# Homeopathy is Witchcraft



## Vladd67

Homeopathy Is Witchcraft, Say Doctors « Derren Brown Blog
Double, double toil and trouble; 
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Then dilute and then dilute again and again and again.


----------



## BookStop

It's certainly not all "witchcraft", whatever that means, and I smell some grant money asking to be taken.


----------



## Wybren

What I can never understand is that some people are willing to jump up and down and call alternative therapies witch-craft and codswallop but no one seems willing to do any scientific testing to determine either way.


----------



## Parson

Wybren said:


> What I can never understand is that some people are willing to jump up and down and call alternative therapies witch-craft and codswallop but no one seems willing to do any scientific testing to determine either way.



Not completely true. I have heard of some testing done on some alternative medicines and the results were mixed at best, and on many of the alternative medicines tested there was no discernible advantage over a placebo.


----------



## BookStop

But to be fair, you've got to try 'em all.


----------



## j d worthington

Homeopathy _has_ been tested... again, and _again_, and _*again*_... and always found to come down to the placebo effect (when it works at all). Which really isn't surprising, as the entire idea behind it is utter nonsense.

The simple fact is that whatever substance is supposed to be the active ingredient is so diluted that you would (as has been pointed out) have to have a swimming pool _almost as large as a big chunk of our solar system_ to have _one single molecule_ of that substance. What people are getting is simply _water_. _*That's it*_. Water has its beneficial aspects, certainly. But curing various ailments (including, as some homeopathists claim for some of these solutions, cancer) _ain't_ one of 'em....

It's bunk, and bilking people out of their money, pure and simple, in most cases; and delusional thinking on the part of the peddlers in others....


----------



## HareBrain

I've no particular interest in homeopathy, but one thing I've heard its adherents claim is its beneficial effect on animals, which would not be subject to any placebo effect. Has this been tested?


----------



## J-WO

HareBrain said:


> I've no particular interest in homeopathy, but one thing I've heard its adherents claim is its beneficial effect on animals, which would not be subject to any placebo effect. Has this been tested?




I don't have the details here but I'd say a 'visual placebo' is going on there. If the observer thinks its useful to give Homeopathy to his/her pets/livestock, than their observations are going to be skewed towards what they wish to see. 

That or animals are very gullible.


----------



## StormFeather

I'm afraid that I'm one of the gullible here  - but really only for one remedy as I haven't seen the benefit in others.  I always have a tube of the Arnica 30C remedy with me, as it really does seem to make a difference to my children when they have big bumps and bruises.  Ever since they were little (and at 4 and 2 they're hardly big) I have given them 'magic medicine' when they've had a nasty fall or accident.  

Hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo it may be, but after taking it, there is often little to no bruising or swelling on the affected area, and with some of the accidents you'd expect to see something.  I'm honestly not sure if the placebo effect works in children so young.  Maybe part of why I like using it is because they have to stop crying for a bit to take the medicine and by the time it's eaten, they've calmed down.

There was also a noticable difference in the speed of healing and recovery after childbirth with both my kids when I took arnica.  If it's all down to a placebo effect then I'm happy to be duped under such circumstances as post childbirth discomfort is eye-wateringly painful and anything that can ease that has got to be worth the £3! (mind you, I'm not having any more, but I do recommend it to others)

I have tried other homeopathic remedies, but I can't say I've noticed  such positive effects.


----------



## Ursa major

Calling Homeopathy witchcraft is being very unfair on witchcraft.


And I'm not joking: People should be free to believe whatever they like about the meaning of life, our existence and that of the universe, but homeopathy pretends to have some sort of scientific basis, and it has no such thing.


By the way, the term, Alternative Medicine, covers all sorts of things. So, for instance, many herbs have powerful medicinal properties if applied in the right way (some of which are very much not alternative medicines nowadays: e.g. aspirin); thus herbal medicines may have recordable effects in double blind trials, should these be performed. Homeopathy, by contrast, is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.


----------



## The Judge

Re HareBrain's question: There's always simple coincidence.  The horse is given a potion, the horse recovers -- and it appears the potion is the reason, whereas in fact the effect of further nuturing or the condition having run its course is the answer.


Arnica cream is probably different, StormFeather -- arnica has been used as an anti-inflammatory since the Middle Ages, and I imagine there is substantially more of the active ingredient in the creams than in the dilutions of other homeopathic preparations.


----------



## Mouse

I've had lots of pet rats, and rats tend to get respiratory infections. There's not a lot you can do and if it's a mild case then it's not really a problem. Vets bills are mega bucks, and all they'll do is give your pet Baytril - which is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

So for one of my rats I tried a homoeopathic remedy. It was these little white round ball thingies. Did it work? No. Couldn't even get the rat to eat the bloody stuff!


----------



## HareBrain

J-WO said:


> That or animals are very gullible.


 
They are! The "squeak like a mouse" trick always works on the cats that visit my garden (except the deaf one) and when you pretend to throw a ball for a dog, it gets them running nine times out of ten. And racehorses! They run their hearts out thinking _they're _the ones who are going to get the prize money. No wonder humans rule the world.


----------



## StormFeather

The Judge said:


> Arnica cream is probably different, StormFeather -- arnica has been used as an anti-inflammatory since the Middle Ages, and I imagine there is substantially more of the active ingredient in the creams than in the dilutions of other homeopathic preparations.


 
Nope - never used the cream, always the little white ball things. Like I say, maybe part of it is that it stops them crying for long enough to take the things, but I've seen egg sized bruises on heads disappear in a very short time (less than an hour) without the use of a cold compress. If it's a placebo effect on them - well, anything that stops the tears and helps calm them down is worth it to me


----------



## j d worthington

"The little white balls" may, as with the cream, actually have more of the active ingredient. In which case, it isn't actually homeopathy by the strict modern sense, which has as one of its major bases that _the more a substance is diluted, the more effective it is_. In other words, the common practice is to add, say, a drop of a genuinely pharmacological substance to a large container of water. You then dilute that by a factor of ten (following other procedures such as "succusion" -- forceful striking to agitate the substance in the container); then dilute that by a factor of ten; then dilute that by a factor of ten; and so on. Very quickly, you reach nearly astronomical proportions of water-to-active-ingredient... so much so that what you have is pure water.

The theory homeopathists advance is that water has memory of all substances which have come in contact with it... which is utter gibberish. Were this so, we wouldn't touch any water, as all sorts of substances, including numerous lethal chemicals or biological byproducts, have come into contact with nearly all water on the planet!

It has been said that with every glass (or gallon -- I don't remember the statement precisely) of water one drinks, chances are at least one molecule within that amount has passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell (or whatever other personage you choose to pick). This is a statistical statement, nothing more. But there we are dealing with a much lower amount of dilution than that which homeopathy utilizes... which rather points up the fallacy of the practice quite sharply.

While Wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source, they do seem to have a fair amount of worthy citations on their piece on the practice, so you might want to take a look at that:

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and as to whether placebo effect can be detected in dealing with children:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/10525

And the effects on those around them may also make considerable difference:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090629165611.htm


----------



## The Judge

j. d. worthington said:


> "The little white balls" may, as with the cream, actually have more of the active ingredient.


Not too much, I hope.  Arnica is toxic if ingested.  

StormFeather -- don't panic!  I should imagine that in the case of this preparation we're talking negligible amounts. And you're right -- if it's helping, then placebo effect or not, it's worth it for a few pounds, since we're not talking serious injuries.


----------



## Ursa major

According to Wiki (Arnica - medicinal_uses and Arnica - toxicity), arnica can be used for non-homeopathic (and thus proper) medical purposes, but is also toxic (as are many medicines in high doses).


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

All I have to say about this is, the only thing worse than homeopathy is "faith healing". There was a case here in Minnesota recently where a teenage boy died because his family refused to give him proper medical treatment for his ailment (can't remember what it actually was he had) and instead relied on prayer to cure him. Obviously it failed. 


That is not to say you should run to the doctor over a mere sniffle, but neither should you ignore the hospital if you have serious injury or infection. What do you think would have happened to me back in 2008 if I hadn't gone to OHSU over my tumor? It would've eventually eaten into my knee joint and then that would have almost definitely destroyed my ability to walk.


Homeopathy. What a joke it is.


----------



## StormFeather

Before you all disregard me as being a totally gullible fool . . . 

I used arnica in pregancy and for my kids based on many sources, and lots of internet research (not always correct I know, but not always wrong either, if you take a balance from many different sites).

Parents of other kids suggested it when Sam was about 18 months old, and it became another tool to help when he did things like slip over in his little car, bashing his chin and forcing his new lower baby teeth into his upper lip and gum, or when he fell over and hit his head on a table leg, which initially looked like it was leaving a dent in his head. Mainly because he had to calm down to take the tablets, but he really didn't have anywhere near as much bruising and therefore as much pain as you would expect from such injuries.

I actually trained as a paediatric nurse, so do have a reasonable medical background. I'm not liable to run off with every kookie and off-the-wall suggestion, but, and it's a reasonably big but, I do believe that current knowledge and practices don't cover everything. 

However, I also have my limits. A colleague at work petitioned me on a regular basis when she found out that I was taking Sam for his MMR. She had a background in homeopathy, and tried to convince me that medicating Sam in this fashion, if he ever got ill, was the best way to go. She swore that neither of her kids had had any kind of vaccinations and they were strong and healthy, as she'd treated everything homeopathically. Due to my background though, I'm well aware of the statistics. I'm purely stating my own beliefs here so don't want to offend anyone with opposing views, but . . . . .

Nothing about the research into MMR and autism really convinced me. Even if there was a link, which was, and still is to my mind, unproven, the chances were still incredibly small. However, the chances of an unimmunised child getting one of these diseases and suffering the nasty or fatal side effects are much greater. 

The thought of only having homeopathic remedies to protect my child - na-ah. To alleviate symptoms of mild bruising or swelling is one thing. To believe it can prevent or cure major illnesses and diseases is another.

If it's taken alongside conventional medicine - even if it's just a placebo effect - maybe there is some merit in that, as the placebo effect in itself can be quite powerful. But on it's own - I'm certainly not convinced.

So, although my brain _is_ often stuffed with fluff, there is some rationale there too


----------



## StormFeather

Forgive the double post, but wanted to acknowledge this;



j. d. worthington said:


> While Wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source, they do seem to have a fair amount of worthy citations on their piece on the practice, so you might want to take a look at that:
> 
> Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Oh, and as to whether placebo effect can be detected in dealing with children:
> 
> Medical News: Placebo Effect May Be Doubled in Children - in Pediatrics, General Pediatrics from MedPage Today
> 
> And the effects on those around them may also make considerable difference:
> 
> Placebo Effects In Caregivers May Change Behavior Of Children With ADHD


 
Thank you for this JD - much appreciated.

I have to say that right now I'm too tired to get my mind round the second article as it's quite technical in it's own way, but will have a look tomorrow.

Re the third - very interesting, and not entirely surprising. But, they were studying behavioural responses, and I was looking at a physiological response. I don't believe that _my_ expectation of a bruise getting better in my child will actually result in a) the bruise getting smaller or b) my interpretation of a bruise getting smaller. If a medicine didn't work on my child, I wouldn't be inclined to give it again. I'm not _that_ sold on homeopathy!


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

StormFeather said:


> So, although my brain _is_ often stuffed with fluff


 

So can we call you Pooh Bear, then?


----------



## StormFeather

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> So can we call you Pooh Bear, then?


 
Ah, but we don't want to offend _The_ bear now do we . . .


----------



## Ursa major

. . . or The Procrastinator, for that matter.


----------



## j d worthington

Agreed: the placebo effect definitely has its benefits; and also agreed that it would be unlikely to cause a swelling, etc., to heal noticeably faster (though there is still some slight possibility it can have some effect, it is unlikely to be a drastic one). And, as I said, that particular "homeopathic" medication may actually be closer to something that is pharmacologically sound. My beef is with the practice itself, and the nonsense its adherents spout in the attempt to sound scientific. While some of the products out there are likely to have actual benefits, the vast majority, following the practices mentioned above, are worse than useless because they have no actual scientific basis, have no actual medicinal value, and nonetheless cost money which could be better spent on something which does have some genuine effect.

"Alternative medicines", as has already been noted, is a wide umbrella term for a vast number of things, some of which are genuinely sound but simply have not yet met requirements not only for efficacy but for safety; some which are in a grey area where they may or may not be actually beneficial, but seem to be successful in some cases; and others which are simply totally worthless but riding on the coattails of the other two... and the gullibility and uninformed state of the majority of the public (and, sometimes, doctors). And, of course, some are genuinely harmful but just haven't yet stepped enough over the law to be curtailed.

Bottom line: before taking on board any "alternative medicine", *research*. And, though it seems an obvious caution, please keep in mind to not accept anything from sources linked to supporters of such practices without an enormous amount of salt (ditto goes for those representing rabid opponents of same), as anyone with a vested interest in such issues is prone to fudge (or outright fabricate) results either consciously or unconsciously. Look for genuinely objective and respected medical and scientific sources to see what's what. Yes, they, too can make mistakes; but the results are much, much more likely to be accurate than in the other instances; and it is your health (or that of your loved ones) you're dealing with here.

The above is a general statement, not aimed at you in particular Stormfeather; that below is in response to your posts specifically:

If you have found something which works -- whether placebo or not -- by all means, stick with it in such cases. As a parent myself, I know how important it is to be able to a) comfort your child when they are hurt; and b) find something which they will take and which does seem to have a beneficial effect. As long as it is something which does no harm and provides some form of help, then in dealing with such minor affairs, it is well worth it....


----------



## The Procrastinator

My ears are burning...too close to the candle again I suppose...bother...

On the actual subject of homeopathy, the very concept (dilution until its immeasurable) has always seemed to me to be whacko. To each their own, but I prefer to stick with something a little more concrete. It would be nice if something so mystical could be found to be generally effective, but I don't think they'll ever be able to prove it, and I don't think they should market it as if its a reliable medicine.

Having said that I often try "natural remedies" rather than the purely synthesised stuff. I'm after what works, and what has the least side effects. I have to say that the most effective muscle tonic/pain killer/anti-inflammatory stuff that I've ever found (and I've checked out quite a few in my time) is a mix of herbal origin - Asian and Western together (arnica is in there). Works better than anything I've found. I also wear a haematite bracelet (I was desperate to find an alternative to regular doses of painkiller) and its a marvel. The proof is in the pudding as they say. It works for me.

Scepticism in these matters is a very healthy thing - but giving different things a go (within reason) can also be good.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

The Procrastinator said:


> Scepticism in these matters is a very healthy thing - but giving different things a go (within reason) can also be good.


 

Well, nobody here is arguing against THAT matter, Proc, but I do firmly believe that anyone who believes homeopathy, the very concept of it, needs to have their heads checked, really. As JD said, there ARE alternative styles of medicine that DO work other than pharmacy synthesized-chemical pills and such. They just aren't, over here in the United States at least, recognized as safe enough usually as to be legally recognized by the FDA. (Acupuncture is one that has been recognized by the FDA as a safe treatment to relieve certain kinds of pain, if I am thinking correctly, however.)

But you also have to realize, Proc, that sometimes the only way to go IS with the hospitals. (Usually in terms of the need of surgery or with a dire microbial infections, or on the treatable brink of organ failure.)


Which is not to be confused with mental health, of course, which is an entirely different kettle of kittens. But that's another thread.


----------



## The Procrastinator

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> But you also have to realize, Proc, that sometimes the only way to go IS with the hospitals. (Usually in terms of the need of surgery or with a dire microbial infections, or on the treatable brink of organ failure.)



No disagreement from me! Thats why I said try things out - within reason. There are times when you can get a bit experimental, and times when you have to get serious and go with standard medicines/procedures. 

I also agree with you about homeopathy. Really its like faith. People can believe in it if they want, but marketing miracles to suck people into church is one thing, marketing miracles and calling it medicine is another. I don't know if homeopaths are required to make the unproven nature of their medicines plain (never been to one) but they should be.


----------



## J-WO

HareBrain said:


> They are! The "squeak like a mouse" trick always works on the cats that visit my garden (except the deaf one) and when you pretend to throw a ball for a dog, it gets them running nine times out of ten. And racehorses! They run their hearts out thinking _they're _the ones who are going to get the prize money. No wonder humans rule the world.



I email-scam Wildebeest.


----------



## ktabic

Ursa major said:


> (as are many medicines in high doses).


To paraphrase one of the fathers of modern medicine, Paracelsus,  "the dose makes the poison".

I tend to apply a very simple rule to deciding if "alternative medicines" work. If an "alternative medicine" works, it's given a special name to show that it does. "Medicine".



StormFeather said:


> She swore that neither of her kids had had  any kind of vaccinations and they were strong and healthy, as she'd  treated everything homeopathically.


She might well be right, her kids might never have caught anything. That would be because many, many more responsible and sensible parents did get their kids immunised, rather than anything she was doing (in fact, inspite of what she was doing). The effect is known as Herd Immunity (I think it's an unfortunate name).


