. Homeopathic mixes doesn't have side effects because they even have a core effect in blind experiments. Besides, both regulations plus avoiding legal responsibilities make them to print all the side effects suspected or proven. When you test a medicine with a four thousand of subjects during a year and one of the fellows is found dead in his bed and with no 100% certain explanation, you ought to write "sudden death cases informed", though is perfectly normal that several fellows die for different causes during a year in a group of 4,000. 

Homeopathic medicines just don't have a patient information leaflet according to regulations, even when used substances that replicate symptoms and have potential side effects. Fortunately 1:100,000 dilutions "plus succussions" are most common.

One just can say that all around the World, in all its ups and downs, heres and theres, healthy people are vast majority in a given time, and among the ill, most of ailments or illnesses are benign of with good prognosis. With such a huge group I'm sure that homeopathic elixirs are taken while people get better, over and over again. _Poster hoc ergo propter hoc_.

There is an estimation that one each 30,000 to 100,000 cancers with metastasis can have spontaneous total remissions. Yes, you read it, it's much easier to get cured of and advanced cancer without a treatment than to win the lotto. Provided the "miraculously" cured person had been to Lourdes, how are you going to convince him/her that it wasn't the Virgin? Even when going Lourdes have a dangerous side effect: many times more people had been killed in accidents (mainly healthy companions or workers) going to Lourdes than those miraculously cured.

Well, homeopathy is not well regarded within Argentine medicine, and there are consumers, but most people remains skeptic on it. More important: people with little education don't believe much on it, they healthily rather prefer to light a candle in the church and pray a little.

The fact that life expectancy in Argentina (75.91 years estimated 2006) is a couple of years lower than the European Union average (78.30) and United States' (77.85) is due to men mortality. That is, our women live as long as Swedish or Japanese women, but our men live 8 years less (the gender outliving is suppose to be 2.5 year for natural causes, the rest is cultural). The reason for the premature dead of our men is a culture that says that a woman should take care of her health but a man is ill just when he can't stand up. Don't consider it a "macho" culture because it isn't. We men happen to be  here just too much f*** frightened as to go and visit the doctor. Anyway, having all the troubles and poverty we have, we do pretty well when you look at life expectancy and similar parameters. The system here relies 99% in traditional scientific medicine. There's no much room to alternatives, though they'll certainly flourish soon.


----------



## Meeracat

An important difference between the usual practice of allopathic and homeopathic medicine is the time spent listening to people as they discuss their symptoms in the context of there lives. It might well be that this, in large measure, is an important factor in the healing process (placebo effect) which some people say they experience in homeopathy (and other complimentary treatments). 

The human being is not merely a biological phenomenon but a being who makes meaning. The allopathic approach to mental illness in the UK is illustrative of this split. What are sarcastically referred to as 'talking treatments' are often dismissed in favour of psychotropic medicines which have long term negative effects on the nervous system and rarely achieve healing. (This is a theme for a different thread). It is in the use of both talking and judicious use of medication that he best results are achieved.

The experience and involvement of the person in their own treatment, and taking their wider social and emotional context into account makes for better medicine. 
I believe that more attention needs to be given to this area of treatment and is an opportunity where 'normal' medicine can learn from the homeopath and where the homeopaths might revisit their own claims about the 'scientific' effect of their medications.

The human being is a complex system of body, mind, and social context. If complimentary treatments does nothing else it at least reminds us of this. 

Homeopathy will not bring armageddon upon the world despite some of the scientific hyperbole we are reading in this thread. It, along with other complimentary treatments, does raise questions that should be addressed. The power of metaphor in human existence (and development) is underrated, hence the dismissal of the placebo effect as 'only' a placebo effect (the result of deceit in the argument of some).

Homeopathy, for its part, needs to attend to its scientific claims of molecular signature in, what is in effect, plain water. With our present understanding of physics this claim does not 'hold water'. Homeopathy perhaps needs to move from claims of hard science and recognize that its strength lies in the field of metaphorical explanation in which the treatment acts as catalyst for change. This would mean recognising that its strength is not in treating those physical ailments that might be more beneficially be addressed by allopathic medicine.


----------



## Sepia

Meeracat said:


> An important difference between the usual practice of allopathic and homeopathic medicine is the time spent listening to people as they discuss their symptoms in the context of there lives. It might well be that this, in large measure, is an important factor in the healing process (placebo effect) which some people say they experience in homeopathy (and other complimentary treatments). ...
> 
> al ailments that might be more beneficially be addressed by allopathic medicine.



Suppose it works like that, why do you consider that "placebo"? Is psychotherapy also placebo?


----------



## Lusitania

In Portugal there are graduation studies and recocgnized schools of alternative medicine. Some doctors do look for these, especially the ones recognized by WHO. My doctor stoped smoking with acunpuncture and he believes in it. I also tried hipnosis and it worked for 9 months. Currently, I've stoped smoking by myself in the last 8 months without any help.
Like AlexaCohen says, it's quite expensive.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Sepia said:


> Suppose it works like that, why do you consider that "placebo"? Is psychotherapy also placebo?


It's just a matter of terminology. Nobody denies the psychosocial aspects of every medical treatment. In traditional medicine (alophatic, as homeopaths like to call it) there is a lot of "logotherapy" -when the system let the doctor to spend enough time with the patient-. Some aspects like pain control depends much on it. Every emergency doctor knows when to give an injection containing distillated water right into a vein, before a patient with an attack of hysteria.

A teraphy based on words is the main content, if not 100%, of all psychotherapies. Even psychiatry trust on "logos" or reinforces with psychotherapy. The public concern is how doctors diagnose, and once a true diagnose is reached, how they treat their patients. It seems to be a cultural difference between Hispanic and Anglo-Saxon worlds: as far as I know, no one without a diploma in medical school can diagnose and give a "medical treatment" in both Argentina and Spain; nobody can sell or give any substance and say it'll treat an ailment without the approval of Health authorities and a prescription given by a MD. Reading the newspapers I found 13 people busted in Spain for selling some "alternative medicine" they claimed as a cure for cancer. The standard here is that this kind of people -call them whatever you like- must sell their treatment as a complement of a medical treatment, otherwise a time in jail may expect them. Particularly in Argentina, homeopaths are medical doctors. I read that UK is to establish some kind of counsel to license who can give alternative treatments because anybody can practise there their alternative aids. I would like a corroboration on this.

How does it work in your countries?


----------

