# Homeopathy



## cuchuflete

Moderator Note:  These posts have been split from the previous discussion on astrology.


Some of homeopathy has been scientifically proved to be effective.  Tests have been repeated and verified by, among others, MDs.   Please do not put homeopathy in the same bucket as astrology.

There are some in the scientific community who think it's bunk, but they haven't successfully proved their case by scientific methods.


----------



## Porteño

How did homeopathy get in here? It has no connection whatever with astrology. I live by homeopathy, a truly great science, although the British Medical Association would not agree with me.


----------



## pedro0001

cuchuflete said:


> Some of homeopathy has been scientifically proved to be effective.  Tests have been repeated and verified by, among others, MDs.   Please do not put homeopathy in the same bucket as astrology.
> 
> There are some in the scientific community who think it's bunk, but they haven't successfully proved their case by scientific methods.



Oh!!! A minute! I don't want to go off topic, but please tell me when that happened and who proved it? Do you have the scientific paper or publication of the proofs? I would like to see that. (If you wish we can open a new thread about this!).


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> But I  also know people who got better after seeing homoeopathist or acupuncturist...
> I do have a question for you: if "astrology, homeopathy and other pseudo-sciences" meet requests and become proven, are you going to believe in them?





cuchuflete said:


> Some of homeopathy has been scientifically proved to be effective.  Tests have been repeated and verified by, among others, MDs.   Please do not put homeopathy in the same bucket as astrology.
> 
> There are some in the scientific community who think it's bunk, but they haven't successfully proved their case by scientific methods.





Porteño said:


> How did homeopathy get in here? It has no connection whatever with astrology. I live by homeopathy, a truly great science, although the British Medical Association would not agree with me.



Homeopathy = quackery


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:


> I'm not a scientist, but I'm a firm believer in homeopathy - I've used it many times over the years on myself & my children as an alternative to needless courses of antibiotics & other such medications. I cannot scientifically prove to you that it works, but have seen the results for myself.


The problem is not in proving that it works, the problem is in repeating the results in double-blind tests.
Time after time, homeopathy has failed to do what it says it can do when tested clinically. The very concept of "the memory of water" beggars belief, but if it worked it would just be another of those things which science has not yet managed to come to an understanding of. The problem is that results with which scientists could work, proven 'cures' for people who were treated with homeopathic medicines without knowing it, against people who were treated with a placebo without knowing it, just don't exist. There is no clinical record of success.




> I can't prove that oxygen is present,


But with a brief course of study you could, and anyone could get the same results, time after time.



> I can't prove that electricity exists


You can, you know. You can make things work when you introduce a current along a circuit. And again, anyone can.



> or how it works, but if I flick a switch & something powers up , that's good enough for me.


There are strongly supported theories which go a long way to describing how it works. Scienctists don't yet know it all, and they acknowledge that, but they can say what it isn't, and they can, largely, predict what happens when people do X with an electric current. They can, again 'largely', explain why their predictions are true.





> If you look at the timeline of our planet, and imagine the introduction of the human species along this same timeline but with the earth's history being related to a 1 year period, it has been estimated that humans came along at approximately 11:59pm/23:59 hours. If the moon and other non-earth related forces have such an incredible impact on life on ur planet, I find it arrogant to think that these same forces would not have an incredible impact on our puny little species.


My being alive in Ireland is more likely to have an affect, I believe, on your life in Connecticut than where Saturn was on the day you were born will. In fact if we fully accept the concept of chaos theory, I would argue that you are more likely to be affected by some unseen butterfly somewhere.


----------



## geve

pedro0001 said:


> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?


I believe that many many things, more than we'll ever know, have an influence on us to a certain extent. The various objects hanging out there in the sky may be one, I don't know... So I should probably vote "yes"? 
But then I don't believe that one can predict anything based on the analysis of just one factor of influence. There are just too many elements to be taken into account, no human mind can do the math. So I guess that would make me vote "no".