----------



## Allegra

If homeopathy means when my dog has diarrhea I have to feed her laxative then no, I don't believe it. But alternative medicine has a wide range, according to wiki - Alternative medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:



> The American National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) cites examples including naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, hypnosis, homeopathy, acupuncture, and nutritional-based therapies, in addition to a range of other practices.


 
Without some of those helping our ancestors survive perhaps we won't even be here.


----------



## Moonbat

Just reading what you guys have been discussing has made me wonder about the 'arms race' between medicine and bacteria/viruses.
We all know that MRSA has evolved to combat modern antibacterial medicines and liquid cleaners, but what kind of arms race is happening against the 'alternative medicines'
will it be a case (in the future) where scientific medicine has failed in the arms race agaisnt viruses and alternative/natural remedies will have to take over?


----------



## ktabic

Allegra said:


> Without some of those helping our ancestors survive perhaps we won't even be here.


Or possibly inspite of those, our ancestors managed to survive. 
Great-great-(many more)-great-granddad wasn't super healthy and wasn't long-lived. 
He was short lived. Minor infections where terminal. Most children would be dead long before they left childhood. Pretending that water was a mystical cure-all or a bear's liver could fix a limp. About the only one of those 'alternative medicines' that work is herbalism, but the working parts of that where incorporated into real medicine long ago.
Compared to the Classical Era Greeks and Romans, I'm ancient. I should have been dead 10 years ago. I'm looking good to avoid dying at the average age of just a century ago (which is about now for me). People are living longer, healthier - by a really large margin - because we don't use 'alternative medicines'.



Moonbat said:


> but what kind of arms race is happening  against the 'alternative medicines'


There won't be an arms race between viruses/bacteria and 'alternative medicine'. The viruses and bacteria evolves to overcome threats to themselves and since 'alternative medicines' have no real effect, there is no need for an arms race.


----------



## Ursa major

Moonbat said:


> ...will it be a case (in the future) where scientific medicine has failed in the arms race agaisnt viruses and alternative/natural remedies will have to take over?


Bacteria and viruses evolve for no particular reason at all, they just do. However, sometimes the result of the evolution allows a bacterium or virus to survive better than it would have done.

Given this, natural remedies (which, one assumes, would be either anti-bacterial or anti-virus in your example) would be in the same position.

And if "natural" remedies (which would, as ktabic says, become medicines or medical treatments) are allowed to be used in the haphazard** way that, say, anti-biotics are, the same ill-effects (no pun intended) are bound to ensue.




** - with the stress on hazard


----------



## Peter Graham

Moonbat said:


> will it be a case (in the future) where scientific medicine has failed in the arms race agaisnt viruses and alternative/natural remedies will have to take over?


 
Alas!  It's probably the case that alternative remedies already lost the battle, which is why modern medicine had to take up the baton.  

I suspect that one big issue here is that some on both sides of the debate draw an entirely arbitrary line between scientific medicine (things made by GSK which GP's prescribe) and alternative or complementary medicine (things prescribed by overweight hippies with horned toes).

In reality, the divide is between things that work and things that don't.  For example, it is doubtless the case that certain herbal remedies do work.  And there are jolly good scientific reasons as to why that is.  There are also reasons as to why drug companies peddle products which don't really work that well, or have such vile side effects as to make usage seem rather questionable.

But none of this takes away from the basic, underlying principle which is that the only sort of remedy which one can genuinely say does what it says on the tin is the remedy which has been proven to have the claimed effect in blind (or double blind) objective and independent scientific tests.  Such tests discount other factors unrelated to the substance which might have an effect on the patient (such as someone spending time with them and being nice to them).  Such tests also look at the results of the treatment, rather than the rationale behind it.  The efficacy of homeopathy, or crystal healing or whatever can be tested without anyone having to consider whether or not water really can retain memories, or whether crystals really do vibrate at certain frequencies.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Parson

It is clear from this thread that I had no idea what homeopathy was. I understood it to be the prescription of herbal medicines. I now understand it is a lot more, and possibly a lot more foolish, than that. Thanks for the "enlightenment." (pun intended -- just so the bear could catch on.)


----------



## Vladd67

For a slightly cynical look at homeopathy
YouTube - That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E


----------



## Ursa major

In these times of budget restraints, perhaps we could strongly dilute any NHS funding for homeopathic "treatments".


And why have no homeopathists complained about the cleaning up of our water supplies over recent years? Surely this could only lead (npi) to something horribly poisonous coming out of our taps.


----------



## ktabic

Recommendations recently put forward regarding funding for homeopathic treatments by the NHS is that they should become so diluted as to cease to exist.


----------



## Ursa major

* Expects that, after much lobbying (including from HeirBrain ), those recommendations are likely to be watered down. *









Sorry, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## j d worthington

You may want to take a look at this:

YouTube - Richard Dawkins vs Homeopathy

Of course, "alternative medicines" which don't actually work can win an "arms race" where people are concerned because, as has been proven again and again throughout history, people are much more likely to be led by what they wish to believe, and what feels good, and, yes, by a sort of "herd instinct", than by genuine evidence or reason. In that sense, homeopoathy (for instance) could, conceivably, win out over genuinely effective medicine in the "popularity vote" -- and this is something which is going on in science across the board, the battle between seeing science as something which should be judged on that sort of basis which is sheer nonsense.

Science -- including scientific medicine -- takes a long, hard look at genuine efficacy before it approves something as effective... a lesson learned through a great deal of history where common curatives were often, when objectively examined, proved either ineffective or outright harmful (bleeding for everything from catarrh to bile in the waste; wearing masks and burning purgative herbs to clear a house of the effects of tuberculosis; etc., etc., etc.). Now, people believed in these curatives; they held on for an incredibly long time in many cases. It took an enormous amount of work, study, and losses to even begin to make a dent in the belief in such things... and a fair amount of the populace seems determined to return to such beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary now; just as numerous other pseudoscientific or mythic beliefs are seeing a resurgence as based in fact (rather than simply something one chooses to believe regardless of fact or fallacy), even though nearly every one of these has been long exploded or exposed for the pure fiction they are... comforting fictions they may be, but fictions nonetheless.

So it is with many "alternative medicines". Does this mean we should stop investigating new forms of such? By no means. But those which _have_ been so studied and found to be wanting, should be given short shrift, for the reasons I mentioned first off: even where they do not do actual positve harm, they do often cause passive harm by reinforcing the belief that they are helpful and therefore getting people to rely on them rather than genuine medical science, and at the very least by taking money (often from people who can least afford it) while doing absolutely nothing more than can be achieved by a true "sugar pill" treatment or other placebo. If the practitioners/supporters of these methods wish to gain any credence for their favored practices, they need to bring forth evidence (other than their favorite, the anecdotal kind) of their genuine beneficlal effects. Otherwise, they deserve no more respect or support than do the claims of witchcraft as an excuse to murder people (still happening in some places even now) or the use of divining rods, tea leaves, or other pure forms of superstitious nonsense.


----------



## StormFeather

To add to the debate, I was discussing this with a colleague today. He mentioned a couple of things that I haven’t been able to research yet as I’ve been too busy, but wondered if others had come across similar claims.

The first thing he mentioned was that yellow pills seem to have the most beneficial effects – no matter which drug was contained therein. Apparently, because people want to believe that they’re getting the best, and believe if a pill has additional yellow dye it must be branded and better, and therefore it seems it’s more effective. 

And the second thing, with regards to the effect of hypnotism on the ‘lizard brain’. He’d seen something where a person was hypnotised (he said it was a proper thing, not a Derren Brown kind of thing – his words) to believe that a spoon was about to be touched to their arm after being heated to red hot in a fire. The spoon was, in fact kept in a fridge, or other cool environment. However, when it touched the skin, a blister did indeed form. This apparently had to do with being able to convince the ‘lizard level’ of the brain to react and pump lymph fluid to the area that it believed had been burnt.

I have no idea whether any of this has any validity (and I'm not advocating any of it - despite being so gullible). I don’t know anything about the lizard level of the brain so have no idea what it’s capable of?

However, I’m sure there are others who are much wiser than me who might know more?


----------



## J-WO

ktabic said:


> Compared to the Classical Era Greeks and Romans, I'm ancient. I should have been dead 10 years ago.



As a Roman aristocrat you wouldn't have done all that bad. Cicero's wife lived to a hundred and something.  Augustus Caesar notched 75 (Not too unusual).  Put it down to all those baths and running water (and not what was diluted in it!) 


(Oddly, Rome is just about the only society where male lifespans averaged out longer than female. This is generally attributed to all the proper, experienced doctors being in the army.)


----------



## Boneman

But since it is well-known (and accepted) that the side-effects of so many of today's drugs (scientifically proven... would those be the same scientists who said thalidomide was a safe treatment for sickness in pregnancy... the same scientists who thought it was a great idea to grind up dead sheep and feed them to herbivores... the same scientists who produced drugs for arthritis that killed people... etc etc etc) are worse than having the illness they are supposed to treat in the first place - 30% of beds in the UK hospitals are filled with those suffering from iatrogenic disease, isn't this debate nonsensical until you look at both sides of the argument?


----------



## mosaix

I have no problem with 'alternative' medicine providing it is subject to the same rigorous testing as 'mainstream' medicine and accepts the results.

BTW did you hear the story of the guy who forgot to take his homoeopathic prescription - and overdosed!


----------



## Ursa major

Boneman said:


> ...isn't this debate nonsensical until you look at both sides of the argument?


 
In the interests of a richer debate, may I invite you to give us the other side of the argument?


----------



## Boneman

Oui, mais certainement! Quand je reviens de la belle France apres le weekend...


----------



## Starbeast

*What? Doctors say Homeopathy is Witchcraft?*

Well, I guess doctors ARE demons then.




> "No doctors, no doctors!" - Baron Munchausen (1989)


----------



## skeptical

I am jumping into this debate rather late.  If I repeat anything already said, I apologise.

First : about arnica.   I have seen this in application, and rubbed a little on a sore knee.  The first thing I noticed is that it is cooling.   This has nothing to do with the herb, of course.   It is just the ointment formulation.  However, cooling an inflammation is often therapeutic.   Lots of ointments do this.  So does arnica ointment.

Arnica ointment therefore has two valid ways of working - either as a coolant, or as a placebo.  Possibly a third way, if the herb has some therapeutic drug effect.   So far, I have seen no evidence of this.   The one mechanism we know for sure will not work is the homeopathic one.

Second :   Has anyone quoted the _Lancet_ paper on homeopathy?  A metastudy that combined the results of 110 double blind, randomised, placebo controlled clinical studies.  End result showed that homeopathy = placebo.  This is as close to total 100% "proof" that medical science is able to achieve.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Of course homeopathy is not witchcraft!

A couple of years ago, I was in a motorcycle accident that resulted in the doctors having to amputate both my arms. Since then, I've been on a strictly homeopathic treatment regiment, and I now have arms again.

Placebo effect? I think not!


----------



## skeptical

Well, Devil's Advocate

Since you are coming out so frankly with your personal information, I have to confess that I was born on a different planet under a red sun.   Now on Earth, under a yellow sun, I have superhuman strength and can fly.

Just thought you should know.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

How's Zod doing, Kal?


----------



## skeptical

Actually, D.A., I think you are getting me mixed up with my brother, Kal El.  My name is Mai Lai.


----------



## mosaix

skeptical said:


> Second :   Has anyone quoted the _Lancet_ paper on homeopathy?  A metastudy that combined the results of 110 double blind, randomised, placebo controlled clinical studies.  End result showed that homeopathy = placebo.  This is as close to total 100% "proof" that medical science is able to achieve.



I suppose, when it comes down to it, that homoeopathic remedies being just water they couldn't be anything else really. The liquid equivalent of a sugar pill I suppose.


----------



## Ursa major

Which suggests this advertising slogan:
*Homeopathic Medicine: The Less Fattening Placebo*​


----------



## Peter Graham

> He’d seen something where a person was hypnotised (he said it was a proper thing, not a Derren Brown kind of thing – his words) to believe that a spoon was about to be touched to their arm after being heated to red hot in a fire.


 
No disrespect SF, but this is a classic case of "_a friend told me he'd read something once which said....._". It's not really evidence of anything and even if the Lizard Spoon isn't an urban myth*, there is no way of knowing under what circumstances (and by whom and why) the experiment was carried out.




> isn't this debate nonsensical until you look at both sides of the argument


 
Not really, old corpse. Or, at least, we _are_ looking at both sides of the argument. Either something works or it doesn't. I accept that one should not assume that every conventional drug is Good News, any more than one should assume that every natural remedy is a lot of feeble-minded country tosh. But the basic premise is the same - there are good reasons why things work. And there are equally good reasons why homeopathy, crystal healing, chakras and so much of the rest of the New Age pseudo-science simply cannot work. It would require the discovery of entirely new principles of physics and biology and whilst that might not be impossible, my money is not on snake-oil vendors and self-obsessed confidence tricksters being the ones who stumble across them.

Regards,

Peter

* The "_my friend was at a party where they put a cat in a microwave oven and it exploded_" syndrome, which was a common urban myth when microwave ovens landed in Blighty in the late 70's and early 80's. People hearing the story repeated it to others, but rather than saying "a friend of a friend was at a party etc etc", they would just say "A friend was at a party etc " which gave the story a better sense of credibility. My guess is that this "nearing" approach to repeating stories explains why so many of our so called real life ghost stories have the same themes - walled up nuns, phantom armies, screaming skulls and the serried ranks of Grey Ladies, all of whom were drowned in the duckpond by Squire Basterd.


----------



## Peter Graham

Eek - confusing double post....


----------



## StormFeather

Peter Graham said:


> No disrespect SF, but this is a classic case of "_a friend told me he'd read something once which said....._". It's not really evidence of anything and even if the Lizard Spoon isn't an urban myth*, there is no way of knowing under what circumstances (and by whom and why) the experiment was carried out.


 
Oh, I know that's how it comes across D) _but,_ I guess that I was hoping that amongst the learned and distinguished Chronners who read these threads, there might actually be someone who has some knowledge about this, and be able to provide a more credible source??

After all - the first time I heard about the Lizard level of the brain was on the Mentalist the other night, and I'm not _quite_ daft enough to use that as a concrete source of evidence


----------



## j d worthington

SF: If you haven't already, you might want to take a look on this (and other sources) for more about the "R-complex" or "reptilian complex" section of the brain as it has been proposed:

Reptilian complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boneman

> By Skeptical
> Second : Has anyone quoted the _Lancet_ paper on homeopathy? A metastudy that combined the results of 110 double blind, randomised, placebo controlled clinical studies. End result showed that homeopathy = placebo. This is as close to total 100% "proof" that medical science is able to achieve.


 
Erm... actually, no. The research that the Lancet looked at was carried out by scientists - a bit like asking the Labour party to carry out research into the efficacy of the Tories. Or athiests carrying out research into life after death. And let's not forget that the Lancet published Dr Andrew Wakefield's paper, after their strict rules of peer-review had been followed... you can either be subjective, and believe what _you_ want, or try and find a balanced argument, away from the bias that exists in research. 

Biased? What, scientists? No never, just not possible, these are fine upstanding pillars of the community with no axe to grind whatsoever... If you believe that, then you're definitely in the right place, as this is a fantasy forum...

But in the days of google, it's easy to check for yourself - unless you'd rather take Derren Brown's word for it - by typing in 'scientist research fudged' and spend a few weeks looking at the papers there. When it comes to money, there isn't anything they won't do, to get the right results; take GM food for instance:

www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_print.asp?ID=2705

The main criticism of Homoeopathic research is that it shouldn't be carried out by homoeopaths: in that case, why do doctors carry out research for doctors and scientists carry out research for scientists? Shouldn't the same rules apply equally? And every _so-called scientific_ study is doomed to failure and they know it, which is why they are happy to keep doing it. Why? Well, because Homoeopathy works differently to the drugs that you and I take every day to suppress our symptoms. If two people have sore throats, then they will get different homoeopathic treatments, depending on their own constitutional make-up. But that's okay, the scientists will ignore that and do a double-blind, randomised trial, using 50 people with sore throats and give them all the same remedy. Voila, homeopathy doesn't work! 

And even when it does work, they say it doesn't. I was going to cut and paste some research from Pubmed, about the use of homoeopathy in children with warts, but I think I might be breaking copyright. So google this:

_Homoepathic versus placebo therapy of children with warts on their hands: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial._

and the paper will be listed as the first entry. And you should remember that placebo shouldn't work so well with children, they don't know as much as us adults. Have a look at it, because what they say, and what the results are, are spectacularly different, proved by the statistics they have used to 'disprove' it. 


Now, am I wrong, or does it not say that total cure of warts occured in 5 patients in the treated group? And one in the placebo group? Anyone like to test their statistics using the chi square? I'm sorry but 17% of the treated group had a total cure against 3% of the placebo group and that's 'no apparent difference'? 

"I'm sorry sir, but I'm going to have to cut off 17% of your leg, but there'll be no apparent difference to if I only cut off 3%" 

I know which I'd go for...

