I know almost everyone here will pile disbelief upon ignorance and that's fine, but I would still like to stand up for homeopathy here - homeopathy note, not homeopaths of whom there are just as many shonky ones out there as there are bad mechanics.
I barely knew anything about it when I started studying naturopathy but I've seen it work again and again and the vehemence with which scientists and the scientifically-minded will refute it makes me all the more keen to support it, particularly when there ARE studies that indicate it's effectiveness. Even when The Lancet published it's discrediting article calling for The End of Homeopathy they had to admit to a bias later on and it's this censorship and refusal to entertain that there might be another way of considering high-dilution medicine rather than thinking they understand molecular science completely and reproducible apparent contradictions (see the first article I linked to) are to be laughed down.
When I've got some more time I'll post about what I mentioned in the autism thread about the alteration of water bonding, cellular memory and the contradiction of Avogadros Number. Hopefully there will be some people here who will look for an explanation as oppose to writing it off or referencing that hilarious Futurama episode.
I hope my links work, some of them are via Pubmed.
Here's an abstract to get Modi et al started.
Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy
Author: Mastrangelo, D
Citation: MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR 13 (1): SR1-SR8 JAN 2007
Year: 2007
Abstract: According to the western medical establishment, homeopathy is both ''unscientific'' and ''implausible''. A short overview of its history and the methods it uses, however, easily reveals that homeopathy is a true science, fully grounded on the scientific method and on principles, such as, among others, the Arndt-Schultz law, hormesis, and epitaxy, whose plausibility has been clearly and definitely demonstrated in a number of scientific publications and reports. Through a review of the scientific literature, an explanation of the basic principles of homeopathy is proposed based on arguments and evidence of mainstream science to demonstrate that, in spite of the claims of conventional medicine, homeopathy is both scientific and plausible and that there is no reasonable justification for its rejection by the western medical establishment. Hopefully, this hurdle will be overcome by opening academic institutions to homeopathy to enlarge the horizons of medical practice, recover the value of the human relationship with the patient, and through all this, offer the sick a real alternative and the concrete perspective of an improved quality of life.
homeopathy is one step away from John Edwards in its creepy, opportunistic preying upon the sick, saddened and depserate
I am a creationist and feel the same way.
The very fact that it says that a compound increases it's efficacy the more diluted it becomes goes against everything science has found in the history of science.
most users of homeopathy are European middle class white people who aren't really that ill. That's it's main issue. I wouldn't, nor would any student or homeopath I know 'prey' on anyone. The very least you can do is see it as an alternative or adjunct to conventional therapy.
The USDA has said more than once that while they doubt the efficacy of homoeopathy and suspect it is fraudulent, they have not got the resources to investigate it thoroughly enough.
With most medical conditions, there are three possible outcomes:
Assuming the first is the most common, and usually occurs regardless of outside intervention, it's easy to claim effectiveness for many treatments.
With the second two, you get into territory where no treatment is particularly effective, and this automatically multiplies the number of potential treatments, as well as the willingness of patients to try anything.
That's the real problem I have with all quackery, is that the intent does not have to come from the practitioner to defraud, the desperation of the patient is enough motivation for both to embark on a course of ''treatment''
If something works really well, the number of alternatives is massively reduced. Hence why people are willing to try and ''cure'' their kids of autism. It would be like trying to ''cure'' someone with Don's Syndrome.
That's where we differ Modi. I don't see it as 'going against everything science has found'.
Making a tuning fork from a piece of iron can see that piece of iron resonate at several hundred times per second Using that same piece of iron to make a bridge will see it resonate maybe once per second. You can also modify the structure of an object if you subject it to the appropriate frequency of vibration. Hence the maligned 'potentising' of homeopathic solutions.
Must go to school now, back to school. We're studying the methods of oestrogen clearance in endometriosis and PMS and neurohormonal pathways in Alzheimers Disease and dementia and other baloney like that.
I believe in the power of arnica, even if its powers are all in my head and that's why it works for me. I don't care, it works.
I have taken lots of other homeopathic remedies in my time and most of them have done jack. Although I was very young and was almost certainly not taking them as prescribed.
In any case, a homeopath is probably the last person I'd go to for a problem. I don't really buy it. But I'd be interested in reading more about it and I think whether or not you think it's a crock, it's good that someone who has studied it started this thread.