Since I don't know if you can vote twice in the same poll I haven't voted at all. 



maxiogee said:


> Homeopathy = quackery


The fact that we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that something doesn't work. 
Ignaz Semmelweis is one example: he prompted doctors to wash carefully their hands before examining patients. For a while they did - reluctantly - and maternal mortality rate dropped from 12% to 3%. Impressive figure, isn't it? But since the influence of microorganisms on diseases was not to be discovered until 20 years later with Pasteur, he was thrown out of the hospital and died miserably. Doctors found it extremely tedious to wash their hands.
When my father was diagnosed with a particular syndrome (a syndrome, not a disease), we were told that a treatment could be performed. Science couldn't explain how the treatment could be efficient on the symptoms, there was no logical explanation, but it had proven to be efficient nonetheless. We didn't think once of saying "There is no scientific proof! I don't believe in it!"


[bonus gift: the memory of water illustrated - just for the beauty of the pictures ]


----------



## pedro0001

geve said:


> I believe that many many things, more than we'll ever know, have an influence on us to a certain extent. The various objects hanging out there in the sky may be one, I don't know... So I should probably vote "yes"?
> But then I don't believe that one can predict anything based on the analysis of just one factor of influence. There are just too many elements to be taken into account, no human mind can do the math. So I guess that would make me vote "no". Since I don't know if you can vote twice in the same poll I haven't voted at all.



I wanted to add one more option to the Poll but it was too late since there were too many votes already. 



geve said:


> The fact that we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that something doesn't work.
> Ignaz Semmelweis is one example: he prompted doctors to wash carefully their hands before examining patients. For a while they did - reluctantly - and maternal mortality rate dropped from 12% to 3%. Impressive figure, isn't it? But since the influence of microorganisms on diseases was not to be discovered until 20 years later with Pasteur, he was thrown out of the hospital and died miserably. Doctors found it extremely tedious to wash their hands.



Exactly, at that moment the science was a still baby. Therefore, no one had the idea to analyze the correlation between washing hands and maternal and infant mortality. That would have been enough to prove the fact that washing helps. The actual reason might remain unknown, but the fact could have been proven.


----------



## geve

pedro0001 said:


> Exactly, at that moment the science was a still baby. Therefore, no one had the idea to analyze the correlation between washing hands and maternal and infant mortality. That would have been enough to prove the fact that washing helps. The actual reason might remain unknown, but the fact could have been proven.


He did - it was the whole point of his experiment! The mortality rate decreased, but no one could explain how handwashing could have played a part in this result, so the hypothesis was simply rejected by the scientific community. 
The tendency to say "I can't explain it, so it can't work" seems a bit childish to me - or vain.


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> The fact that we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that something doesn't work.
> Ignaz Semmelweis is one example: he prompted doctors to wash carefully their hands before examining patients. For a while they did - reluctantly - and maternal mortality rate dropped from 12% to 3%. Impressive figure, isn't it?



*BUT* - I really have to restrain myself from screaming here - *BUT*, *he* was _right_,
and when they did what he told them to do, they all got the same results! 
That's what scientific method is all about. Repeatability, predictability - even when you don't yet know why!

Homeopathy doesn't offer repeatability of results, nor does it offer predictability.


----------



## Porteño

Homeopathy doesn't offer repeatability of results, nor does it offer predictability.[/quote]

Where did you get that idea from?


----------



## maxiogee

Porteño said:


> Homeopathy doesn't offer repeatability of results, nor does it offer predictability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that idea from?
Click to expand...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

But, maybe you can show me scientific results which contradict this.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
> 
> But, maybe you can show me scientific results which contradict this.


I can't show you any scientific arguments pro or contra homeopathy, but some of its remedies do help me. Note that I've said 'some'.


----------



## pedro0001

Porteño said:


> Where did you get that idea from?



And from here (if you can read german): 

http://www.zeit.de/2004/24/M-Hom_9aopathie_neu?page=1
http://www.zeit.de/online/2005/47/homoeopathie
http://www.zeit.de/2004/24/M-Interview


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
> 
> But, maybe you can show me scientific results which contradict this.


I can't read German, but I thought I could read English, yet I fail to see how your link is a proof against homeopathy? I see both sides being argued and nothing being settled in favour of either of them. 

I have no scientific results to show you. I have no firm personal conviction in favour of homeopathy; nor do I have any against it. 
When I was a child my father would give me a homeopathic pill when I couldn't sleep and the stories and other tricks hadn't helped; I'm quite sure there was a heavy placebo effect involved in this particular situation.
In some other situations I think it helped without any placebo effect - the arnica pills for instance, that prevent bruises: very efficient if you take it right after you got hit. But then you could tell me: how do you know you'd have had a bruise anyway? And you'd be right, I don't know. What I see is that homeopathy doesn't harm, has no side effects, and is found useful by some. What's the fuss then?