The reason they say this, is hidden in the abstract, (but you can find the whole paper if you have access to any scientific community which can use Athens or such). And it's the parameters they have set:


> _The area occupied by warts was measured by computerized planimetry before and after 8 weeks of treatment. _(My underlining) _Reduction of the warty area by at least 50% was considered a response_.


Now within this grouping, ie after 8 weeks, there were 9 in the treated group and 7 in the placebo group, so they're absolutely right!!! 

But imagine carrying out the same type of research with drugs: 
"Sorry, this heart/blood pressure/asthma/cancer (pick any)drug is ineffective as it hadn't produced a result within 8 weeks" 
"But doctor, 17% of the treated group were cured *totally* after that!"
"Sorry, it's only considered effective if it works within the parameters we set for the research. We're not interested, otherwise"

And why wasn't the research carried out comparing Homoeopathy with a branded treatment for warts? Might it have been embarrassing for the producers of said treatment if Homoeopathy had outperformed the drug? We'll never know, but guess what? In this trial, Homeopathy outperformed placebo six times over. *Damn me, they've proved that Homoeopathy isn't a placebo!!* 

Nah, don't be silly, looking at the results after 8 weeks showed virtually no difference between them. Who cares if there was a spectacular result after that time? Well, the 17% might... And if you extrapolate this research into drug research, you can bet the researchers would... 

And I'll leave the last word for now to the BMJ, in an article that looked at Homoeopathy back in 1991: (google 'Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Reit G' and you should find it). And then google 'publication bias' and see what you get.

_The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy._ _CONCLUSIONS: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials._

Would anybody like to suggest that the warty research was well-performed? (Apart from the researchers themselves, who seem to have fallen foul of publication bias....)


----------



## skeptical

Boneman

I do not even know where to begin in pointing out the errors in your post.

For a start : Scientists should not test homeopathy?   For Finagle's sake, guy!   Who the hell else?     

Science is successful because it is a compilation of 400 years experience determining the very best test methods.   Quack medicine is unsuccessful due to a lack of decent testing.   In fact, it matters not who does the testing.  Just that the correct test methods are used, and used rigorously.   Scientists are trained to be utterly rigorous, which makes them by far the best people to carry out such tests.   

The_ Lancet_ is a peer reviewed journal with *very* high standards.   When a metastudy is published, it is checked and rechecked by the panel of reviewers to make damn sure they got it right.  This does not make it immune from error, but the chances of error are way lower than in any homeopathic publication.

The_ Lancet_ study included only randomised, placebo controlled, double blind clinical studies.  This is the 'gold standard' for medical research - the very best test procedure.   Randomised means the patients are divided into two groups using random selection.   Placebo controlled means one group is fed placebo for treatment, while the other is fed the 'proper' therapy - in this case meaning homeopathic remedies.  Double blind means that neither the patients, or the physicians delivering the treatments know whether each treatment is homeopathic or placebo.   This is the very highest standard of testing.   

Single such tests can, nevertheless, get it wrong.  However, combining the results of 110 such 'gold standard' trials leaves a final result that is so close to absolute proof that nothing in science can better it.  I am aware that homeopaths have desperately tried to wriggle out of this one, and quack web sites by the hundreds denounce the _Lancet_ paper.  However, saying a worm barks does not make it a dog.


----------



## Moonbat

The 





> _Homoepathic versus placebo therapy of children with warts on their hands: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial._


 webpage had very little details, and actually said the homeopathic remedies were of a minimum factor of 1:1024 (or thereabouts) which seems a long way from the 1:10000000 that we are used to from most homeopathic remedies.


----------



## StormFeather

I think that one of the problems that has been highlighted here, and on other threads, is that you can probably find a scientific study to back up pretty much anything. And as soon as one study is done, another comes along to contradict it.

Anyone remember that you shouldn't eat eggs because they contain a high level of cholesterol? But then you should eat several eggs a week because it's a _different_ kind of cholesterol, and actually eggs are beneficial.

Or, and I saw this recently on The Story of Science on BB2, when Radium was first discovered by scientists, how it went into everything. You could buy radium water purifiers, radium toothpaste, even radium condoms - because the scientists thought it was an amazing new discovery and it was promoted as the latest, life preserving wonder. 

And, more recently - Andrew Wakefield of the MMR scandal. His paper appeared in the peer-reviewed Lancet, as apparent scientific fact. He has since been discredited, along with all his research.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that you should probably take such things as untested, or even tested trials of anything (including conventional medicine) with a grain of salt (unless there are many comparable studies with proven results).  What's 'truth' from a science perspective can change with subsequent discoveries. Or even the latest study done with a different criteria. 

Science doesn't have all the answers - yet.


----------



## skeptical

Stormfeather

Science is about testing. Quoting the early use of Radium as a therapeutic measure is not a valid comment, since it was never tested scientifically for its health effects, at that time. Instead a bunch of idiotic enthusiasts marketed it vigorously without evidence.

A better example might be thalidomide, which was approved after testing. Sadly, the one test they did not perform on thalidomide was its teratogenicity. We know better today, and many teratogenicity tests are performed on all modern drugs.

There are also the occasional cases of fraud and cheating in science, such as Wakefield and the MMR vaccine.   This does not apply to homeopathy testing, since we are looking at the combined results of hundreds of separate trials.

Homeopathy has been tested to within an inch of its life and is bogus. Even the theory of homeopathy is bogus. There is no way in science, or even in common sense, that it can work.


----------



## StormFeather

Hi Skeptical 

I'm not saying homeopathy is right or all other scientific research is wrong. 

And you are right - I didn't give the best examples. But scientific truth does change as new discoveries occur. And it's not just about the tests, but about the scopes and limitations of such tests, and, perhaps more crucially, the interpretations of the results. Scientists are rarely unbiased. More often than not, they carry out tests, expecting the results to back up their findings so far. . . .

All I'm saying is that perhaps it's just me, but I take every latest 'scientific' revelation with a huge pinch of scepticism. The media hypes everything to the nth degree, and even on the internet you can find 'evidence' to support pretty much any theory that you care to believe. 

There are still plenty of people who believe in Dr Wakefield. Despite everything to the contrary.

I, myself, will continue to give my kids the arnica remedy as it seems to work. Yes, it's probably down to the placebo effect, or even the placebo-by-proxy effect of me believing that it will work on them. I'm happy to accept that. To be honest, I don't really care what the mechanism is. If it's something that calms them down, and through some method reduces the swelling - I will pay for it. I won't pay for things that don't work, however, and I have tried other things. (I have a GP who has given me free homeopathic remedies in the past - I tried them, they didn't work, so I don't use them anymore)

I thank you though, as you have made me consider my opinions in more depth - I may not agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying but at least I've considered it!


----------



## skeptical

Stormfeather

As my name suggests, I firmly believe in the value of a little skepticism. That includes being skeptical about the discoveries of science. I am very skeptical about some of them myself.

The key is the amount and credibility of evidence. A single test, even when it follows the 'gold standard' may be wrong. When over 100 such tests are carried out by independent testers, and the results agree, then being over-skeptical is the same as being stupid.

On arnica, that is up to you. I would recommend an ice pack, since ice works very well on sprains and swellings, and this is backed up by numerous scientific tests. Arnica works as well as placebo, but not as well as an ice pack. Ice is also cheaper. As well as reducing swelling, ice is extremely good at reducing pain and discomfort - much more so than arnica.  Neither ice nor arnica will, however, speed healing.  That is just a function of time.


----------



## StormFeather

Hi Skeptical,

You are very correct with regards to an ice pack. However - have you ever tried to hold an ice pack to a child?

I, personally, have had a variety of injuries that indicated ice as a remedy (such as sprains and burns - I'm not the greatest cook in the world but I try). I cannot stand to have an ice pack applied. For me, the pain of the cold is worse than the pain of the injury. Even on burns, I find the cold even worse than the burn in 90% of occasions. 

I've qualified as a paediatric nurse , and I've done my first aid courses, so I know what to do in the majority of circumstances - but, I'm also practical. I have a son who can just about tolerate cold flannels, and a daughter who seems sturdy enough to withstand pretty much anything. The 'magic medicine' of the little white pills however, does go a long way to calm them down in the face of major bumps and bruises. On that basis alone (aside from the apparent (to me) lessening of swelling) - I will carry on giving them arnica as a remedy.


----------



## skeptical

Stormfeather

On administering ice packs.

The way I do it is to put crushed ice (I have even been known to use frozen peas) in a plastic bag, and then put the plastic bag inside a cotton cloth exterior.  Wrapping in a dish towel will do.   The cotton stops the cold being painful.


----------



## ColdBurn

i don't know from science or homeopathy, but I know this: peanut butter mixed with garlic will relieve a toothache, at least as long as you need to see a dentist.


----------



## Boneman

Skeptical, you totally misunderstood me (and I'm trying to be a writer!!). I did not say that scientists should not do research into Homoeopathy. Of course scientists can do research into Homoeopathy, what I was trying (unsucessfully) to say, is that the scientific community deliberately and continually ignores research carried by Homoeopaths into Homoeopathy, and will only consider research carried out by scientists... As I think I said, the allopathic model cannot be applied to Homoeopathy, and to do so, is not only disingenuous, but it negates the scientific research itself, when that happens. So, 



> _The Lancet study included only randomised, placebo controlled, double blind clinical studies. This is the 'gold standard' for medical research - the very best test procedure. Randomised means the patients are divided into two groups using random selection. Placebo controlled means one group is fed placebo for treatment, while the other is fed the 'proper' therapy - in this case meaning homeopathic remedies. Double blind means that neither the patients, or the physicians delivering the treatments know whether each treatment is homeopathic or placebo. This is the very highest standard of testing_.


 
of the 110 studies that the Lancet article looked at, how many of the 110 complied with the homoeopathic model? 

The reason I included the research into the warts was because it actually complied with the homoeopathic model, using individualised homoeopathic treatments, rather than a blanket selection of one remedy for all. But you could dismiss this as only being one case. Trying to find more research from the scientific community that is carried out correctly, is like looking for the preverbial needle in a haystack.

But there's a somewhat different take on a review of Randomised Controlled trials at the Faculty of Homoeopathy. These are Doctors, not _



 snake-oil vendors and self-obsessed confidence tricksters

Click to expand...

_ as Peter Graham puts it. 

_



			Between 1950 and 2009, 142
		
Click to expand...

_


> _randomised controlled trials__ (RCTs) in homeopathy have been reported. This represents research in 74 different medical conditions. Of these 142 trials, 63 were positive, 11 negative and 68 non-conclusive. _
> _A meta-analysis published in *The Lancet* in 1997 included 186 placebo controlled studies of homeopathy, from which data for analysis could be extracted from 89.4 The overall mean odds ratio for these 89 clinical trials was 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05–2.93) in favour of homeopathy (individualized treatment, single or complex homeopathic medicines, or isopathy). Even after correction for publication bias, the results remained statistically significant. The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo”._


 
Go to www.facultyofhomoeopathy.org/research/ 

_



			The Lancet is a peer reviewed journal with *very* high standards.
		
Click to expand...

 _By Skeptical

And it says that: _*The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo*”. _So it's not just me, the Lancet says it... you didn't tell us that...

Must be an error? Here's what Science-Based Medicine has to say on that:



> _What is also at issue, however, is the integrity of the published peer-reviewed medical research. Again – there is not the expectation that peer-reviewed research will always get the answer right. In fact, the published research stands as an important record of error – the blind alleys, red herrings, false correlations, and erroneous conclusions that are part of the history of science._
> _However, error should not include scientific fraud, or science that is thoroughly misrepresented _


 
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3716 

So, if science-based medicine does not have an expectation that peer-reviewed research will always get the answer right, how the hell can we? 

Is science thoroughly misrepresenting the 110 cases that Skeptical talks of? Unless one has access to the full research paper, and can analyse each of those 110 cases,(to see whether those papers applied allopathic principles to homoeopathic research) then it is impossible to say. 

So, if you fall back on a _belief _that the Lancet article was fact,(when you have no way of proving it) then at least come out and say that it's your belief. Perhaps what you should have the courage to say, is this:
By Skeptical _



I believe Homeopathy has been tested to within an inch of its life and is bogus. I believe even the theory of homeopathy is bogus. There is no way, at the moment, in science, or even in common sense, that I believe it can work.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
Shall we look at acupuncture next? 'Twas dismissed by Science-Based Medicine for millenia until Melzack and Wall's research... now hundreds of thousands of Doctors use it, and research has shown its efficacy...


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Boneman said:


> Shall we look at acupuncture next? 'Twas dismissed by Science-Based Medicine for millenia until Melzack and Wall's research... now hundreds of thousands of Doctors use it, and research has shown its efficacy...


 
Tattooing 5,300 Years Ago | TattooSymbol.com


----------



## skeptical

Re acupuncture

I have a friend who is a doctor treating members of the public.   He decided to give acupuncture a go.  He did a special training course for converting qualified doctors into qualified acupuncturists. His trainer said that "acupuncure is very forgiving", meaning that they should not get too worried about inserting needles into the wrong place.

My friend found this was totally correct.   Indeed, he let himself get more and more careless, and ended up sticking needles into all the wrong places, and still getting exactly the same results as he did initially, when very careful about where to insert.   At the end, he realised that the results were totally due to suggestion, and he dropped acupuncture altogether.

Since he told me about this, I have read several reports of research into acupuncture.   It is difficult to set up a 'placebo' as a control for tests of acupuncture, since the patients know damn well when they are being stuck and when they are not.  So researchers tend to use needles stuck in the 'wrong' places as controls.   The inevitable conclusion is that it does not matter a damn where the needles go.  This casts a serious pall on the efficacy of acupuncture, apart from the power of suggestion or placebo effect.

My conclusion is that acupuncture has all the validity of homeopathy, meaning none at all apart from placebo.

Boneman.  You should not use the term 'allopathy'.   In terms of modern medicine, it has no meaning.   It was coined by the inventor of homeopathy as an insulting term for orthodox medicine, and has meaning only as an insult.  Initially, it meant any treatment not directed at symptoms.   Since orthodox medicine is directed at the* cause* of disease rather than the symptoms, then that was accurate.  However, meanings change and it now just means orthodox - an insult when used by those who practice fakery.

Apart from that, your post is just so wrong that it is not worth my time and effort to challenge.  Clearly, you are a supporter of so-called 'alternative' medicine.  Arguing with you is like arguing with a Mormon who denies that Joseph Smith was a criminal (which he was).   

The good scientific data showing homeopathy does not work is available, and in abundance.  However, spurious web sites arguing the opposite are in even greater abundance, and this is an argument that cannot be won, as long as you persist with your 'alternative' enthusiasm.


----------



## StormFeather

Going to throw my hat into the ring again!

I have never had any direct experience of acupuncture, so what I'm about to state is anecdotal- much the same as skeptical's Dr friend who trained in acupuncture.

My boss suffers from chronic back pain due to inoperable curvature of the spin. About 18 months ago she went through one of her periodic bouts of the pain becoming extremely acute and unmanageable. She was off work for 3 months, and only managed periodic attendance for the following 3-4 months. Part of the reason she was off for so long was that the medication she was given was so strong that she was unable to function as a coherent adult. At times, she lost the ability to communicate, couldn't understand her surroundings, and had to be hospitalised for her own safety.

As a norm, when the situation was just chronic, she takes a mix of painkillers, including opiates and nsaids. These don't always have the desired effect.

After the last bout, someone (and I'm not sure if this was from the healthcare community or one of her friends) suggested that she tried acupuncture. Initially reluctant, she did give it a go. She now goes weekly, and has been able to siginificantly reduce her standard pain medication since her first appointment. She hasn't had an acute attack in the last year, and would have normally had one or two occasions where she would be in enough pain to prevent her working (she's nearly 40 and has had this all her life so is fully aware of what is normal for her)

Now, I haven't studied acupuncture so I really don't understand it all that much. I'm prepared to believe that the results are totally due to a patients own perceptions and expectations. Maybe it's just because the person receiving treatment is actually taking time out to put themselves first in a normally hectic lifestyle. Maybe, it actually works. I can't say. 
_But,_ for whatever reason, it seems to work for some people. 

I'm not a fan of anyone taking any form of medication for longer than is absolutely necessary, especially if it can escalate into dependancy and/or addiction. If a person is able to reduce their drug use by a considerable amount through acupuncture, then I think that, in itself, has some merit. Don't you?

Skeptical - I'm genuinely curious as to whether your friend felt that any actual harm was being caused to his patients, either when he did things correctly or when he became more careless? You say that the results happened no matter where he stuck the needles. If the result was the postive one that would have been expected had he done it correctly - is that still a bad thing?


