AGAIN, please present some research to back up what you claim. Saying that there is research out there or a study out there is not presenting something. Cite an article so I can read it. And, franks, it has nothing to do with the fact that I don’t believe in it. The FACT is that the claims made by homeopaths are based on some mystical properties and powers that aren’t based in reality. You may not like current medical therapy, and that’s fine, but it the vast majority of it is based on proven, reproductible research that’s been published in peer-reviewed journals that we can all read and make judgements for ourself about. Homeopathy is based on something that supposedly only a few of us understand. No offense, but homeopaths give themselves just a bit too much credit. Show me something that works, or show me some credible research.
Hahneman, have you read this study or the letters responding to its publication? I would suggest it as it is NOT really favorable towards homeopathy. The authors publishing it had an incentive to find positive results, and in a letter from another alternative practitioner he even states that better analysis of quality studies, of which this paper is not exclusively composed as the authors note, have not shown homeopathy to be better than placebo.
Okay, Doc T, the Lancet published one back in '86, I believe. I couldn’t locate that study, but I did find a meta-analysis published in the Lancet. Here it is: K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al.,
Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.
This, specifically, is a major reveiw of all of the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled tests done on homeopathy. If you really want a knowledge of how homeopathy works, (along with additional studies done on homeopathy) I would suggest reading the book I mentioned.
MK- the intent of the '86 study, to my recollection, was to find out whether or not homeopathy's positive results were placebo effect. It was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Clearly they are more effective than placebos.
Hahneman- I was talking about the meta-analysis. Careful commentary on the article by both traditional docs and alternative practitioners agreed in the next issue of the lancet that the meta-analysis was poorly structured at best, and that a more careful analysis of the studies done with a the better scientific method shows no difference between placebo and homeopathy. I think the original article was in volume 350 and then commentary in 351, take a look.
MK, okay, I know what you are talking about now. I thought you meant that the meta analysis itself found homeopathy to elicit the same results as placebos. Yes, there was a report publshed in the next volume. Two objections were raised about the meta-analysis. One of those objections was ridiculous- homeopathy “defies the laws of physics” therefore the results from the 89 double-blind, randomized studies must be called into question. That objection stems from nothing other than being blinded by traditional medical dogma. The only objection worth noting was that there were more studies done than were presented. This asserts that Linde and his colleagues cherrypicked the studies, and, by doing so, evidenced that they were biased in favor of homeopathy. It is true that there have been some studies done on homeopathy that report negative results. And it is also true that Linde did not pick these for his meta-analysis. However, there is a very good reason for this. Homeopathic medicines are not one-size-fits-all drugs, much like traditional meds. For instance, there are several different types of colds, according to homeopathy. There are colds with fevers, colds accompanied by sore throat, colds with runny noses, and colds with congestion. As such, there are several different medicines to treat a cold. The medicine used to treat a cold with a runny nose doesn’t work for a cold accompanied by congestion. The study omitted from Linde’s meta-analysis dealt with muscle soreness. And, muscle soreness is one of these ailments that has many different treatment options. The studies that were picked by Linde dealt with ailments that have one and only one treatment option. So, clearly, critical judgemant, not bias was present in choosing the studies. And, yes, I know that this is not how, traditionally, meta-analysises are done. A meta analysis is supposed to be a grouping of all studies done, not all studies with the exception of 2 or 3. But homeopathy, by its nature, cannot be studied in the same way as allopathy. It is unfair to make it have to meet the same requirements as “the established method.” To do so is like having a two-sided coin and constantly calling heads.
Why not dilute a cup of HIV and save Africa?
Because our money is better spent diluting cups of of bias and saving people like you.
Sorry not biased. I have a strong desire to see things shown effective. Your reply about the meta analysis failed to address the fact that several alternative practitioners actually admitted that the analysis was poorly structured and that a more careful analysis that only included studies that held up to the scientific vigor of other authors, who don’t have a reason to show that it works(ie get patients in their office), showed no significant difference between placebo and homeopathy. Please read the letters again. I agree that the placebo effect is a strong thing, perhaps a “tool” that is underutilized, but to me homeopathy remains a pseudoscience at best…really, colds can be from a virus, why can’t HIV be treated similarly?