The treatment that my father underwent had helped to accelerate the recovery for some patients; for others, not. Probably when they identify the cause of the syndrome doctors will be able to understand and demonstrate why the treatment had these varying results.
Same with homeopathy: maybe one day when if its mechanism is demonstrated, we'll find out that in order to be efficient, homeopathic remedies should be taken after meals if the patient has blue eyes, before meals if they have brown eyes, and has no effect at all for patients with green eyes. And that would explain the variability of the results!  Oh, and it could be linked to the position of planets, too... 


I think this thread deserves splitting... this homeopathy discussion is getting seriously off-topic yet worth having IMO


----------



## Kelly B

If I understand it correctly, homeopathy remedies are substances diluted to such a degree that the probability is very low that any molecules of the substance actually remain in the solution. That's why it is considered perfectly safe, and also why I find it very unconvincing. Plain water is healthy, but not medicinal.


----------



## rsweet

I have tried many alternative medical approaches. I don't disbelieve that homeopathy may work for some, but it definitely didn't do anything for me--and I've tried several different homeopathic remedies over the years. Acupuncture, on the other hand, definitely works for me. I know this is not a scientific test, but it's the most meaningful to me.   I wish there were a better way to sort all this out so that perhaps my medical insurance would cover acupuncture, naturopathy, and some other alternative medicines that I've found valuable.


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> In some other situations I think it helped without any placebo effect - the arnica pills for instance, that prevent bruises: very efficient if you take it right after you got hit.


Is arnica a homeopathic remedy, or just an "alternative" medicine?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Is arnica a homeopathic remedy, or just an "alternative" medicine?


As there is plenty of active ingredient in the arnica pills I have taken I would consider them not to be homeopathy.

.,,


----------



## badgrammar

If used in a diluted homeopathic form, it is homeopathy.  If used as a balm or cream, I would hesitate to even call it "alternative" medecine.  It's just another very good cream remedy for bumps and bruises.  It is not because it is plant-based that we have to call it either "homeopathic" or "alternative".  It is medecine.  

Does homeopathy work?  I have seen it work at lightning speed on my son's ear infections when he was a baby.  Following the prescriptions of a homeopathic pediatrician (who is both an MD from The Faculty de Medicine de Paris and a homeopathic practitioner), I saw my son go from screaming and crying in pain from the build-up of pressure in his ear to a sleeping, recovering little man...  And this about 2 hours after swallowing two doses each (3 tiny granules) of Apis Mellifica and Ferrum Phosphoricum.  I avoided putting a 6 month old on a 10 day antibiotic treatment by using an inexpensive, natural and apparently very effective treatment.

If you go to see a homeoptathic doctor in France, you can be sure that there is no part of "quackery" to it.  These are always MD's.  If your child needs antibiotics or another such treatment, it will never be withheld.  But homeopathy gives you a chance to try something gentler first, and there is absolutely no reason to scoff at it or frown on it.  

I think big pharmaceutical compnaies don't much like homeopathy, because they are pushing their more expensive wares on the market and don't want any competition.  The sad part is, it doesn't have to be a competition, because homeopathy can be used in combination with other drug treatments.

Back on the ranch in Texas , my sister treats her horses with homeopathic rememdies, and she likes the results.

None of it scientific evidence, I know, but it has been enough to prove to me that I can continue to spend a whopping 1€11 to buy homeo granules when the need arises (I mean they are so cheap! It's not like Boiron and Dolisos are gouging people with their prices - ever had to buy a month's prescription of another drug (like anti-cholesterol drugs or heart medecine or AZT?  That's gouging.).

*Edited to add*:  Likening homeopathy to astrology is, respectfully, a sign of ignorance.  Atleast in France, homeopathy is practised by licensed physicians - not only have they been to medical school, they have also studied homeopathy at an institution such as l'École d'homéopathie hahnemannienne and state recognized licenses as homeoptathic practitioners.  Many of them are truly excellent doctors who  skillfully combine homeopathy and allopathy.

This is not astrology.


----------



## geve

I meant the arnica homeopathic pills, or I wouldn't have mentioned it here.