----------



## skeptical

Stormfeather

Acupuncture can cause serious harm, but only if the practitioner is careless.  Needles must be sterile, or they can transfer disease, including fatal disease.   There are cases of people with hepatitis after acupuncture, and much larger numbers of cases of lesser harm coming from transfer of infection to acupuncture sites.
A LARGE OUTBREAK OF ACUPUNCTURE-ASSOCIATED HEPATITIS B -- KENT et al. 127 (3): 591 -- American Journal of Epidemiology

My doctor friend said that acupuncture was a very lucrative game.   He could charge $50 to $100 per session, and there was nothing expensive to cover.   (Being a doctor, I doubt he ever used non sterile needles).  The thing is, that the benefits of acupuncture, being all in the mind, are temporary.  Acupuncture patients therefore return frequently.  Each such patient will pay his/her acupuncturist several hundred dollars per month.  Given a few hundred patients, such regular income adds up!

One of the factors that works for alternative practitioners of all ilks is the simple reality that most illnesses tend to get better over time. I know someone who had bad back pain.  After a few days of this, she prayed for relief, which gradually came over the next few days.  She now preaches that she was healed by prayor.   I have tried to tell her that back pain normally runs a course of up to a week, and the prayor had nothing to do with it, but you cannot overcome religious faith with logic.

Your friend who tried acupuncture and got relief was probably in that position.   While acupuncture is quite capable of delivering relief via the placebo effect, its more dramatic results come from the fact that most people get better regardless of treatment.


----------



## StormFeather

Fair points and something to consider.

I obviously didn't make myself clear. My boss was _born_ with curvature of the spine - I can't remember which type, probably scoliosis. This is not a temporary condition, has been with her all her life, and will be until the day she dies. It causes her constant pain, to a greater or lesser degree.

Now, I take your point that the 'relief' that acupuncture may provide - albeit a self-induced, placebo kind of effect - is temporary. However, the relief provided by a painkiller is also temporary, and long-term use of strong painkillers can lead to all kinds of problems in their own right.

Given her circumstances, where the pain is not temporary and will never clear up by itself, if I was in that position, I'd be willing to give acupunture a go. Especially given that she's a single parent, and her last acute bout, where she had to be hospitalised for her own safety, meant that she couldn't care for her child, and that since having acupunture she hasn't had any acute bouts for the last 12 months.


----------



## skeptical

Stormfeather

The power of the mind is pretty damn potent.  Acupuncture is a treatment that has its greatest effect on pain.   It is good for arthritis, headaches, back pain etc.    However, it cannot aid in problems with genuine organic causes.   Acupuncture never cured appendicitis, or any serious infection.  It never stopped cancer, or sped the healing of injury.

Acupuncture has its greatest effect in those conditions that respond to suggestion.   Mainly pain and discomfort.  However, it cannot cure the underlying causes of pain.

There was a very interesting article a few years back in_ Scientific American _about the placebo effect.   Apparently, in about 30% of the population, this can be quite potent, and result in substantial reduction of pain.  For those who are susceptible to the placebo effect, it can be quite potent.

So should you use acupuncture instead of painkillers?   My answer is no.   The reason is that acupuncture is limited in its effects to placebo, which means only 30% get maximum benefit.  Painkillers will have the placebo effect also, but have the added advantage that they are genuinely effective in stopping the pain impulses in your nerves.  Thus, they work for everyone, and work twice as well for those who repond to placebos.


----------



## Peter Graham

These debates always run a danger of descending into the War of the Internet Sources.  

Let's look at the basics.

Homeopathy is based on the principle that water retains memories of things dissolved in it and the memory gets stronger at lower concentrations.

So, can anyone help me with the following questions:-

1.  How does water retain memories and can other substances do the same thing?  

2.  How does diluting something make it stronger?  (I've tried a little exepriment and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for Scotch).

3.  Does a sample of water retain a memory of _everything_ it's ever been in contact with?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Wybren

I have been reading up on this since the thread was first posted. I was originally under the assumption that homeopathy was a general term used for alternate remedies. Now I see that it is not at all what I thought it was. 
My first thoughts are that it is very illogical (re Peter's above points) my second thoughts are that it is dangerous. Not physically harmful, but because people can be easily lead to believing that it has this trememdous healing power -which all the journal articles I read showed the opposite - and may choose to use homeopaths when they have life threatening illness instead of seeking medical help.

There was a recent case here in australia where a homeopath couple where charged with manslaughter over their baby daughter's death due to them failing to seek appropriate medical help over their daughters sever eczema choosing instead to treat her with their homeopathic medications 'Homeopathy' Parents Charged Over Baby Daughter Gloria's Death In Australia | World News | Sky News 

This is quite frightening when you think about it.


----------



## mygoditsraining

It's funny that there's any debate at all, well it is to me, because homeopathy is the medicinal analogy to vanity publishing.  It's not really publishing, but it carries the appearance of it; likewise homeopathy - it has no basis in actual fact, but instead presents the appearance of an earnest, esoteric medical science.

And people buy both, because what people buy into is not the effect but the dream of an effect.  It's why people go see faith surgeons and have chicken livers palmed "out" of their bodies in lieu of whatever is lurking inside.  People desperately want to believe that there's something greater than the pie-and-beans mundanity they see all around them, and they're willing to pay through the nose to justify that belief.

The real shame is, though, that the world is far bigger and more wondrous than the pie-and-beans we lumber ourselves with.  You just have to let go of the solipsistic worldview that homeopathy and other snake-oil treatments use as leverage against you.  There are no crystal children; there is no higher purpose; that cold you've got will most likely go away by itself.  

Meanwhile, to paraphrase Doctor Who, you're clinging to the skin of a giant ball of mostly molten rock that's spinning at a thousand miles per hour (at the equator) through an endless chasm of darkness and emptiness.  Isn't that absolutely amazing?  Doesn't it make your mind reel with the sheer enormity of it?  We're flying through space!  We orbit the sun at a whopping 66 thousand miles per hour - that's 18 miles per second, plus a little change!

While I'm here, there _are_ some substances, mostly clays and certain types of plastic, that retain a physical memory of other substances that have been mixed with or passed through them.  This is usually due to very local changes in the tertiary structure (such as planes in a crystal lattice or regions where semi-amorphous materials become amorphous).  The "memory", however can be fairly limited - although in some cases it can be extremely striking.  Silicon polymers are generally rather boring lumps of goo, but by bathing them in supercritical carbon dioxide then releasing the pressure, you can create a material that is both incredibly "dilute" (90+ percent of its volume will be air) and has unusual physical properties (huge surface area).  This could be termed a memory material, as the polymer retains a structure determined by exposure to CO2 - and yet it retains this structure once the CO2 is gone. Again - really amazing stuff, zero magic involved.


----------



## skeptical

To mgir

Thanks for that.  Nice post.
Yes, homeopathy is 'magic'.   No-one who has a clear rational mind could possibly believe its superstitions.


----------



## ventanamist

Oh boy. Tough one this. For me anyway. Living near Totnes Devon where every other person is a therapist of some sort, I am surrounded by people who are totally convinced by homeopathy and lots of other stuff too. Of course its tosh. It has to be. I detest bad science and it certainly seems to be bad science. But, but, but. I detest narrow science too. It annoys me when scientists lump all the dodgy stuff together under the placebo heading. Nice and tidy - give it a name - a bit of a nuisance - you just have to make allowances for it when you're working out the effectiveness of real cures.

That's tosh too. Most cures have a huge amount of the placebo effect. In fact many familiar drugs should be regarded as placebo enhancers - if you don't know you're taking them their effectiveness is severely reduced or eliminated altogether.

If there was a drug that had an equivalent effect to the placebo, it would be a true miracle cure. Billions of pounds/dollars would be put into investigating its active ingredients, enhancing its effectiveness and finding similar miracle cures. Instead, research seems to find it just an inconvenience.

but it is being researched, probably not very well, by a mixed bag of quirky but committed people. Maybe more scientists would be interested if there was a product at the end that could be sold in chemists throughout the world. Big bucks!

 Yes, I think homeopathy is probably rubbish, although my mind is open enough to consider the faint possibility that there is possibly something in it. I tend to agree with Newton - who seems to be the father of rationalist science - that in our understanding of the universe, we are just children playing with pebbles on the seashore.


----------



## skeptical

To vent

When you start looking into alternative medicines, you discover that scientists are not actually narrow minded.   Think about it.   If you were a scientist, and you were the first to thoroughly investigate an alternative therapy, and found it was a wonderful new treatment that revolutionised medicine ....

Your reputation would be made.  You would be able to trot the very lucrative speakers circuit, write books, and end up a famous mega millionnaire.

As a result, alternative medicines are generally well tested by lots of scientists, many of who are hoping desperately that they are going to discover that it works so they can get on the gravy train.

Sadly, none of this has happened.   Lots of therapies have been touted by lots of hopefuls, and these have been properly and rigorously tested by medical scientists.   Apart from a few herbal remedies that have been modified and turned into pharmaceutical products, I cannot think of a single effective treatment or system of treatments that has stood up to rigorous testing and become mainstream medicine.


----------



## The Procrastinator

skeptical said:


> When you start looking into alternative medicines, you discover that scientists are not actually narrow minded.



What an odd sentence. 

Anyway, I think one of Vent's points is if you can tap into the power of placebo that's a lot more effective than nothing - and if the product is harmless but produces the placebo effect, then you've still got something. Lets face it there are a lot of "quirky" people out there, who prefer to buy Alternative Placebo. Otherwise the industry wouldn't exist. Most aren't "quirky" enough to let their poor kid die rather than seek proven medical assistance, thankfully. But people that extreme are going to invent a wacko treatment if they can't find one.

Personally I am mildly quirky and will seek alternative remedies (I draw the line at homeopathy though) for most non-serious ailments if I can. Scientists may not be narrow-minded, but scientists are far from the full story when it comes to pharmaceuticals. I find it pays to be a little sceptical in both directions - human nature being what it is.

Having said that I have no tolerance for alternative remedies that overstate their efficacy (if they say it _will_ do something they better be able to prove it), and while I appreciate the effect they can have on the gullible, well, you're never going to be rid of gullible people and people who take advantage. I would not like to see alternative methods banned simply for lack of scientific proof...not sure about homeopathy though. I like the individual approach they take - whole-body, whole-person, each person different - and I think that has value (particularly when a visit to many doctors over here is more like a supermarket checkout experience). Maybe that's what induces the placebo in some? But I still think the actual method of producing the medication is completely bizarre rubbish. I throw up my hands.


----------



## skeptical

Procrastinator

I have encountered your placebo argument many times before.   While it has some merit, it fails on three counts :
1.  If you have an ailment, it needs proper diagnosis, because it might turn out to be serious, and require serious treatment.   This accurate diagnosis and the subsequent essential treatment very likely will not occur if you consult an alternative practitioner.
2.  If you are looking for placebo effect, you will get that also from a conventional therapy.   If you had, for example, swine flu, the tamiflu you would be given will attack the flu, and will have a placebo effect on top.   If you got a homeopathic remedy, there would be only the placebo effect.
3.  Not everyone is susceptable to the placebo effect.   So relying on it denies a whole lot of people any treatment at all.

Your comments about whole-body, whole person approach are not really valid.  There is an advantage to a more sympathetic approach - spending time to give the patient a 'warm fuzzy' feeling of being cared for.   This is better described as psychological rather than 'whole-body', which is a term with no real meaning.

It is unfortunate that so many conventional physicians are too busy to spend that time.  Despite that, I will go for their expertise any time over the superstitious nonsense of alternative practitioners.


----------



## Peter Graham

> I would not like to see alternative methods banned simply for lack of scientific proof


 
I'm not sure that anyone is advocating banning anything.  But I share your view - if someone makes great claims for the efficacy of something (be that GSK or Bug-eyed Dave the Glastonbury Crystal Guru), let them prove it.  Properly.  And if they can't (or won't even try, as is more often the case), they cannot get upset if they are regarded as con-artists.




> not sure about homeopathy though. I like the individual approach they take - whole-body, whole-person, each person different - and I think that has value (particularly when a visit to many doctors over here is more like a supermarket checkout experience).


 
But this is only a valid criticism of the way that our publicly funded NHS works.  It says nothing of the efficacy of conventional medicine.  I've not noticed too many healers who give of their time and ... erm... expertise free at the point of delivery to all comers (like the NHS does).  There may be some who do, but for the most part, discussions of how to heal one's holistic inner self and deep energies are usually followed in fairly short order by discussions about the rather more prosaic issue of pounds sterling.




> Maybe that's what induces the placebo in some?


 
I think you are right.  But the placebo effect has serious limitations in terms of scope and effect.  It works for _some_ types of condition, but by no means all.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Chinook

"If you think good thoughts in winter, only the "beautiful" snow will fall on you." 


Disclaimer: This statement in no way reflects the opinions of the author or SFF Chronicles. It was merely a fleeting sophomore statement with a hint of sarcasm.


----------



## Chinook

Peter Graham said:


> ... for the most part, discussions of how to heal one's holistic inner self and deep energies are usually followed in fairly short order by discussions about the rather more prosaic issue of pounds sterling.


 
For a nominal service charge, you could reach Nirvana tonight.


----------



## Moonbat

Today's new scientist has a small piece (in the online section) about Acupuncture releasing pain killers, but when I went online to read about it I couldn't find the above mentioned article.
but I did find links to two other acupuncture related articles one claiming it is all in the mind the other claiming it realy works (with the brain scans to prove it)

So this shows that research is being done on alternative technicques and that they don't always agree.


----------



## Simple Simon

We'll I know I've seen a research article before (not a notion where though) that concluded acupuncture does seem to have non placebo effects due to the fact that the multiple punctures created in the body kick starts regenerative process's that can have an effect on the condition the acupuncture was being used for. 
It did state though there seemed to be no difference with sticking people randomly and sticking people in the chi spots acupuncture uses.


----------



## skeptical

Of course acupuncture works, as does homeopathy, and psychic surgery, and every other form of quackery you can imagine.  The pacebo effect, after all, can be quite potent.

Scientists who study these things observe the placebo effect in action.   This can be reflected in all sorts of ways, from endorphin release, to increased healing etc.  With most kinds of quackery, it is possible to establish a placebo control.   That is rather difficult with acupuncture, since most people can tell when a needle is being stuck into them!

For this reason, acupuncture trials use, as a control, needles stuck into the 'wrong' place.   This 'control' gives therapeutic benefits equal to the needles in the 'correct' place.  I suppose it was inevitable that acupuncturists would claim that needles in the wrong place were also a valid form of acupuncture, since this also elicits the placebo response.


----------



## J-WO

Chinook said:


> For a nominal service charge, you could reach Nirvana tonight.



Hey, who you foolin' with that cosmic debris?


----------



## The Procrastinator

skeptical said:


> It is unfortunate that so many conventional physicians are too busy to spend that time.  Despite that, I will go for their expertise any time over the superstitious nonsense of alternative practitioners.



Yes, this was my point (not the efficacy of placebo). While you personally prefer a conventional doctor, many people don't. Why is this so? Its not only the whackos that go for alternative treatments. What do the alternative methods have that conventional medicine lacks?


----------



## mosaix

The Procrastinator said:


> What do the alternative methods have that conventional medicine lacks?



Usually, no extensive testing or research. 

But, I think, many people are suspicious of conventional medicine because of its links with government and big business. Unfortunately, as attempts are made to find cures for the most complex and difficult ailments it is only the money and research capabilities of big business that is going to have any degree of success.

I think the days are gone where simple, naturally occurring remedies are going to be found - they've probably all be discovered.


----------



## mygoditsraining

mosaix said:


> many people are suspicious of conventional medicine because of its links with government and big business.
> 
> I think the days are gone where simple, naturally occurring remedies is going to be found - they've probably all be discovered.



Two points:

On the first part, I think people should be even more suspicious of left-field claims for the very same reason - Andrew Wakefield's attempt to link autism and the MMR vaccine coincided with his employment by a lawyer seeking any medical basis with which to link autism with vaccines.  He also reccommended switching to single-vaccine practice - but only after patenting a new single-delivery measles vaccine that would never be profitable as long as the MMR jab existed.  I think it's imperative in this day and age to look at everything sensational from the angle of _who is profiting from this?_

Likewise, it has just come out that a trio of scientists widely publicised during the swine flu epidemic as stating the necessity of Tamiflu stockpiles were on the pharmaceutical company's payroll.  It AMAZES me that people are suprised by this - anyone who actually read up on Tamiflu would have discovered that, generally speaking, it reduced the time spent incapacitated by swine flu by approximately 1 day.  One day is important for people who are otherwise vulnerable or very ill already, but for the vast majority it is meaningless.

Mind you, in both of these cases I hold the media more accountable than the financial backers for the resulting poop-storm that both engendered.


On the second point, I think there are still lots of interesting compounds to be found, and there is plenty of work to be done in synthesising them once isolated.  Taxol was discovered in 1967 and it took until the 90's before a synthetic method was finished.  There are a lot of groups out there looking for novel compounds with potential pharmaceutical value (for example, I used to work in a group that isolated kinase inhibitor compounds found almost exclusively in one sub-family of sea cucumbers - very odd).


----------



## Chinook

J-WO said:


> Hey, who you foolin' with that cosmic debris?