I don't think you can say ''that same piece of iron'' if you make a bridge out of it. It's a fucking shitload of iron, and yeah, the bigger something gets, the more energy it requires to make it move. But it's the same amount of energy per unit of material.
I really don't see how that analogy is relevant, let alone accurate.
this is mainly for modi, though i'm interested in everyone's opinion:
what do you think of Bach's Flower Remedies, specifically Rescue Remedy?
An interesting take on it from Cecil Adams:
Homeopathy was founded by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). He enunciated what remain today the guiding principles of homeopathic medicine, the foremost of which is the Law of Similars: if a large amount of medicine produces a given symptom, then a small amount of the medicine will stimulate the body to combat that symptom. This isn't a completely crazy concept; modern vaccines use the same basic idea. The twist with homeopathic medicines is that they reverse the usual understanding of dose effectiveness. Mainstream science holds that, generally speaking, the potency of a drug increases with the dose. Homeopathy--in particular, the Law of Infinitesimals--says the medicine's effectiveness decreases with the dose. The less you use, the better it works! Which would lead one to conclude that it works best if you don't use any at all.
Homeopaths don't say that, of course, but it's the practical impact of the fantastic dilutions they employ. Two scales are used, X and C. A 1X solution means the original medicine (the ''mother tincture'') was diluted with water, alcohol, or whatever to one part in ten, or 1/10; 2X is 1/100; 3X is 1/1,000; etc. A 1C solution is 1/100, 2C is 1/10,000, 3C is 1/1,000,000, and so on. Most homeopathic remedies range from 6X to 30X. At 30X, chances are that a given dose of the medicine doesn't contain a single molecule of the original, but some dilutions go a lot higher than that. I've heard of one cold remedy with a dilution of 200C, which mathematically is less than one molecule per all the known matter in the universe.
How, then, can homeopathy possibly work? Apologists fall back on far-fetched explanations involving energy and vibrations and so on. A key step in the manufacture of homeopathic medicines is ''succussion,'' in which the mixture is vigorously shaken at each stage of the dilution process. This miraculously unlocks the healing power of the medicinal substance. Could be just my Catholic background talking, but that sounds like making holy water to me.
Homeopathic remedies can legally be sold as drugs in the U.S. owing to an odd circumstance--one of the key sponsors of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was a homeopathic physician, and he was able to get the entire homeopathic pharmacopoeia (nux vomica, arsenicum album, et al) officially recognized. Homeopathy has enjoyed a quasi-protected status ever since, with federal regulators generally taking the view that the practice is harmless and that any attempt to suppress it would likely have political repercussions. There have even been studies in journals with varying degrees of credibility purporting to show that homeopathy actually works. These have been roundly criticized on methodological grounds, and the universal view among scientists is that any perceived benefit is simply a placebo effect--you think something is going to help you, so it does.
Why does belief in homeopathy persist? Well, for most routine, common-cold-type health complaints, it's not noticeably less effective than mainstream medicine, or noticeably different in its therapeutic approach. People catch ''bugs'' that are never diagnosed (and which, if viral, have no cure anyway), take some over-the-counter remedy that claims to address the symptoms, and eventually get better. Did the over-the-counter remedy help? Who knows? It's silly to believe in homeopathic cures, but I'm not seeing that it's smarter to place your faith in Sudafed instead.
Link:
Here
Not much. Like I said before, if things actually work, people use them, if they don't certain people adhere to their use for reasons other than a measurable effectiveness.
The homoeopaths, and others, will refer to the individual patients different humors or whatever description they choose to explain a person's unique genetics, and say that their methods are so subtle that they rely on understanding those differences to such a great degree that no two patients are the same.
Modern ''traditional'' scientific medicine works for the most part by assuming that diseases and conditions have the same causes and effects in everyone, and they treat them as such, usually with a series of treatments beginning with least invasive and progressing to extremely radical.
This is basically why the two camps will never see eye to eye.
I reckon it's interesting that most antibiotic courses accelerate the speed of healing of infection by only a few hours, in most cases.
Basically, if you do nothing but rest and keep your fluids up, you will get better anyway.
Which is where homeopathy differs.
20 people may catch the same cold but they'll exhibit 20 different colds. Scientific medicine looks at the 'bug' (or more often than not, fails to identify the 'bug' and if it does construct a vaccine the bug will have altered it's structure and evaded the scientists which is something that will keep on happening), whereas homeopathy (and naturopathy in general) will look at how you're expressing your symptoms and address those.