I may be somewhat off base here, but to my way of thinking homeopathic treatments are all natural,basically derived from herbs and roots and the like.If all homeopathics are bunk and don’t work,then I guess that tribulus terrestris doesn’t really raise T levels,ma huang does not enhance your metabolism and aid in fat loss,and neither does forskolin.Just a thought.
One last question about homeopathy? How do you account for the purity of your water? That is, if homeopathy actually works, how do you know that it is not some other substance that has altered the water and caused its curative properties?
One last question about homeopathy? How do you account for the purity of your water? That is, if homeopathy actually works, how do you know that it is not some other substance that has altered the water and caused its curative properties?
hoooo hoo hoo homeopathy hheheh hehehe magic magnets! Dynamic tension! natural hGH. Longitude! penile implants! win free money! Ink jet cartridges! toner! I saw elvis and 2pac at the convenience store. hi would you like free naked pictures of my hot girlfriend, click here. Free vacation homes. Buy the brooklyn bridge! Land in Florida!
With regard to the review on the meta-analysis, I do not recall any alternative practicioners saying that it was poorly structured. Perhaps I am wrong and should go back and look at it again. In fact, I think I will when I go to the library tomorrow. MK, I did remember one other study that was omitted- it was a dental study where there were only 20 something test subjects. Clearly such a study has to be omitted. And MK, we’re talking about 89 studies showing positive results, versus only a handful of studies showing negative results. The objection to that handful of omitted studies is outweighed by the fact that those studies were done with no knowledge of how homeopathy works, or because they were poorly done, and results were tainted. It certainly is a dilemma that we face here. Recalling what I said about colds, you will realize that one has to know a good deal about homeopathy to even perform scientific studies on it. So, unfortunately, the only good studies out there are done by homeopaths, or those with a great deal of knowledge about homeopathy (and in this day in age, few people study something unless they have a slant towards it.) “Unbiased” researchers have found unfavorable results, not because the meds are ineffective, but because they have no idea how to study them. I find a great deal of comfort in the fact that, even though many of the studies were done by those with an inclination towards alternative medicine, the studies were double-blinded, randomized, and placebo controlled. And there are 89 of them.
As far as HIV is concerned, there are homeopathic medicines that are used to treat it. One of the remedies is also a cancer therapy called Iscador (it's what Suzanne Sommers is taking.) It is herbal misteltoe that is diluted in the same way as homepathic meds, available by prescription only, and the only alternative therapy, that I am aware of, that is FDA tested and approved.
As far as your question regarding water purity, do you mean to ask whether or not a substance like flouride or chlorine in the water is actually causing the positive effect? If so, that's a good question. If it were the case that contaminates were causing the positive results, then any remedy would cure any disease. Anyone experienced with homeopathy will tell you that potentized belladonna doesn't cure arsenic poisoning, only homeopathic arsenic can do that.
Rod, you are off base here. I’m not sure you understand what homeopathy is all about. It’s not “all natural” substances. It’s actually the absence of a substance that they claim has healing properties. The herbals you mentioned are more along the lines of traditional drugs than they are of homeopathic remedies. And I’m still waiting for a plausible explanation from somebody for how homeopathy “works.”
doct- didn’t hahneman explain how it works when he explained the quantum theory behind it? Then you called it pseudointellectual bs.
Doc is right. It is NOT science or proven in any way. (Nor is the theory even halfway beleivable.) I find it hard to believe people would have such beleifs and read T-Mag/use biotest Supplements. You guys should be using homeopathic supplements like “The Beast.”
Scepticism surely is a good thing, and definately has furthered science, but it is a dangerous thing when it hardens into cynicism. You cynics would do well to actually research, unbiased, the other side of the argument. My father was an MD, trained at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine who went on to using homeopathic medicines with his patients. He always lamented the fact that many of his patients would have benefited a great deal from using homeopathic medicines, had he not been prejudiced against them for so many years. He taught me a very valuable lesson- that I need to delve into and really research both sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. That lesson has served me very well in life, and I hope it may do the same for any of you.
Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, was a licensed, highly regarded, “accomplished” Medical doctor who also studied chemistry, biology, zoology, history, and several languages. When he founded homeopathy, Hahnemann was already quite well known as a scholar (as an adolescent, he tutored university students in Latin and Greek languages), teacher and doctor; however, he was convinced that conventional western medicine and its practices (such as bloodletting) were deadly. He concluded quite rightly that the suppressive treatments in use at the time (and also at this time, as so little has changed in over 200 years in western medicine) were only causing harm to people, making them sicker and offering them no hope for chronic disease.
He used his extensive knowledge in languages (he spoke 12 different ones, including languages which would have given him insight into eastern paradigms of medical science), the sciences, and history and philosophy to come up with Homeopathy. Because he was a chemist, he prepared the medicines through a process of serial dilution and succussion: he conducted experiments called “provings” of the substances he created through the dilution and succussion process. The substances were administered and each “prover” made careful note of each and every symptom created by the remedy substance. Each remedy substance was taken by numerous “provers”, and “proving groups”, and then the results of the drug’s effects were compared. Hahnemann saw that each remedy produced predictable, reproduceable results when given to anyone (any living organism, actually).
Then, he considered the history of medicine: right back to Hippocrates (you all know Hippocrates, right? The “Hippocratic Oath”–the guy behind that promise to “do no harm” that all doctors must swear? THAT Hippocrates). Hippocrates wrote over 2000 years ago that there were two ways to treat illness: the treatment by opposites (to treat the condition presented with a remedy which would create an opposite condition in the patient) and the Treatment by Likes–treat the condition with a remedy which would create a similar condition, so that the similar condition “overpowers” or wipes out the disease. Hippocrates wrote and knew that cure could only be achieved via treatment by likes–by using the Law of Similars. Hahnemann knew, through his own extensive practice and experimentation, that this was true: from his own observations as well as his close study of traditional “folk medicines” used all over the world by many peoples, he understood the effectiveness of the Law of Similars.
Simply, the Law of Similars states:
If a substance can cause a set of symptoms in a healthy person, it can CURE those symptoms in a person who is unwell.
This doesn’t mean you take a chunk of “heart” to treat a heart condition (and this person was calling others “ignorant”!!!)
It means you take a remedy made from a substance like coffee, for example, to treat insomnia which takes place when a person can’t sleep because of too much excited mental activity.
It means you take a remedy made from Arsenic, for example, when a person suffers from acute food poisoning, and is vomitting so much that he or she can keep nothing down. Especially if even water–which the person really desires to have–causes the painful vomitting; so they drink the water sip by sip in order to keep from having to vomit again!
This is simplified, of course, cause I’m just illustrating an example of one symptom and how it could correspond to the remedy which would produce the symptom–a homeopath would have to match ALL of a person’s symptoms–known as the “Totality”–to find the right remedy for each person. EAch treatment is highly individualized because each person is unique. (So, if I could use the original query as an example, the remedy that person needs would have to be able to produce warts, asthmatic symptoms just like his, and allergy symptoms just like his–plus take into consideration all previous illnesses and ailment tendencies, etc. etc.) to treat any ailment he suffers from.
So, to sum up, Hahnemann “discovered” a natural law on which he founded his scientific experiements for the creation of and use of homeopathic remedies. Once he started to practice Homeopathic medicine, his patients became well quickly. The number of patients increased exponentially, and many doctors sought him out to learn about his method. Some, like Dr. Constantine Hering, sought him out to discredit him and call him a quack–but, like so many others, Hering became a homeopath when he saw how effective homeoapthy was.
Homeopathic medicine in an exact science. I suggest that people who are convinced homeopathy is “just placebo” go out and read the science–find out what homeopathy is, learn about how remedies are made (they are not made from poisons alone–they are made from almost 3000 different substances, many of which were used in western and eastern medical history of hundreds of years before they were made into homeopathic remedies) and how homeopathy is practiced. 100 years ago in North America, homeopathy was the mainstream medicine–widely available to all, inexpensive to administer, and extremely effective. The AMA was created to wipe out homeopathy, homeopaths, and all the homeopathic medical schools (there were literally thousands of them in North America) because the extremely results-and cost effective homeopathic medical system posed a massive threat to the fledgling pharmaceutical corporations in this continent. Talk about “Big Brother” re-writing history! This documentated history is out there, its all true. All of us have been lied-to about it, because conventional western medicine is so much more profitable for pharmaceutical companies. hospitals, and doctors alike.
