To ask whether or not people here believe in homeopathy?

[DaisyLovesMetronidazole]

I don't at all.

However, I'm not out for a bunfight!

Just curious, as was surprised by the response of a certain group to this question today.

Not to mention by improperly prescribed products: which, as you're into criticism of what you would probably call charlatans and quacks, is entirely relevant.

Will just wait for a sec while you come back to me.

MillyR- What about the damage done to people by conventional medicine? Does this not matter as long as some outcomes do not result in death?

I was talking about homeopathic med ~shouldn't have shortened :)

Ah...see I got confused and was just responding to that :)

Birds, in a highly complex society, most of us, even the most highly educated of us, are going to know almost nothing about almost everything. That is why we have systems like clinical research, peer review, appropriate qualifications and regulatory bodies.

It is also why we tend to not trust things which haven't gone through that process, because it is unreasonable to expect people to be able to make judgements on the say so of self proclaimed experts who don't participate in the ethical and regulatory process that other knowledge based disciplines go through.

"peer-reviewed" is not infallible but is obviously at least a step up from "none-reviewed"

ZJM, we all know that there are risks to conventional medicine, and we have to weigh up those risks when undertaking treatment. No doctor is going to pretend to patients that treatment is risk free. It isn't.

to redress your skewed backplane GBerry,much innovative procedures/treatments, free nhs consultation (unlike homoeopath), and regulated with accredited training.but no doubt you will refute this with recall of minority of times medicine gets it wrong

That's a bit like the rugby union kicker who had great stats because his team used another kicker for any long kicks, so all his were shorter and easier. I doubt homeopathy would fare well in terms of 'do no harm' if it were the sole treatment for cancer.

Thing is, its easy to have fewer incidences of toxicity or side effects when there is no active ingredient. So, we rely on placbo being the benefit, which has some positive features but could be dangerous in certain clinical conditions.
So where do you fall?

"peer-reviewed" is not a step up when it's misleading

it's a step back

it's a lie, as opposed to no information

millyr -- when you're ready

Still waiting for an explanation of the self harm link, and what homeopaths are proposing to do about self harm.

MillyR- I think we can all agree that everything is fallible. I think it is also safe to say there is a place for a multitude of different approaches to any given problem, medical or otherwise. It is in this vein that I am wary of accepting such simplicity of a devout belief in one system, and glib dismissal of another.

Oh FFS; fans of homeopathy who are unable to distinguish between homeopathy and herbal medicine are not making a very good case for their intelligence. Homeopathy's placebo effect 'works' on minor ailments (such as slight collywobbles, tiredness or a sniffle) that will get better on their own within a few days anyway. The other sort of thing it 'works' on is self-obsessed anxious whiners who are responding to a combination of 'there there, dear' and maybe a little moderately sensible advice on getting enough rest, healthy food, rest and exercise - which they obey because it is coming from a magic woo practitioner.
Woo-peddlers divide into three categories - the well-meaning idiot, the self-aware crook and the nutjob. Of these, you'rebest off with the self-aware crook who wants your money and therefore doesn't want you to die or sue, so will give you magic water and some ego-stroking. THe well-meaning idiot will sooner or later develop enough cognitive dissonance to get out of the woo-trade, and the nutter may do you harm.

prescription medicines have active ingredient,and hence increased contraindications.Yes, homoeopathy kills fewer than pharmaceuticals. As No active ingredients to cause contra-indications. hard to get a licence and patent for sugar tablet

bit like saying fresh air kills fewer people that beta blockers
nonsensical and daft comparison

It's not the sole treatment for cancer, is it? I doubt any sole chemotherapy drug would do very well if it was marketed as the sole treatment for cancer. What on earth is the point in saying that?

Birds had it some time ago, when she said lay people are much swifter to shout bollocks to natural healing than many doctors.

It is pharmaceutical products which very often offer symptom relief rather than cure. A placebo, which has a real immune boosting effect, can help the body to deal with the source not the symptom.

It doesn't kill people, and it can make people better. Where's your beef?

GB, I answered your question at 22.39, before you asked it.

ZJM, it isn't acceptance of one system and not another. It is acceptance of a multitude of systems within conventional medicine, including things like massage, talking therapies and meditation.

It is dismissal of one system, homeopathy, in much the same way as I have dismissed the traditional idea that seeing a hare in the field is going to lead to me giving birth to a deformed child.

Nonsensical and daft -- er, no, very apt actually. You just don't like it. That's a different thing.

My sister-in-law used homeopathy on my nephew when he was only a few months old. He had horrendous eczema and she didn't want to use the steroid cream that the doctor was going to prescribe as a last resort. She was pretty sceptical, but it completely cleared up. Can you explain how that could be the placebo effect? Or was it just a coincidence?

there is no sole cure for CA g.Berry.many CA all clinically manifest differently in each client.there is no magic pill,nor is homeopathy a credible option

No, you didn't really. You made a series of assumptions about people seeking pharmaceutical treatment which could just as well apply to people using homeopathy.

But if you're now saying that post indicating that you accept deaths and illness by pharmaceutical products (and who couldn't ) why do you want links?

Just say, yes I accept it but it's the price we need to pay. Why demand that it's proved, as if you want to deny it happens?

do you eschew medicine then Gberry?Use homeopathy for birth,labour,dental work?.dont suppose you want any pharmaceuticals

I have very mixed feelings about it.

Homeopathy is clearly total shite.

However I do kind of see why the NHS funds it, if Drs could prescribe sugar pills instead of antibiotics it would save the NHS money, bad reactions to abs and ab resistant bacteria would be less of a problem. Homeopathy enables them to do this, so it does in a roundabout way, save the NHS money which can then be spent on proper medicine.

However the whole thing is very dishonest.