The reason it can't be judged by typical scientific standards is precisely because it is individualised medicine. You can't measure the results because you can't compare the expressions. Allopathic medicine's reductionist techniques (which are wholly useful in other fields) won't work here.
Studies into areas where homeopathy has traditionally excelled such as otitis media and their use on animals and plants have been shown to be reproducible and at the very least warrant being considered as a concurrent if not primary medicine in many conditions. I would never use it as a substitute for a proven therapy, and it is this that shows me at least, that orthodox medicine and homeopathy can co-exist.
The 'second curve' measure of a ultra-dilute solution has been a long-established phenomenon whereby the the effect of a diluted substances begins to increase in potency once it is diluted further and further examples of studies into this HERE and an explanation of the theories behind the term 'memory of water' below, referring to the mocked comment I made on the autism thread about water bonding altering over time:
There are several ways water can be shown to have a memory. As a simple example, human taste is quite capable of telling the difference between two glasses of water, processed in different ways (eg one fresh and one left undrunk for several days), where present analytical methods fail. There is a change, of course, but such a change would never be noticed by computer simulations on pure H2O. Vybíral and Voráček have shown that water changes its properties with time and its previous history.13 There is also a well-known ‘memory’ effect concerning the formation of clathrate hydrates from aqueous solutions whereby previously frozen clathrates within the solution, when subsequently melted, can predispose later to a more rapid clathrate formation.14 These examples may be explained, for example, by the presence of nanobubbles, extended chain silicates or induced clathrate initiators,15 respectively. Once an explanation is accepted, of course, the ‘memory of water’ seems no puzzle at all.
There is a strange occurrence, similar to the ‘memory of water’, in enzyme chemistry where an effectively non-existent material still has a major effect; enzymes prepared in buffers of known pH retain (remember) those specific pH-dependent kinetic properties even when the water is removed such that no hydrogen ions are present;22 these ions seemingly having an effect in their absence contrary to common sense at the simplistic level.
These work because they contain alcohol.
The first study you cite shows that a replication of an experiment showed the opposite effect of another experiment. That's not replication, that shows there is a need to reassess the method.
My rejection of homoeopathy is not based on the lack of an explanation of how it might work, it's based on the observation that it doesn't appear to work at all.
Sorry, just want to be clear on this. Are you actually saying that vaccines are bullshit because pathogens evolve too quickly for scientists to make them?
Homeopathy is a crime. I prefer to cure my ailments by dangling fresh goats entrails over the threshold of a witch's cave on Walpurgisnacht. Then suckling on a Cyclops teat.
I have some of those going for cheap if you're interested, 'Nacty.
So, you'd only use it where everything else has failed?
Homeopathy DEFINITELY works for some ailments......although it is indistinguishable from the placebo effect. A rose by any other name and all that.
View Comments 20 to 154
We've limited the amount of comments shown in these larger topics to allow for faster viewing, simply click here to load all the missing comments ...
This makes me cringe every time I read it. And I have no idea what the Shakespeare is meant to mean in this context.
i'm guessing if you called ''homeopathy'' something like ''placebo'' it wouldn't sell as well.
i.e. a 'homeopathy' by any other name would not sell as sweetly - Jerkspeare, 20th Century
Cheers, thanx. unsure whether to facepalm or not
On Australian Story right now.....
Ha! Just read the above convo (possibly properly for the first time). Looks I might have replied and read whilst doing something else at the time (like selling medicines that work).
Oh crap! I will watch it on the website then.
Mitchell and Webb ''Homeopathic ER''!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
Has anyone ever made a homeopathic poison?
the only way to do that would be to put a mL of endorphins in a bath, and get someone to drink the bath. should be a good enough concentration to help the body counteract feeling good and start to poison itself.
an evidence based investigation into homeopathy (or the five minute facts for those of us needing to get up to speed)
Did anyone see the Today Tonight on this?
you watch today tonight?
haha! busted max
No, I don't have a telly. I saw the episode on someone's blog.
please explain or link to blog, bulk...
Yeah, good idea. Sorry peeps.
Link
http://youtu.be/-1mvN6lU0oU
Whooping cough vaccines warning So much for homeopathic whooping cough vaccines - ''The warning comes after a record 13,000-plus cases last year, including two infant deaths.''
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE&feature=player_detailpage#t=6s
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
Gotta have something
If you wanna immunize me.