 
Careful now, either you're showing your age, or your parents (or someone older you knew) listened to Zappa. 

"The mystery man got nervous, and fidgeted around a bit. He reached in the pocket of his mystery robe, and he whipped out a shaving kit. Now, I thought it was a razor, and a can of foaming goo, but he told me right then when the top popped open that there was nothin' his box won't do!"


----------



## J-WO

Yup, FZ pretty much summed up homeopathy and its ilk with those lyrics.

I was made to watch *The Secret* the other night, the visual version of that lamentable new-age bestseller. One of the speakers job descriptions was simply 'visionary'. How does anyone apply for a job like that?


----------



## Moonbat

> How does anyone apply for a job like that?


 
Yo have to _see_ it advertised


----------



## Ursa major

J-WO said:


> I was made to watch *The Secret* the other night....





Surely this meets the criteria of a cruel and unusual punishment (mentioned not only in the US Bill of Rights but in our own of 1689, not to mention its appearance in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).


----------



## J-WO

Not quite. I've a friend who's going through a bit of a self-help/gullible stage and, huh, well I guess I just like watching motorway pile ups...

The Secret claims that Plato, Newton and Einstein knew about it and then produces absolutely no evidence for these assertions. 

'The Secret' is the most egocentric 'universe runs to our mental outlook' tosh. But I'd probably watch it again. Funny as hell.


----------



## Chinook

J-WO said:


> I was made to watch *The Secret* the other night...



I was made to_ be_ the* Secret*, but then someone let it out.


----------



## ventanamist

I can't let this fade into the archives folks. You think you've wrapped this one up. You haven't. I don't think you've got the point at all. Yes homoeopathy is witchcraft. It isn't science. It isn't even very good quasi science; it doesn't even stand up under its own strange logic.

 
   But!

 
   We really mustn't dismiss it. Why do so many doctors refer their patients to homoeopaths? Good grief, some even prescribe it themselves. Why do so many otherwise sensible people believe in it? Is it just another example of humanity's immense capacity for deception and self-deception. Are they just deluded simpletons. We're talking about doctors with years of experience.

 
   Yes, homoeopathy is witchcraft. But a huge chunk of the healing process is, to all intents and purposes, witchcraft.

 
   I brought up the placebo effect earlier in this thread only for it to be largely ignored. It often is tidied away as another of those inconvenient truths, just a weird effect that has to be factored in when working out the effectiveness of chemicals on the human body.

 
   There is an unscientific assumption – Dare I say 'belief' – that the placebo phenomenon is small, predictable and short lived; some kind of universal constant that can be factored in to our calculations. It is none of these. It is vast and wild and full of surprises. It is not a constant. It is a variable, subject to a wide variety of factors. It cannot be ignored if your business is healing people.

 
   The phrases 'just placebo', 'only placebo', 'no better than placebo' and 'after discounting the placebo effect' crop up again and again. They illustrate the widespread reluctance to engage with this phenomenon, by talking down its significance.

 
   So why do experienced doctors refer people to homoeopaths? Up until fairly recently, many doctors would prescribe antibiotics for viral infections even though they might weaken the body and hinder the healing process. On the face of it this is worse than giving them a sugar pill and of course it is one of the factors that has weakened the effectiveness of the antibiotics themselves.

 
   Did they do this because they just wanted to get rid of the patient. Maybe some of them did but many did it because it works. It is a powerful placebo. Antibiotics have an aura of effectiveness, a true miracle drug, especially for older people who recall its introduction – powerful magic, dare I say 'witchcraft'.

 
   Homoeopathy serves the same purpose without the disadvantages of antibiotics. It has the aura of effectiveness, it has a theoretical underpinning ranging from the sterile quasi scientific to the brazenly mystical. It has a historical pedigree way older than most modern drugs. It is dispensed by people who are convinced by it, who lavish much time and thought on the patient. These are all factors that increase the placebo phenomenon.

 
   If homoeopathy didn't exist we would probably have to make it up. As it is we will probably have to accept it until the placebo phenomenon is investigated fully and someone comes up with a more comprehensive way of stimulating the self-healing process. And whatever that is folks, I'm afraid it will probably still look a bit like witchcraft.


----------



## mosaix

> So why do experienced doctors refer people to homoeopaths?



Because some doctors are just as gullible as their patients. There's nothing 'special' about being a doctor.

And why do you regard the mention of the placebo affect as 'talking down'? The placebo effect is extremely important in medicine.


----------



## Vertigo

I belive there have been some serious experiments to try and use the placebo effect actively. I mentioned on another thread about a study that took and actor who studied an apparently successful "faith healer" for a while and then emulated him. The actor actually generated slightly better results than the faith healer. The conclusion was that the placebo effect can be a very effective treatment and that all that was necessary is that the patient truly believes that something has been done to them that will have a real effect, whether it be an alternative treatment or medicines or a placebo. In the case of the actor he was just more convincing than the "real thing". So long as they truly believe in it, it can be remarkably effective. This is not to say that faith healing works in itself just that we haven't yet fully explored our own body's ability to heal itself. After all if you stop to think about it the vast majority of our illnesses; coughs, colds, infections, cuts, bruises etc are very efficiently healed by our own bodies.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Um, nooooooooooooo, witchcraft is witchcraft.

I should know, one of my sisters is a practitioner of witchcraft, and my mom worked in a homeopathic pharmacy for years.

Funny, nobody I know has died ever from any homeopathic drug.

But I know several that have died from prescription drugs.

And that wasn't the placebo effect, either.

And here's some food for thought---all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature. Since original "doctors", mainly priests, rabbis, nuns, midwives, ect....used herbs, incense, and so forth to heal the sick.............


----------



## skeptical

The fact that homeopathy can have a placebo effect is not an excuse to use it.

Bullsh!t is bullsh!t, no matter how you dress it up.   In every case, when a doctor is faced with an ailment that he/she thinks will respond to placebo, there is a better alternative than homeopathy.  Sometimes it may be something like a vitamin D tablet, or even an antibiotic.  All that is needed is for the doctor to convince the patient that it is good, and the placebo effect will cut in.  So why not give something with a genuine benefit, even if it is just a vitamin pill?

Homeopathic medicine is a lie and a swindle.   Even when it has a therapeutic placebo effect, that effect is still based on a lie.   Modern medicine is based on science - not on lies.


----------



## J-WO

dustinzgirl said:


> And here's some food for thought---all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature. Since original "doctors", mainly priests, rabbis, nuns, midwives, ect....used herbs, incense, and so forth to heal the sick.............



And a third of Europe went on to die of plague.  

Which just about highlights the titanic powers of the placebo effect.


----------



## chrispenycate

dustinzgirl said:


> Um, nooooooooooooo, witchcraft is witchcraft.
> 
> I should know, one of my sisters is a practitioner of witchcraft, and my mom worked in a homeopathic pharmacy for years.
> 
> Funny, nobody I know has died ever from any homeopathic drug.
> 
> But I know several that have died from prescription drugs.
> 
> And that wasn't the placebo effect, either.
> 
> And here's some food for thought---all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature. Since original "doctors", mainly priests, rabbis, nuns, midwives, ect....used herbs, incense, and so forth to heal the sick.............



Ah, but the theory of homeopathy is that using herbs is too powerful, they need to be diluted until they're indetectable.

And I did have a friend who died in a homeopathic clinic, refusing conventional treatment. Two kids, seven and twelve, gifted musician, person I liked a lot, father a medical doctor.

I can't, however, say conventional treatment would have saved her. The "what ifs" in this life are impenetrable.  But her husband told me that the doctors had thought she would probably have lasted at least another five years, although they would probably not have been very pleasant ones.

So, better or worse? It was entirely her choice.


----------



## j d worthington

Yes, people have died from prescription drugs; usually through either improper usage on their part, misdiagnoses on the part of the physician, an impurity in the drug, or an undetected allergy.

On the other hand, the percentage of success versus failure, when it comes to having a genuine medicinal benefit, is vastly superior to homeopathy or for that matter the bulk of "alternative medicines", even with the placebo effect taken into account. This is because these medications are tested, re-tested, and based on very sound evidence on how the human body and various substances work in combination. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is based on something which is completely contradictory to any and all objective evidence. It is, in a word, a crock.

And while "all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature" may be true in essence (if we are truly talking about the origins of any such practice, some of which goes back so far into the mists of time that we aren't even sure how early they began), this is true of any branch of human knowledge: astronomy began as astrology; chemistry began as alchemy; and so forth. *But...* they have come a long, long, long way since then, and have changed their nature almost completely... when it comes to procedures or substances which are generally accepted by the medical or scientific community as of genuine efficacy of themselves (again, setting the placebo effect aside). When it comes to those "alternatives"... most of them have failed repeatedly to pass muster when tested scientifically. Those which do are investigated further, and eventually either adopted into such usage, or discarded when the evidence begins to mount against them.

Anecdotal evidence is, to be blunt, not worth a good damn unless it is backed by other sources; the one with the best track record being rigorous, double-blind, scientific testing. And for the record: a good many people have died over the years by relying on such methods rather than those which have met such rigorous testing. Whether they would have survived given the latter cannot be said with absolute certainty, but given the evidence, their chances of doing so would have been vastly improved. We do know that every year numbers of people, including children, die from treatable diseases which are often easily survivable, just because their parents (or the children themselves, with either their parents' permission, persuasion, or coercion) rely on such methods rather than tried and tested medical procedures. Homeopathy, along with so many of them, relies on the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of the populace and, as has been said many times before, anyone or anything which banks on that is sure to never lack adherents....


----------



## Peter Graham

Ventamist,

Can you answer my three questions from earlier in this thread? I'm no scientist, but even I know that for homeopathy to even have the potential to work, we need to rethink a number of basic laws of physics.




> Funny, nobody I know has died ever from any homeopathic drug.


 
That's because no-one can die from drinking very small amounts of water. 




> And here's some food for thought---all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature.


 
It isn't. Homeopathy isn't the same as herbalism, although I do wonder in light of other comments if homeopathy means something different over here. There is no evidence that the ancients repeatedly diluted distilled plant extracts to make them work better.  Medieval medicine took one of two forms - stuff it full of lavender or saw it off. You used the first if the condition involved no bleeding or suppurating and the second if it did.




> Since original "doctors", mainly priests, rabbis, nuns, midwives, ect....used herbs, incense, and so forth to heal the sick.


 
Aspirin is a good example. The active ingredient occurs naturally in willow (?) bark. So chewing willow bark relieved headaches and so on. But this is precisely the point. As soon as that cause and effect has been spotted, aspirin stops becoming some sort of "alternative therapy" and becomes boring old "medicine" of the sort you can buy in chemists. 

I think that all people in this thread are saying are that if homeopathy, aromatherapy, crystal healing, spells, chakra-fondling and all the rest of it wish to be regarded as serious and viable treatments, they should be submitted to the same testing regime as any other potential medicine and should still be able to come up smelling of roses. 

If crystals really can heal sickness, let's prove it and dole them out to everyone who needs one. But if they can't, let's continue treating the barefoot wierdy-beardies of Totnes, Hebden Bridge, Alston, Mid-Wales and Glastonbury with a modicum of healthy scepticism.

Regards,

Peter

Arch Druid (elect) and Chief Wizard to the Court of Oberon, King of the Faeries.


----------



## Parson

Peter Graham said:


> Homeopathy isn't the same as herbalism, although I do wonder in light of other comments if homeopathy means something different over here.



I think this is correct. If I buy herbal medicine, it is sometimes labeled homeopathic. This is obviously vastly different than what most have in mind with Homeopathy.


----------



## Vertigo

I suspect that is more a case of unscrupulous marketeers caching in on a trendy name. Homeopathy is a very precisely defined alternative medicine (IMO, I'm afraid, a load of old hokum). From Wiki:



> Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, in which practitioners use highly[1][2] diluted preparations. Based on an _ipse dixit_[3] axiom[4] formulated by Hahnemann, which he called the _law of similars_, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given in diluted form to patients exhibiting similar symptoms. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term _succussion,_ after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect. Homeopaths call this process _potentization_. Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.


----------



## skeptical

Apart from the placebo effect, homeopathy does not work in any way at all - ever.

Herbalism can work.   Normally it is much less potent that conventional drugs, and I would personally rather use the more effective drug.  But there are a few herbs that do work, and have been proven to work by proper scientific testing.

Two examples come to mind.   Ginger is effective against nausea.  St. John's Wort is effective to a degree against slight depression.  Sadly, St. John's Wort has some nasty side effects.

Other herbs contain effective drug type chemicals, and are no longer used because the product derived from those herbs is much better.  eg. asprin vs willow bark.  Digitalis vs foxglove etc.

And then there is the rest.   The vast bulk of herbal remedies either have not been subject to scientific testing, and thus are probably ineffective or toxic.   The ones that have been so tested are nearly all useless.

End conclusion.  Like homeopathic remedies, you have to be ignorant or stupid to rely on herbal remedies rather than modern effective drugs.


----------



## mosaix

There's a entire chapter on homoeopathy in _*Ben Goldacre*_'s book *Bad Science*. I read it about ten days ago. I can't recommend the book too highly, especially his denunciation of homoeopathy.

Despite any possible placebo effect of homoeopathic drugs, the very real danger of people attending a homoeopathic practitioner is that a serious condition, only recognised by a properly trained medical practitioner, may be missed.

Prince Charles's approach to homoeopathy is both laughable and dangerous. He publicly supports homoeopathy and his status in society lends credence to the practice but does anyone doubt that if there was the slightest chance that he was suffering from anything slightly serous he wouldn't be treated with the most sophisticated drugs that modern medicine could come up with?


----------



## dustinzgirl

j. d. worthington said:


> Yes, people have died from prescription drugs; usually through either improper usage on their part, misdiagnoses on the part of the physician, an impurity in the drug, or an undetected allergy.



http://www.adrugrecall.com/html/recalled.html

Dangerous Drug Side Effects - CBS News Video

Misdiagnosis of Medication Causes of Stroke - WrongDiagnosis.com

 The list of possible medications or substances mentioned in sources as    possible causes of Stroke includes: 


Activella
Agrylin
Alesse
Alora Transdermal System
Anagrelide
Apri
Aviane
Biphasil
Brevicon
BuSpar
BuSpar Dividose
Buspirone
Buspirone Hydrochloride
Camilla
Catovit
Cenestin
Chlorotrianisene
Climara
Climara Pro Transdermal System
Cocaine
Coke
CombiPatch
Cosopt
Crack
Cryselle
Cyclessa
Demulen 1/35
Demulen 1/50
Desogen
Diazoxide
Dienestrol
Diethylstilbestrol
Dofetilide
DV Cream
Ecstasy
Enbrel
Enpresse
Epoetin
Epoetin Alfa
Epogen
Eprex
Errin
Esclim
Estinyl
Estrace
Estraderm
Estrasorb
Estratab
Estratest
Estratest HS
Estring
Estrostep 21
Estrostep Fe
Etanercept
Femhrt
FemPatch
Femring
Ginkgo
Glivec
Gynodiol
Honvol
Hyperstat I.V
Imatinib
Innofem
Jolivette
Kariva
Lessina
Levlen
Levlite
Levonorgestrel
Levora
Lo/Ovral
Loestrin 1/20
Loestrin 21 1.5/30
Loestrin 21 1/20
Loestrin Fe 1.5/30
Loestrin Fe 1/20
Low-Ogestrel
Menest
Microgestin Fe 1.5/30
Microgestin Fe 1/20
Mircette
Mirena
Modicon
Necon 1/35
Necon 1/50
Necon 10/11
Necon 7/7/7
Neocon 0.5/35
Neurosine
Nor-Q.D
Nora-BE
Nordette
Norinyl 1+35
Norinyl 1+50
Norplant II
Nortrel 0.5/35
Nortrel 1/35
NuvaRing
Ogen
Ogestrel
Ortho Dienestrol
Ortho Tri-Cyclen
Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo
Ortho-Cept
Ortho-Cyclen
Ortho-Est
Ortho-Micornor
Ortho-Norvum 1/50
Ortho-Novum 1/35
Ortho-Novum 10/11
Ortho-Novum 7/7/7
Ortho-Prefest
OrthoEvra
Ovcon-35
Ovcon-50
Ovral
Ovrette
Plan B
Portia
Premarin
Premphase
Prempro
Preven
Procrit
Progestasert
Proglycem
Prolintane
Sefulken
Sprintec
Stilphostrol
Syntest DS
Syntest HS
TACE
Tikosyn
Tri-Levlen
Tri-Norinyl
Triphasil
Trivora
Vagifem
Vivelle
Vivelle-Dot
Yasmin
Zovia 1/35E
Zovia 1/50E


(1998 - _adverse drug reactions_)  "Adverse drug reactions are a significant public health problem in our  health care system. For the 12,261,737 Medicare patients admitted to  U.S. hospitals, ADRs were projected to cause the following increases:  2976 deaths, 118,200 patient-days, $516,034,829 in total charges,  $37,611,868 in drug charges, and $9,456,698 in laboratory charges. If  all Medicare patients were considered, these figures would be 3 times  greater."