Perhaps the greatest fact which damns the idea that homoepathy is bunk and is “just placebo” is the HUGE number of conventional medical doctors who have throughout the history of Homeopathy tried to “disprove” homeopathy–and then ended up practicing it exclusively because it is so effective. The list is very impressive: Dr. Comptom Burnett, Dr. Pierre Curie, and his daughter in law, Dr. Marie Curie (you remember her, right? Discoverer of Polonium, of radioactivity?) If you’re Canadian and writing on this board, you’ll recognize some famous Homeopathic Hospitals that are known the world over–such as the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto–which was founded by Dr. Emily Stowe, Homeopath. The list of medical doctors who’ve received full conventional medical training and dumped it all to practice homeopathy keeps growing and growing, right up until present day. Here’s a link to yet another book written by an ex-conventional practitioner, Dr. Jacob Mirman:
www.demystify.com.
Now, ask yourself: why would so many conventional doctors opt to treat their patients with homeopathy–given that they use “remedies” which cost practically nothing, work on a strict “less is more” principle, and are so effective they practically work themselves out of a job because they can cure–why would so many highly paid, highly-rewarded-for-pushing-the-pharmaceuticals doctors opt out of all that financial gain…unless they found that homeopathy works?
Look: all I’ve got to say is, do your research–the science supporting homeopathy is all there and its hundreds of years old (with more coming all the time). Open your mind to the idea that medicine (just like human beings) is not limited to biochemical science–and has to take energy and force into consideration (which is why the Physicists “Get It” with homeopathy, and are doing the research to find out how it works). Ever since I tried it and it worked so effectively for me, I set my mind to learning how to use it to help people from all walks of life. There will always be people who don’t want to know about it, and who denounce it without knowing anything about it, as we can see from the postings on this board. That’s okay! But the information, the knowledge, is out there if you want to learn about it, and reap the benefits of that knowledge.
Jungle King, it was NOT explained. Just throwing the words “quantum physics” into it doesn’t make it an explanation. To the gentleman who so thoroughly exlained his position in the last post, I ask the same of you. Explain to me how homeopathy works. Give a mechanism for just one homeopathic compound. Show me one person who’s been “cured” of a disease that conventional medicine can’t cure. Answer this question for me. If homeopathy works and is superior to conventional, Western medicine, why isn’t it replacing conventional medicine and why isn’t it more widespread? I just want to see something factual presented as evidence by the pro-homeopathy crowd for a change. I’m very open to new ideas, but I have to be convinced with something of substance.
I tried posting earlier but unfotunately my message got lost in cyberspace.
Note from Mod: No it didn't. You kept hitting 'post new message' instead of 'reply'. These are deleted since they make little sense as stand-alone posts.
to Doc - According to the world health organization homeopathy is much more widespread than western medicine in fact it is the second most widely practiced form of medicine in the world - second only to traditional Chinese Medicine.
Unlike herbs the FDA regulates homeopathic remedies and classifies them as over the counter drugs. Do you really think the FDA would put forth the millions of dollars to regulate each remedy if they were just placebo?
Homeopathic remedies must be prepared according to strict regulations listed in the pharmocapia of homeopathic medicines.
The truth is no one knows for sure why homeopathic remedies work but they do. There are literally hundreds of prescription medicines that the pharmaceutical industry does not know how they work but they still do produce results, they just can’t be explained. I don’t need to know how the ancient pyramids were made to know they exist. Or stonehege - I know it is there.
If you want to find someone cured of a chronic illness go to the homeopathic message boards and find someone there. Or ask me - my daughter was cured literally overnight of a chronic condition using homeopathy - she was 4 and didn’t know she was even given a remedy, I placed it in water so placebo effect doesn’t work here.
next time you drop a weight on your big toe and it is painful and bruised and swollen go get a vial of homeopathoc Arnica in a 30 or 200C potency and take 3 pellets under the tongue then say it doesn’t work.