My grandmother died clutching her granules. Nurses kept putting them out of her reach, and didn't take her seriously when she was desperately asking for them. I don't know if the granules really helped my grandmother, actually I might have given her the wrong box once or twice , but I could see how she relied on them; and I swear that nurses behaved as if they felt threatened by these tiny blue boxes! I wanted to tell them, homeopathy isn't going to steal your job you know! It's as if the existence of people believing in homeopathy, endangered the whole conception of medicine.


----------



## ireney

Can I ask a question since I don't know much about homeopathy? If there's one thing that works on all patients could it be that this thing has indeed some therapeutic properties? I mean properties not discovered by the "conventional" medicine up to now. No one denies that some plants have amazing abilities and no one is saying that he or she knows everything there is to know about the human body.

Homeopaty is a whole concept. No one says that conventional medicines work because "when I took an aspirin it worked wonders for me" or because "all/most of my friends that took an aspirin saw results".
Homeopathic granules of all or at least most kinds have to work to more than one person.


----------



## badgrammar

They do work on more than one person, if that person has the same symptoms, the same medications will work on the same symptoms.  Homeopathy is a vast subject, but to oversimplify it here, it seeks to treat specific symptoms.  

For example, you have a cold.  There is not one cold-cure, rather there are different dilutions of active ingredients, each one has its own properties.  For example, your nose is running and you have a mucousy cough, you might take allium cepa (from onions) and bryonia (from a plant, I believe).  If your nose is stopped up, you have no cough, but your ears are popping, you might take allium cepa and belladonna.  If you also have a fever coming on, you might add another medicine. 

So, there is no 1 remedy that fits all cases of the cold - there are individual remedies that treat specific symptoms.

It is also used as a long-term preventive treatment, and a doctor might prescribe different granules at different dilutions to treat the "terrain" - or to treat your body for symptoms, in relation to your constitution and body type over a few weeks or months.  You can treat anything from irregular menstruation to aggressiveness, depression and slow milk production during breastfeeding .

Sometimes it works, sometimes not, and people have different sensibiity levels.  While babies and children are very reactive, as we get older and use lots of antibiotics and other powerful medecines, our responsiveness to homeopathic medecine is reduced.

I understand some are sceptical about it, but it is a powerful healing art, especially when put in the hands of a hghly qualified MD.


----------



## maxiogee

Kelly B said:


> If I understand it correctly, homeopathy remedies are substances diluted to such a degree that the probability is very low that any molecules of the substance actually remain in the solution. That's why it is considered perfectly safe, and also why I find it very unconvincing. Plain water is healthy, but not medicinal.





maxiogee said:


> Is arnica a homeopathic remedy, or just an "alternative" medicine?





badgrammar said:


> If used in a diluted homeopathic form, it is homeopathy.  If used as a balm or cream, I would hesitate to even call it "alternative" medecine.  It's just another very good cream remedy for bumps and bruises.  It is not because it is plant-based that we have to call it either "homeopathic" or "alternative".  It is medecine.



This is my understanding of homeopathy - the dilution of an active ingredient until nothing remains of it in the vial which is used.



> Does homeopathy work?  I have seen it work at lightning speed on my son's ear infections when he was a baby.  Following the prescriptions of a homeopathic pediatrician (who is both an MD from The Faculty de Medicine de Paris and a homeopathic practitioner), I saw my son go from screaming and crying in pain from the build-up of pressure in his ear to a sleeping, recovering little man...  And this about 2 hours after swallowing two doses each (3 tiny granules) of Apis Mellifica and Ferrum Phosphoricum.


That may be known as homeopathy by its practitioners, but speaking as a lay-person who has had recourse to non-prescribed, non-sanctioned remedies in the past, I doubt that the average 'man in the street' knows of that as homeopathy. 

*I apologise if I have railed inappropriately* against the _whole_, when it is a _part_ to which I object - that which believes that water can 'remember' what it used to contain, several sets of dilutions previously. 

I have no problem in accepting that plant X is a cure for ailment Y, but which hasn't been accepted by the medical 'industry' for whatever reasons.



> I think big pharmaceutical compnaies don't much like homeopathy, because they are pushing their more expensive wares on the market and don't want any competition.


Agreed. And they tend to have both politicans and medical boards in their pockets. St John's Wort was removed from sale in Ireland at the behest of the pharmacological companies. It had been doing wonderful things for people with depression, but the results were hugely 'patchy' and some people were neglecting their prescribed medications in favour of it.


----------