Unless you are planning to kill yourself with pills overdose, the least  thing you would expect from a medicine to cause you is death. But for  patients with arthritis, that's a risk they may face while taking Celebrex. According to the product web page, Celebrex  may increase the chance of a heart attack or stroke that can lead to  death. Serious skin reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as  bleeding and ulcers, can occur without warning and may cause death.  
(Link)

Just sayin'.




http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/T3FOO9FI451MJNVTQ

http://www.adrugrecall.com/yaz-birth-control/deaths.html


----------



## skeptical

Dustinzgirl

You need to keep this kind of thing in perspective.   There are a hell of a lot more people saved by modern drugs than who die as a result of them.

For example : take leukemia.   In 1960, only 14% of leukemia patients survived the disease.  Today, it is well over 50%.  This improvement is due to modern drugs.
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - Leukemia Facts & Statistics

I quote :

_"An estimated 245,225 people in the United States are living with, or are in remission from, leukemia. An estimated 44,790 new cases of leukemia will be diagnosed in the United States in 2009."_

And that is just leukemia.   Modern drugs save an *enormous* number of lives.   To do that, they have to be potent.   What a lot of people fail to understand is that this potency means they have a strong effect on the human body.  If a drug is truly potent, there is always the risk of a side effect that may, in rare cases, be lethal.   On the other hand, if the drug is not potent, and thus without risk, it is also going to be useless.

That is, of course, the case for homeopathy, and for a lot of alternative remedies.   They are not potent, and are thus quite safe.   On the other hand, they do no good either.


----------



## The Procrastinator

skeptical said:


> What a lot of people fail to understand is that this potency means they have a strong effect on the human body.  If a drug is truly potent, there is always the risk of a side effect that may, in rare cases, be lethal.   On the other hand, if the drug is not potent, and thus without risk, it is also going to be useless.
> 
> That is, of course, the case for homeopathy, and for a lot of alternative remedies.   They are not potent, and are thus quite safe.   On the other hand, they do no good either.



Seeing as no one has managed to come up with an answer to my question - why do so many people flock to homeopathic and alternative remedies (and contrary to the prevailing opinion on this thread, not all who do are gullible idiots) - your comment might have to do, my Sceptical friend. Perhaps people do not fail to understand the potency of refined drugs and the risks of side effects. Perhaps it makes them uneasy and they want gentler, more "natural" methods. Perhaps the "one size fits all" approach of modern medicine does not sit well with everyone. I am speculating of course.

The thing is I am not in favour of homeopathy at all, but I am an occasional user of alternative remedies for non-serious ailments, where I find them to be effective. If it was serious of course I would go to the doctor. I am not anti-modern medicine. But modern medicine is not infallible either. I heard recently about the rise of another "superbug" - another virulent antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria, caused by overprescription of antibiotics. And I personally am not keen on becoming reliant on painkillers and anti-inflammatories to deal with RSI, so I look for other ways to deal with it. Not homeopathy mind you - haven't gotten quite that desperate. 

But I think dismissing people out of hand who question the efficacy of the medical system - not just medications, but the whole messy thing, including the antics of pharmaceutical companies and the fallibility of uninspired GP's - is counterproductive. Not everyone who goes for homeopathy (or other alternative remedies) is an empty headed fool who doesn't understand about modern medicine. So what's going on?


----------



## skeptical

Procrastinator

I don't think anyone has used the term "empty headed fool".    However, to say that people are often gullible would be true.   Such gullibility can come from the simple fact that most people are uneducated in most spheres of human knowledge.  This definitely includes medicine.   When knowledge is lacking, it is easy for certain people, with the gift of the gab, to convince those lacking such knowledge, into believing that which is wrong.

I do not agree with you on alternative medicine.   The thing is, if any form of alternative medicine actually works well, it gets adopted by medical researchers and becomes part of conventional medicine.   This has happened many times.   Many modern drugs came from traditional herbs. For example :  Arteminisin is a new and potent drug for malaria.   It came from a Chinese herb.

If an alternative remedy does not get so adopted, it is generally because it offers little.   For this reason, there is little or nothing to be gained by patronising those who offer alternative remedies.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

skeptical said:


> If an alternative remedy does not get so adopted, it is generally because it offers little.   For this reason, there is little or nothing to be gained by patronising those who offer alternative remedies.





It's not quite so much the fact that just because an alternative remedy offers little. (That is indeed the case in many situations, don't get me wrong.)

What it is, is that it might not appear to offer very much, at least not at first. And why assume that humans are all alike? We have different blood types, different allergies, different antibodies, different immune systems. There's even some diseases that will strike a person of a certain genetic background more often than others. (Sickle cell anemia is such an example-it tends to strike those of descent from lands where malaria is rampant, which tends to wind up being tropical areas of the planet.)

I've always thought long and hard on this subject, alternative medicine. Who's to say everyone's body will react the same way to a chemical? I, for instance, have an extreme intolerance to acetaminophen-an intolerance that my doctor has written off as an allergy. My grandmother has a horrible allergy to morphine.

So why assume that just because an herbal remedy doesn't work for you, that it won't work for any other person on Earth? Are scientists able to gather people all around the world to study the reaction to every genetic background possible on our planet? I highly doubt that.


----------



## skeptical

Karn

Proper scientific study of a remedy involves lots of people.  The more people, the more reliable the result, which means medical researchers like to recruit many, many people for their trials.   If a remedy aids only a small percentage of those people, it still shows in a slight improvement compared to placebo.

Alternative treatments occasionally show promise.   Some treatments that work, as well or better than drugs, include yoga and meditation for stress related conditions, and honey for topical use on such things as leg ulcers.  

These are well documented, and orthodox doctors do make use of them.  Alternative treatments that are actually better than orthodox are *very *few and far between.

The major source of useful treatments from alternative medicines, though, is herbalism.   A number of herbs have shown promise, and result in useful drugs.   

What drives the herbalists crazy, though, is that the researchers remove the active chemical from the herb, chemically modify it, and produce it in standard form.   The herb derived drug ends up far more effective than the herb it came from.  Which leaves the herbalists with what?   An inferior treatment, meaning that if they talk people into using herbs instead of drugs, they are doing those people a grave disservice.

End result is that no sensible person should consult an alternative therapist.   You are likely to end up with a snake oil therapy, and miss out on an orthodox treatment that might actually cure what ails you.


----------



## Ursa major

The Procrastinator said:


> ...why do so many people flock to homeopathic and alternative remedies (and contrary to the prevailing opinion on this thread, not all who do are gullible idiots)?


Taking a step back from the debate about homeopathy - a form of snake oil, and not in the least diluted in this respect - we have to recognise that gullibility and idiocy (using the colloquial definition) are not the same thing at all.

We are all gullible about something or other, possibly because we are creatures of hope; we wish to believe things can get better and sometimes let that desire override our scepticism.

You only have to look at elections to see this happening: millions around the world make the effort to vote for folk who they believe have made serious mistakes in government, but contrary to past evidence, will get it right the next time. (You could argue - though I wouldn't - that the less gullible are those who vote for one candidate in order to stop the election of another.)


----------



## skeptical

Ursa

I agree totally.   Gullibility and idiocy are not the same.

Mind you.   We are not all equally gullible.  There will always be those who are shrewd and discriminating, and those who are *very* gullible.

I term the relevent quality "rationality" which I define as the ability to judge what is real and what is not.   This is distinct from "intelligence", which I define as the ability to manipulate data mentally.  There are lots of people who are highly intelligent, and manipulate data with great ability.  However, they choose to believe data that is patently wrong.   Thus, they are intelligent but irrational.


----------



## mosaix

> Not everyone who goes for homeopathy (or other alternative remedies) is  an empty headed fool who doesn't understand about modern medicine.



And not everyone who falls for internet scams from Nigeria are empty headed fools either. All the questions that you ask, Procrastinator, could equally well be asked of internet scams. We all know about them, but people still get taken in, sometimes more than once.

And let's not forget, despite what some people believe, homoeopathy is big business. They have marketing and advertising budgets and profits to protect just like the big pharmacies. People don't just take their 'remedies' out of the blue, they're _told_ that they are effective.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Ursa major said:


> You only have to look at elections to see this happening: millions around the world make the effort to vote for folk who they believe have made serious mistakes in government, but contrary to past evidence, will get it right the next time. (You could argue - though I wouldn't - that the less gullible are those who vote for one candidate in order to stop the election of another.)


^
^
^
^
The United States in the years 2004 and 2008 had confirmed this.


But Ursa does bring up a point. A person perfectly intelligent in other ways could be a complete fool when it comes to medicine. But it is worse for such a person because they do not have the excuse of inferior general intellect to fall back on. A true idiot might be pitied when they do something that doesn't work. People would say, "Oh, he doesn't know any better."

A person of intellect would be scorned. "What the **** were you thinking, believing such a crud line!?!"

Sometimes I think that it would be better to be of under average intelligence than over....


----------



## Peter Graham

> Seeing as no one has managed to come up with an answer to my question - why do so many people flock to homeopathic and alternative remedies (and contrary to the prevailing opinion on this thread, not all who do are gullible idiots)


 
No-one has answered my question either, but fair's fair - I'll have a stab at yours.

The reason people flock to alternative remedies is generally because of one (or more) of the following:-

1. Desperation. People may not be getting better quickly enough for their liking (or not at all) and may feel that conventional medicine has let them down. They are willing to try anything to alleviate their symptoms and are often willing (or feel compelled) to pay handsomely for the privilege. These people will often continue to take conventional medicine too - a sort of scattergun approach to their condition. They might say things along the lines of "I know it's probably useless, but I'll try anything." 

Fair play to them. No-one could accuse them of stupidity or gullibility and I imagine that I might do precisely the same thing in their shoes.

2. Fashion. The Auld Enemy. We live in a time where the Self is celebrated more than ever before. It's all about our "rights" and our "entitlements". We often believe ourselves to be entitled to good health and therefore to however much NHS time we feel like taking up. But the NHS is cash strapped, overburdened, over-regulated and target driven. As individual patients, we may feel as though we are not always the most important thing to have happened to our GP today. And that doesn't suit many people. Add to that a growing trend towards cultural relativism and a misty-eyed longing for a supposed lost time when everything was "natural" and "holistic" and it is easy to see why the hordes will beat a path to the door of anyone who will put them at the centre of the Universe and who will come out with a load of fashionable New Age hogwash which serves only to validate (and never to challenge) our sense of self.

3. Stupidity. "Get rich quick" schemes have been fleecing the gullible since money was invented. "Get healthy quick" schemes do much the same thing, often playing on desperation too. People will see what they want to see and disregard the rest. Lie-la-lie (boom) etc etc. But this doesn't just happen with the very ill, who can be forgiven trying anything. Nearly all New Age quackery relies on people taking a leap of faith in the promise of untold spiritual or other riches to come. If folk are dopey enough to do that and to part with large amounts of cash, there will always be snake-oil vendors ready to relieve them of their dosh.

Some practitioners may genuinely believe they they have powers or are in touch with angels, earth energies, Atlantean fish-people or whatever. But most are chancers; slimy mountebanks stealing off the stupid and the desperate and/or fuelling their own bloated sense of self-importance. Who wants to be boring old normal when you can be a Healer?

That's my take - cynical, I know, but there you have it. 

I don't dispute that some elements of some alternative therapies work - herbalism is a good example. But where they do work, they do so for valid and demonstrable scientific reasons. Such remedies are quite rightly used (alongside or instead of NHS treatments) and the practitioners should be respected for what they do. I'll give you an example. If I have a cold, I make a hot toddy - Scotch, lemon juice and honey. It's basically a DIY (and tasty) Beechams sachet and it works for precisely the same reasons. But anything that really works ceases to become an "alternative remedy" in my book and just becomes a "remedy".

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Vertigo

Good post PG and I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Your first point is particularly interesting. If I had a terminal illness, or maybe just one with say only 30% chance of survival using conventional medicine, I think I would likely be willing to try any alternative medicine in the hope that it might increase my chances at least a little. Terry Pratchett springs to mind; if you saw the documentary about his Altzheimer's (spelling?) you would see that he is a rational, intelligent man facing a debilitating disease. He seemed quite pragmatic about giving anything a try, whilst still taking conventional therapy and IIRC taking part in a conventional therapy test program. As you say; the scatter gun approach and I'm pretty sure I would do the same in his shoes.

Your second point is to me the most worrying one. Ever since the 60's we seem as a population to have been suffering a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand we keep rejecting "big bad science" as being somehow almost immoral, and at the same time happily accept all those aspects of big bad science that are conevient for us. This "back to nature" fashion is the backbone of the success of alternative medicines.

One other thing about Homeopathy in particular is, I think, it's very name. It is a nice scientific sounding name, that, in itself, lends credence to its claims and somehow endows it with a kind of respectability, especially amongst people with less education.


----------



## skeptical

About good scotch whiskey (with or without honey and lemon).

Does absolutely nothing to heal a cold.   This has been tested scientifically.

But who cares.   It feels great anyway!


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

No, what alcohol tends to do to a person is make them drunk. A side effect of the body burning the poisons away.


And such a thing can make people do foolish things, like play a game of discus with a land mine.


----------



## skeptical

Karn.
That reminds me of what Paddy the Irishman said when accused of having a drinking problem.

_"I drink._
_I get drunk._
_I fall down._
_No problem!"_

So, instead, you have a cold and you look for a remedy.


_You drink a whiskey._
_You get drunk._
_Cold is still there._
_No problem!_


----------



## dustinzgirl

I come at this a bit differently, since my mom is an herbalist/homeopath lab assistant.

Firstly, there are stupid people in the world who believe whatever marketing tells them without even trying to learn anything for themselves. There are stupid people in the world who will believe whatever a doctor, politician, website, whatever says and then give them all their money. There are many drugs which have not been tested and their effects on the whole and future generations can not fully be tested in labs or clinics. Hence why things like people dying from Yaz or having strokes from Zoloft occur or Thalidomide causing birth defects. Just because it was made in a lab and prescribed by a doctor does NOT mean that it is good for you. Just because someone puts flowers in a pill and sticks a homeopathic label on it does not mean its good for you.

The majority of medicines come in pill forms, pills are derived from infusions of natural plants and animals and minerals. There is no medicine that did not come from nature and was altered by people in labs generally through reduction or infusion; (for example morphine/laudanum), and even aspirin which was originally derived from the active ingredient in willow (not the movie, the plant). There is a difference between dilution and infusion. Generally, if you really want to get into herbal healing, ignore anyone trying to sell you anything and read about it yourself from verifiable science and history of plants, grow your own herbs or buy fresh herbs, or at least know how what you are putting into your body was made. 

Yes, there are lots of bad homeopath labs out there. There's lots of bad diet pills, too. People also buy cars that pedals get stuck on (toyota), backseats fall out of (plymouth), child safety seats that aren't safe, and a plethora of other things that get recalled because of the nature of capitalist markets. Consumers have the responsibility to be aware of what they are buying.  The governments simply do not have the resources, which is why 'NOT  APPROVED BY THE FDA' appears on lots of things. 

The only way to fix this would be to establish a law that any safety recall would defunct the business as a whole. Which would not make any sense.



And another point---Wiki says that homeopathy dilutes something until none of the original ingredient is left.....

Where does everyone think that pills come from? Pills are animals, plants, and minerals that are diluted/infused/reduced, mixed up, and compressed. In general. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet

So..................................its kind of the same thing.

PPS: Pharmaceutical companies only make money if clients are sickly. Same can be said for homeopathic sellers. 

I don't trust either, personally, and am wary of both.

Which is why I encourage personal knowledge on herbalism and not just calling it witchcraft because people are not, as a whole, intelligent enough to pick up a book on homeopathy. 

Infusions, reductions, dilutions, and tinctures are all common and used today by pharmaceutical companies. Just under different terms.


And another point I'd like to make.

My son was terribly allergic to poison oak. He was out of school for a month. The doctor gave him steroid shots each week and it just got worse. It was literally from head to toe, bumcrack and boy parts and all. We had so many prescription creams I was slathering him five times a day. I'm not even going to remember what it cost out of pocket. It was a LOT. 

My mom brought me a bottle of Luvos. That's mineral mud from Germany. I gave him three mud baths in one day and his poison oak was gone the next. I'm not joking, you can call my mom and ask her.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

skeptical said:


> Karn.
> That reminds me of what Paddy the Irishman said when accused of having a drinking problem.
> 
> _"I drink._
> _I get drunk._
> _I fall down._
> _No problem!"_
> 
> So, instead, you have a cold and you look for a remedy.
> 
> 
> _You drink a whiskey._
> _You get drunk._
> _Cold is still there._
> _No problem!_





Except for the fact that alcohol has all kinds of negative reactions with medications, and even without taking medications, the risks of what can happen while drunk I just don't find to be worth it.


And DG has a huge point here. People still keep aloe vera plants because their natural juice is a great burn and blister reliever where pharmaceutical products don't work as well.

My family uses elderberry extract, echinacea, and goldenseal to help boost our immune systems.

Capsaicin, a natural ingredient found in foods like peppers that makes them hot, is an effective painkiller and antimicrobial.


Don't ever write something off just because the pharmaceutical companies say it's worthless. At least give things a try and make up your own informed opinion about them before you follow the herd of sheep to the pen.


----------



## dustinzgirl

I like the above poster. And not just cuz he partly agreed with me.


----------



## skeptical

Karn

My comments on alcohol are very much tongue in cheek.   My point is simply that alcohol does not work against colds.  However, it works temporarily to make you happy.  Sure, it has side effects.   What doesn't?

Dustinzgirl has a lot of ideas that I do not go along with.   Herbalism is dangerous.  The vast majority of herbs are useless, and a lot have nasty side effects.   A very small subset are useful.

Your idea of boosting the immune system with herbs is sadly, quite wrong.    This is just one of the bullsh!t claims made by the multi-billion dollar 'natural remedy' industry, with no scientific backing at all.  A lot of research has been done into herbs like echinacea.  Quite simply, they do not work.

I suggest you read the reference below, which is an alternate, and probably more scientific view of 'therapeutic' herbs.
The Herbal Minefield

Moreover, it is problematic whether boosting the immune system would be a good thing at all.   Lots of common ailments are the result of over-active immune systems.  eg. Eczema.  Asthma.  Arthritis.  Lupus.  Even one common form of heart disease.  Much better to allow the immune system to respond in the proper way to disease without fooling with it - which we cannot do anyway - fortunately.

Capsaicin is, as you said, a painkiller.   However, in its 'natural' form, the effect is mild.   You get much more benefit from aspirin.   However, there are researchers working on capsaicin, and there may be an improved form of painkiller that will result.

Another 'natural' painkiller is tetraodotoxin, found in marine organisms like the blue ringed octopus and in pufferfish.   Deadly poisonous, but in very dilute form does reduce pain.  Researchers are doing 'you know what' with this one also.

I am not writing off the potential of 'natural' chemical compounds.  Neither are the pharmaceutical companies.  Instead, their researchers are working hard to make those potentials turn to reality, to the expansion of their bank accounts.


----------



## dustinzgirl

skeptical said:


> The Herbal Minefield



_PS: I'm not trying to be rude, sometimes I have an opinion and I'm just blunt by nature. So don't take anything I say as me being mean cuz I don't mean to be._

I agree with the guy who disagreed with the guy who wrote that article.

I do not think you would not be so gung ho about 'modern' medicine if your wife, daughter, or mother had died from taking Yaz, for one. My doctor, who has a MEDICAL DEGREE, disagrees with you.  She has frequently discussed  poultices, infusions, and tinctures since  she knows that I will not take painkillers since my sister was murdered  by methadone, which is it is synthesised from 1,1-diphenylbutane-2-sulfonic acid and dimethylamino-2-chloropropane-----------"The risk that you will experience serious or life-threatening side  effects of methadone is greatest when you first start taking methadone" And we did find out that it was prescribed to her to help her get off the weed. Way to go state paid doctors!!!!!!! Cuz you know, marijuanna was going to KILL her, but there's no serious side effects of prescription  drugs. 

Homeopathic researchers also work hard at research. 

I think you MIGHT falsely be under the impression that they just boil herbs down to pill form and slap a label on it. 

Homeopathy Resource Guide

[SIZE=-1]A summary of  peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical studies, and meta-analyses are  available on the National Center for Homeopathy web site: Home | National Center for Homeopathy
                                [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Similarly, the British Homeopathic Library is available online at hom-inform.org[/SIZE]





​


----------



## skeptical

DG

The definitive study on homeopathy was published in _the Lancet_ a couple years ago.   The authors used a metastudy.   They selected 110 proper scientific studies.  Selection was based on making sure that each study included was done according to the highest standards of medical science.  This restricted the studies to proper double blind, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trials.

From the results of 110 such thorough studies, the final result came in.
Homeopathy = placebo.

Now, there have been literally hundreds of studies comparing homeopathy to placebo.   Many are poor studies and would not be accepted for _the Lancet _which is a prestigious medical journal and goes to great pains to make sure it does not publish crap.   Of all those studies, there are some that will support homeopathy because they were crap studies, and there are some that support homeopathy simply from fluke results.  Many of these bullsh!t studies are quoted in the literature of homeopathy, and it is easy to be sucked in by that dishonest reporting into believing homeopathy is scientific.   It is not.


----------



## StormFeather

It was also the Lancet that both printed and then had to retract the paper from Andrew Wakefield on MMR

Just thought I'd add my tuppence worth


----------



## skeptical

That is actually quite a good point, Storm.

It shows that nothing human, or human organisation, is perfect.   I believe _the Lancet_ tightened its editorial policy after that fiasco.  I hope it prevents any other similar case.

Of course, Dr. Wakefield was a crook.  A swindler, liar, cheat, and all round nasty *******.  Such people can be found in all walks of life, and they crop up in the medical profession from time to time.

In spite of DG's statement, I am not 'gung ho' for the medical profession.  I fully understand that, for a chemical to work medically, it has to have a strong effect on the human body, and this means a strong chance of side effects.  I am well aware of the fact that the potency is sometimes so great that more vulnerable people can die.   We are all different, and the response to drugs varies greatly.   Sometimes lethally.

We can take homeopathic remedies with total confidence.  We can be 100% sure they will not harm us.  We can also be 100% sure they will do nothing therapeutic either.


----------



## chrispenycate

I'm getting convinced that the word 'homeopathy' is being used for two different things; if nothing else DGs " boil herbs down to pill form " (the homeopathy I know would never use quantities that gross; at most it's 'grains', frequently it's already a dilute solution.

The base theory as far as I'm concerned is that symptoms can be treated by an extremely dilute solution of a poisont that would cause the same symptoms as observed. The same, not the opposite, contrary to standard medical (whether herbal or pharmacutical) practice, and that the more diluted it is, (ie the less active ingredient is involved) the better it works. This is not using foxglove (digitalis) as a heart stimulant; it is using tiny quantities of it to treat an overstimulated heart. Which would be possibly fatal if it weren't so diluted as to be effectively undetectable. 

It is not preventative medecine taking a few grains of different herbs which counter various tendencies in the body.


----------



## skeptical

Chris

We are in danger of confusing homeopathy (which you described very well) with herbalism, which is what DG's 'boiled down herbs' referred to.

My last couple posts I have been off topic in describing herbalism.   Herbalism is the form of alternative medicine that comes closest to being useful.   Occasionally, it turns up a chemical substance that is actually therapeutic.

Sadly, though, the vast bulk of such treatments are either ineffective or have side effects.   Even more sadly, most people have no idea which ones might have value, compared to the majority that do not.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

skeptical said:


> Karn
> Dustinzgirl has a lot of ideas that I do not go along with.   Herbalism is dangerous.  The vast majority of herbs are useless, and a lot have nasty side effects.   A very small subset are useful.
> 
> Your idea of boosting the immune system with herbs is sadly, quite wrong.    This is just one of the bullsh!t claims made by the multi-billion dollar 'natural remedy' industry, with no scientific backing at all.  A lot of research has been done into herbs like echinacea.  Quite simply, they do not work.
> 
> I suggest you read the reference below, which is an alternate, and probably more scientific view of 'therapeutic' herbs.
> The Herbal Minefield
> 
> Moreover, it is problematic whether boosting the immune system would be a good thing at all.   Lots of common ailments are the result of over-active immune systems.  eg. Eczema.  Asthma.  Arthritis.  Lupus.  Even one common form of heart disease.  Much better to allow the immune system to respond in the proper way to disease without fooling with it - which we cannot do anyway - fortunately.
> 
> Capsaicin is, as you said, a painkiller.   However, in its 'natural' form, the effect is mild.   You get much more benefit from aspirin.   However, there are researchers working on capsaicin, and there may be an improved form of painkiller that will result.
> 
> Another 'natural' painkiller is tetraodotoxin, found in marine organisms like the blue ringed octopus and in pufferfish.   Deadly poisonous, but in very dilute form does reduce pain.  Researchers are doing 'you know what' with this one also.




I'm not saying a person should go out and taste random plants and wait for their effects here. No.

Right in my backyard there are at least two plants growing wild that can be recognized as poisons by general common knowledge: red elderberries and foxglove. I would not know how many others there are.

But you, Skeptical, seem to be of the mind that if a person or a group of people who claim to know better than you says something is not worth your time, you automatically assume their opinion as your own. No research is infallibly perfect, and that was the point I was trying to make before.

How much research has been poured into the statement that "sodium is bad for you and most salt should be removed from our food"?

Sodium is a nutrient, and beside the fact that indeed a majority of the population DOES eat more than the 2,500mg PDV recommended by the government, the trouble is, why does the government have a "one-size-fits-all" option on the amount of calories, the amount of fat, the amount of fiber, the amount of carbohydrates, the amount of sodium, and the amount of general vitamins and minerals for the population? How many people could actually benefit the most from, say, twice the amount that general PDV says they should have and they don't know it because the government says they shouldn't exceed the static amount?

Try to have a more open mind towards things that are not proven 100%, is what I'm saying. Do your own research-don't automatically rally behind those who claim they know better than you. Take placebo expectations off the table and see what works for you and what doesn't, by way of actually taking this stuff on your own.

Then, and only then, come by and tell me that this or that or the cat in the hat doesn't work.


----------



## skeptical

Karn

The problem with your recipe for testing is that it does not work.  You are asking me to try something for myself and make a judgement on that basis.

Scientists rejected that approach 100 years ago.   It is called a case history, or an anecdote.   Individual results mean nothing.   I can take "miracle herbal ingredient X" of an ailment and have no result.   And then take "miracle ingredient Y" and experience a miracle cure.   Yet X and Y, unbeknownst to me, are identical.   The reason for the different response is because factor Z came into play.   Factor Z might be simply that the ailment was about to come right on its own.   Bodies heal!

An excellent example is warts.   Warts are nasty and disfiguring.   There is no cure (though surgery or burning can make it look less nasty).   Warts are caused by a virus and there are over 100 different wart viruses.   Our bodies can take care of those viruses, but it takes time.   So what happens is that we try all kinds of anti-wart remedies, and then suddenly the warts disappear.   This happens after "wart remedy no 36''.   Thereafter we hail remedy 36 as being the greatest thing ever!   Yet it had nothing to do with the warts disappearing, except for accident of timing.

That is the problem with individual experience.   So I will politely refuse your invitation.   I go by proper scientific reports - not anecdotes - not even ones affecting me personally.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

The trouble with scientists and research is that they're not looking at individuals. I would be.


What I'm talking about isn't a miracle cure for every person on Earth or for even .001% of the world's population. But if something does indeed work for a single person, why deny them that? Why ridicule them that? Look beyond general population statistics.



I'm just asking, why are you scoffing each individual when it's not each individual you're looking at? Do doctors give people penicillin to those who are allergic to it? No. People have their own medical histories taken into record for a reason. What works for one, or ten, or a hundred, might not work for one other. And yet there's all these general antibiotics and painkillers that are prescribed.




I'm not saying that the entire pharmaceutical industry be replaced. But people should not be shunned or get forced into being convinced otherwise when their opinion and experiences don't follow that of the rest of the world.


----------



## skeptical

Karn

Scientists *do *look at individuals.   That's why they come up with the techniques they use.  Medical researchers are *extremely* aware of individual variability.  When they check the results of medical trials, they are looking for individual results as well as group results.    

The problem is that various chance variations outweigh individual responses.  So, for example, if it is a warts treatment that is being tested, and a couple of people respond strongly to that treatment, the researchers will know that the most likely reason for that result is simple kicking in of the human immune response.

Statistical analysis of results will usually show if the individual responses are stronger than that predicted by chance.   If so, researchers will follow up with more work on the now promising treatment.

You talk of treatments working for a single individual.   The problem is that it does NOT work.  It just *appears *to work.  Like the guy who heals his warts after taking treatment 36.   No. 36 does nothing.   It is all appearance.

Should the medical profession move towards more individual treatments?   Yes it should.  And it is.   This is a result of advances in human genetics.   The thing is, that to prescribe individualised treatments, you must first have a test to show what individualised treatment is appropriate.   We do not yet have that technology, but it is coming.   New genetic tests will be a major blessing in this regard.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

True enough. I'm aware of what is most probable, but who is to say what is absolutely impossible?

Okay. Take peanut allergies for instance. Say you have a study of ten thousand people and the effects peanuts have on them. Say 9,999 have no problems, but that one remainder has a reaction. Now take that reaction into consideration, and do numerous more studies, but that reaction is not repeated, or repeated maybe two or three more times.


What might be taken into account? Would the researchers give even the slightest possibility that peanut allergies exist, or would they write it off as a "chance variation" variable? Peanut allergies are proven to exist. So can you tell me with total, 100% certainty that in a medical treatment research, that treatment did not in some way react with an individual's own antibodies or immune system to help boost it?

I'm not talking about what is most probable. Most probably, it did not. But, could you consider of even the smallest chance the universe can provide that it did some kind of benefit?



There are things that are absolute. Two plus two can not, and does not, equal seventeen thousand. A 2-dimensional square can not be a 3-dimensional circle. A human at our current standing in evolution can not survive a year without protective technologies on the surface of the sun as it stands today.


But I do not think absolutes can apply to medical research in such ways.


----------



## skeptical

Karn

Re absolutes in medicine.

You are correct.   No absolutes.  That is why research results undergo stringent statistical analysis - to determine the effect of normal variability and plain chance, and how it affected results.

On peanut allergies.   With 10,000 people selected at random, you would have about 100 allergy patients, since about 1% of the population is allergic, to some degree, to peanuts.   You would also have about 10 people who were lethally allergic to peanuts.   That is, exposure to peanuts with no medical help available will kill them.

Ultimately, though, my point is that, to determine what will or will not help those who are ill, we need rigorous scientific testing.  Herbal remedies, mostly, do not get this.   Those few that do, like echinacea and St. John's Wort, show little or no positive effects.   Echinacea has been tested many times for its claimed ability to boost the immune system, for example.   It does not.

Let me make another point, too.   As stated above, from your point, there are no absolutes.   Everything is statistical.  For this reason, single scientific studies are insufficient.   The fact that people do not understand this point leads to all sorts of quacks quoting single scientific studies as if that proves their case.

Because chance factors alter research results, it is necessary to run numerous scientific trials to ensure that a therapy performs as predicted.   Single trials *often *give results directly opposite to reality.  Purely due to random chance.  Scientists get around this by running numerous trials, so that the overall result will be correct.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

It's just that, my argument is against those who do believe in stone-set absolutes, and you have to admit that there are those out there.

Do I think most probably these treatments will work? No. Do I think that the few times in a trial these people get better that it should automatically be attributed to what is being tested? Again, no. But should I shut out even the smallest possibility? No once again.



It's just that third point I was trying to get across. I realize most people don't think the way I do, in possibilities so slight that they shouldn't be seen. I think even the smallest possibility should be seen.



But that is not to say I would endorse the use of chemicals that are known to be toxic to the general population. If I see someone attempting to eat a bushel of foxglove, of course I would stop them, because scientific research that has been made points out that foxglove is considered toxic to humans. But I wouldn't try to stop someone from consuming something that has no negative effects. I would let them judge for themselves whether or not to do so.


I'm not totally against scientific research. Indeed, I am all for it, contrary to what might appear to my statements previous. But I also say that some possibilities that are overlooked by research should at least be glanced at, that's all.


----------



## The Judge

Peter Graham said:


> As individual patients, we may feel as though we are not always the most important thing to have happened to our GP today. And that doesn't suit many people.


I think that's unfair, Peter.  I've visited my own doctor only once in nearly 15 years** (nasty reaction to a tick bite -- possible Lyme Disease) but I regularly accompany my father to his.  We always have to wait at least 15 minutes, usually closer to half an hour, and no matter how charming and pleasant the GP is, I'm very conscious he's busy and can't spend any real time with us.  In my father's case this matters little.  But for some people this lack of time is the problem.  

We are not creatures of pure rationality, not even the most sceptical of us.  Our minds affect our bodies.  If we are depressed our bodies exhibit physical symptoms.  We go to a GP who prescribes something for those symptoms but which, mirabile dictu, does nothing to help the real problem even if the symptoms themselves are temporarily allayed.  We go to someone who talks to us, makes time for us, and who makes us feel good about ourselves -- and their bottle of coloured water continues to make us feel good.  It is, in effect, no more or less than "Let Mummy kiss it better" -- but Mummy kissing it better works for many, many minor ailments.  (And if only I could find the article, I'd be able to point to research that proves its efficacy in pain relief.)

Yes, it's a placebo effect in part, but one that gives the lie to the idea that you might as well get the GP's pill and have real help+placebo instead of just placebo on its own.  The efficacy has come in that instance from the talking cure.

I don't know how much PI work you do, Peter, but you must have come across stories of clients who make startling recoveries from injuries when the court action is finished.  Tongues start wagging and allegations of fraud and malingering abound, when in truth what has happened is the anxiety surrounding the action is over, the concentration on the injury is over, and with it ends all the negative emotional energy which has been poisoning the person and inhibiting recovery.   The case over, the person begins to regain his life and his health.  In effect, the talking cure of the homeopath is achieving much the same result.

This is not to say the injuries/illness are psychosomatic, simply that the body's ability to heal itself can't work when the mind isn't letting it.  Some people are genuinely helped by homeopaths and others, and not simply because of an accident in timing.  I'm happy for people to have the opportunity to see if they can be numbered among those who are helped, while ensuring there are safeguards in place for those who are vulnerable, and to prosecute the deliberately mendacious.



** and for the record, I've never visited an alternative medicine practitioner


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Judge,

Fair points. I certainly wasn't meaning to sound unsympathetic to the unwell -I'm not - but I do feel that there is a lack of honesty or clarity in the actions and intentions of some of those who fill the gap. To whit:-



> It is, in effect, no more or less than "Let Mummy kiss it better" -- but Mummy kissing it better works for many, many minor ailments.


 
You're right.  But herein lies the rub. No-one ever claimed that the physical effects of mater's spittle would lead to immediate or magical recovery. What works in this context is that someone cares and is spending time showing that they care. This is a wonderful thing.

But the hawkers of New Age "healing" usually try to pretend that it is the crystals, the spells or whatever that is doing the healing - not the caring. If they were to say "_look - crystal healing is a load of tosh. What will make you feel better is someone giving you time and empathising with you_", then I'd be all in favour. But they don't - they attribute a power to the crystals which simply does not exist. 

As you imply, the placebo effect (aka Crystal Fondling Mummy Substitute kissing it better) also has serious limits - like mummy kissing better, it works well for a graze or a bruise, but less well for a broken arm. Now, a caring and intelligent mother would never eschew conventional medicine in favour of kissing it better if the little cherub had anything seriously wrong with him or her, yet some New Age healers do precisely this - and it's wrong.

Regards,

Peter

PS:  My best wishes to your father.


----------



## The Judge

Peter Graham said:


> But the hawkers of New Age "healing" usually try to pretend that it is the crystals, the spells or whatever that is doing the healing - not the caring. If they were to say "_look - crystal healing is a load of tosh. What will make you feel better is someone giving you time and empathising with you_", then I'd be all in favour. But they don't - they attribute a power to the crystals which simply does not exist.


Though of course, if they said that who would go to them?  Though thinking about it, what are "Counsellors" in the main but crystal healers without the crystals...?



> Now, a caring and intelligent mother would never eschew conventional medicine in favour of kissing it better if the little cherub had anything seriously wrong with him or her, yet some New Age healers do precisely this - and it's wrong.


Agreed.



Thanks for your good wishes for my father.  Alas, he has worsening dementia, so it's the rest of us who suffer a good deal more than him.


----------



## Parson

The Judge said:


> Though of course, if they said that who would go to them?  Though thinking about it, what are "Counsellors" in the main but crystal healers without the crystals...?



Judge, assuming that "counsellors" what we colonists would call a counselor, I think that you are selling counselors short. Having someone who wants to listen to what's going wrong with you and is able to suggest strategies to make improvements in your life and living is far more than just a harmonic resonance with a crystal.


----------



## Clansman

Let me start my comment by saying that I don't take vitamins.  I try to eat a balanced diet of protein, carbohydrates and fats.  I avoid trans fats and deep fried food, but I am not afraid of a little fat here and there, as it is vital to human health, and it keeps control of your hunger (when you cut out fat, you are hungry all the time).  Most of what we eat in our family is fresh, and my wife typically does not buy prepared foods of any kind (there are a few items in the freezer that are strictly for meal "emergencies").

I could exercise a lot more than I do, and I am trying to do better in that regard (the single biggest thing any of us can do to improve our health is exercise regularly).

This being said, I do take one supplement, and that is something called Cold FX (actually, it is the generic, Wal-Mart version that is drastically cheaper).  I start taking it in September, and stop at the end of April.  Prior to taking this supplement, I had several colds every winter (at least 10).  Drove me crazy.  I have taken the stuff for 3 years as a preventative measure, and have averaged about 2 colds in each of the last three winters.  If I happen to get a cold, I up the dosage, and the symptoms _appear_ to be less severe, and don't last as long.

I am talking about cold viruses, not influenza (where you just want to die).

Yes, this is purely anecdotal, but some of this nutrient ginseng/echinacea/ginko whatever crap appears to have an effect.  Whether it is my brain telling my immune system to fight off the latest cold virus, or the pill itself that is boosting it, I really don't care.  My winter health is the best it has been, so I am going to keep taking it.  It may be nothing more than patent medicine, but I think not, as I was openly skeptical when I started with the stuff, but it worked, and keeps working.

Judge, sorry about your father, and for your family especially.  My grandmother suffered from severe dementia.  She was relatively content at the time, but the family, especially my grandfather, went through a very long period of grief while she lived.


----------



## The Judge

Parson -- that was simply me being cynical, I'm afraid.  While there are undoubtedly diligent advisors out there who have a grounding if no actual qualification in psychology, I suspect that many, many more have simply jumped on the counselling bandwagon.  They have the same effect as the alternative healers, in that the patient receives attention and sympathy, and that is the road to recovery for lesser complaints. My concerns over them are the same as Peter's over the crystal fondlers -- they are liable to encroach on serious issues of mental health.

Clansman -- thanks.  He hasn't yet toppled into the serious category, though it's only a question of time.


----------



## Vertigo

Clansman said:


> ...I could exercise a lot more than I do, and I am trying to do better in that regard (the single biggest thing any of us can do to improve our health is exercise regularly)...


 
I used to work as a freelance commercial lecture for many years and colds were a bit of a phobia for me. Call in sick with a sore throat/lost voice and I was kissing goodbye to two grand . So I asked my doctor one time if there was anything at all he could reccommend to help avoid colds (not Flu as you so rightly observe - 99% of people who say they have flu just have bad colds - when you have flu you know it, I have had flu once in 53 years and that was enough). Anyway my doctor just looked me straight in the eye smiled and said "get fit" .


----------



## dustinzgirl

Homeopathy and herbalism are different but just barely. The main difference is that homeopathy takes an herbal-alcohol tincture or a form of infusion and dilutes it  and then makes it into a pill. Herbalism also uses tinctures, infusions, ect, but does not generally dilute per se. 

An infusion occurs when something is steeped--slowly boiled--with water, oils, and other things. Which is also important in modern medicine, having its own degree called Infusion Pharmacists who know how to mix stuff up.

I would state then that we are more herbalists, I know what the majority of herbs do and do not do and we use them accordingly. 

In both herbalism and homeopathy an infusion IS the process of mixing, diluting, boiling, and repeating and the dropping the amount into pill form.

This is also how pharmaceutical companies make pills. Well except tablets they are made from compressions. Except that pharmaceutical companies most often mix a bunch of different synthetic chemicals together until they think they got it right, then try it on some people, then more people, then everyone, over several years.


----------



## skeptical

The key to all medicine is testing.   Therapies that are not tested, or inadequately tested, should not even be made available.   I am fully in favour of organisations like America's FDA, which decide on which drugs are OK for use by the public and which are not.   Such decisions follow extensive testing.

The problem with alternative medicines is that they do not get that testing.   The few that do, tend to fail.   As I pointed out, homeopathy has been thoroughly tested and demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to be equal to placebo.

Herbalism is different.   Most herbs have not been adequately tested.  Of the few that have, most have failed.   Of the few that pass muster, there are two possible outcomes.

1.   They get adopted and improved by the pharmaceutical industry, and we end up with superior products like aspirin, arteminisin, digitalis etc.  Close on half of all pharmaceutical products were originally 'natural' products, but are now purified, modified, standardised and superior.

2.  They do not get adopted by the pharmaceutical industry because they are insufficinetly potent.   Ginger for nausea, and St. John's Wort for depression fit into this category.   These herbs continue to be used by herbalists, and these herbs continue to perform less well than the equivalent drugs.

Echinacea has been very well tested and, apart from the placebo effect, failed miserably.  If you are one who uses it and believes it works for you, then fine.  You have just proved yourself to be one of the 30% of humanity who is highly suggestible.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Test, test, test. You claim to be a science geek, Skeptical.


How often has "science" actually been wrong in the past, and how often do they overly assume? I'm not just talking the medical field here now. I'm talking about archaeology, natural history, physics, any branch of science.



And to still be willing to accept anything a governmental science branch tells you at face value.



There is one reason why people may take natural herbal remedies that actually have been proven to work over their synthetic counterparts: Less risk of side effects. Sure, St. John's Wort might not be quite as effective as Prozac, but people I've known to choose St. John's Wort over Prozac had no risks of suicidal thoughts or increased tendencies, while those I've known on Prozac, many have simply turned worse. I myself have taken Lexapro for depression, but I stopped taking that within a few weeks because it had absolutely no effect on me whatsoever.

Antibiotics are an issue as well. Synthetic antibiotics work by completely stopping cell division within whoever or whatever takes them. That includes not only the infectious microbes, but also that of beneficial microbes and the body's own cells.

For infected cuts or small punctures I've used poultices of goldenseal and echinacea powder and they work within just two or three days. I've also had infected cuts and punctures that had not had treatment, and they would last up to weeks. I've also taken antibiotics for infections, of course.

And then there's the issue of getting Acidophilus back into one's body.


And what of Aloe Vera's ability to help treat minor wounds and cuts without buying expensive lotions or pills that are actually no more effective and filled with non-useful ingredients?


----------



## skeptical

Karn

You are insufficiently sceptical about 'natural' treatments.

The general principle is that *potent treatments have potent side effects*. That is why things such as antibiotics can have side effects. They work really well and the side effects can be serious.

Non potent treatments have fewer side effects. Homeopathy is the ultimate. Potency equals zero. Side effects are zero. It does not work, apart from placebo, and does not cause side effects.

Herbs often do work and often have side effects. The two go together. St. John's Wort, for example, works, though not well. It has very nasty side effects.
1. It is photosensitising. Anyone on St. John's Wort should wear sunglasses for *every* time they go outdoors. You can damage your retina badly through being in the sun, using St. John's Wort, and not wearing sunglasses. Fair skinned people on this herb can also get badly sunburned.
2. It interferes with drugs. Anyone on St. John's Wort* must* tell their doctor. If another drug is in use, it may not work. Amusingly, this applies to the oral contraceptive pill. A woman may get pregnant from using this herb.
3. A range of other side effects. See the reference below.
St. John's Wort Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings

Frankly, my view is that it is probably safer to use Prozac.

For infected cuts and scrapes, the best treatment is topical antibiotics. If you choose to use an alternative therapy, the best is a honey poultice, and especially manuka honey. This has been proven by scientific testing to work, while echinacea etc work no better than poultices that do not contain those herbs.

You are sceptical of science. Fine. It is good to be sceptical of *everything*. However, it is worth remembering that science, more than anything else, consists of extremely rigorous testing. Non science does not involve that level of testing. Therefore, that which is subject to the scientific process is much more likely to be effective.

Re echinacea

There have been a number of studies of this herb.   It is good to look at properly carried out studies.   Mere anecdotes and personal case histories have been proven to be highly misleading.   The gold standard is the double blind, randomised, placebo controlled clinical trial.   Several have been done to see if echinacea can help the common cold.  Results to date show it is not better than placebo.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/11/1237

The conclusion of this study was :
_"One hundred twenty-eight patients were enrolled within 24 hours of cold symptom onset. Group demographic distribution was comparable for sex, age, time from symptom onset to enrollment in the study, average number of colds per year, and smoking history. No statistically significant difference was observed between treatment groups for either total symptom scores (P range, .29-.90) or mean individual symptom scores (P range, .09-.93). The time to resolution of symptoms was not statistically different (P = .73)._ "


----------



## Vertigo

Of course science has been wrong in the past, we are always learning and progressing our knowledge. But are you trying to tell me that there has never been a wrong herbal remedy in the past. For goodness sake, one old traditional remedy for almost anything was letting blood. Modern medicine is an extension of herbalism; all of its roots lie in herbalism. As the scientific method has developed over the last 5 or 6 centuries the original herbal remedies have been developed and refined. That is an on going process that is now enhanced by synthetic medicines and genetics.

We now build building from bricks, concrete and metal but those techniques have developed from building with wattle and daub, turf etc. No one is advocating that we should give up modern building techniques and return to iron age building. And yet that is exactly what is being prescribed by herbalism. It strikes me as silly to decide to use medicine that is hundreds of years out of date when we have spent so much effort in improving and bettering those medicines. 

Most of us on Chrons live incredibly sheltered lives. We have more than adequate food from birth, meaning that we grow up healthy to start with. We have sanitation provided and take it for granted. We have clean water and take it for granted. Because of these clean, safe living conditions our real need for medicine is immeasurably less than the majority of the population of this planet, who end up relying on herbalism, shamanism, witch-doctors etc. They do their best but the truth is all cultures relying upon such medicines live much shorter lives than us, suffer from dreadful illnesses that we can cure quite easily with modern medicine, have horrendous infant mortality... I could go on. These people are largely relying on herbalism it is their only choice and they suffer. They would give anything to have the modern medicines we are so ready to scorn because one in a thousand suffers some side effect.

I'm sorry, but if some poor villager suffering from malaria somewhere or dying of cholera or watching their child die from septicemia from a simple infected cut could hear this conversation they would tear their hair out with frustration. And before anyone chimes in, yes I know we can't cure malaria but we can treat the symptons and alleviate the suffering.

Those of us that have modern medicine available to us are massively privileged to have so and to scorn it is IMHO crass. I don't have a problem with people using herbal remedies for minor ailments; if they work they will possibly be gentler in doing so. But please don't try and tell me that they are better than modern medicine. And please don't mock modern medicine because it still hasn't managed to achieved perfection in every single case presented to it. It is improving all the time and perfection is probably always going to be an unobtainable goal.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

This is about the argument I had with skeptical the last time I was here...

I'm not saying that there weren't wrong non-pharmaceutical treatments in the past. You're right in that bloodletting is one of the worst treatments that can be provided to a person.



But I also think that a person shouldn't go to the doctor for every sniffle they have, either. Even if you have a nasty cold, or a mild case of flu, I would much rather wait it out and have my own body defend itself, maybe with some certain remedies, than to let a doctor shove pills down my throat that cost $100 and a lot of the time not even work. When I do suggest an antibiotic, I usually go for the mid-powered Amoxicillin. That kind has been far more beneficial to me in the past than the three-pill treatment, so-called "power" broad-spectrum antibiotics.


If you have a broken bone, or a serious puncture or cut wound, or if you are infected with a serious disease, yes, go to the doctor if you can.

But I don't rule out the possible benefits of general plants, either. The trouble is, I do believe that nature, when left to her own devices, will provide for all the animal species on this planet, but she is never left to her own devices. You have to admit that there's plenty that science has brought this world that we could actually do better off without and that there are benefits to nature herself.


----------



## Vertigo

I agree with all your points one hundred percent there Karn. 

I guess the trouble is that we have gone a little beyond nature now. Our population is way higher than a nature would naturally permit a creature of our... ummm... nature . We live in population densities way higher than is normal for any omnivores. We live way beyond the warranty date that evolution has set for our bodies. So it's not really surprising that we have to supplement nature somewhat to maintain that state of affairs.

As I say I'm not knocking herbalism for minor ailments and I agree we shouldn't be reaching for the doctor or even just the medicine cabinet at every slight ill. Our bodies are generally pretty good at fixing themselves with perhaps just a little discomfort to be survived on the way. On the other hand I did have septicemia once in my teens. A tiny (really tiny) cut from a piece of pork bone. A week later I had this funny red line (or was it white I can't remember now it was so long ago) running all the way up my arm from my wrist to armpit and the arm itself was very painful. The doctor took great glee in telling me that 30 years earlier I would have been dead in a few days! With modern medicine I was right as rain (and back at work in the abattoir ) in a couple of days.

I've been a veggie now for the last 35 years; not sure if the two are related!


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Are you sure it wasn't MRSA you had?

My stepfather got MRSA once and had that kind of red line running up his own arm. It actually can kill within days if you don't get medical treatment. That is the kind of infection I talk about when antibiotics-effective ones, of course-actually are needed. I don't always knock the medical profession-indeed, the doctor who worked on my leg with not only my break, but also my tumor did wonders for me. It's thanks to him I can walk at all today.

But, sniffles don't require a sterilization room.


----------



## Vertigo

I was about to say "No, long before nature popped that one on us" but just googled it and MRSA first appeared around 1961 and this was around '74. But no the doctor was spcecific about it and it didn't even need a stong anti-biotic - I'm pretty sure it was just good old penicillin that I got for it.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Well, it could have been a weak strain of MRSA. It's more resilient now but, could have been it wasn't so much then.


Then again, the MR part means Methicillin-resistant....


----------

