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.

Anecdotes are not data.

You have not addressed the issue of regression to the mean menyioned above by himalaya i.e. the person would have got better anyway.

Or the industry which I posted about earlier. You might not believe in the magic water memory, but people are being trained in this and convincing people to believe it and making lots of money.

Jaggy - I was joking about the anecdote! I do not understand why the evidence that is there is so quickly dismissed but I do understand to some extent why there is not as much evidence as there is for conventional medicine and if I were very wealthy, I would throw millions at research and PR.

Yes, Homeopathy is a business that makes money and there is nothing wrong with that at all, money makes the world go round. However, Homeopathy as a global business is miniscule compared to the global pharmaceutical industry.

Homeopathy does not conceal the fact that remedies are based on the dilutions discussed on here. There may be misconceptions in the general public but people who know about homeopathy, use it and believe it works know this. Scientists have observed the changes in properties of water with homeopathic dilutions and agree that it goes beyond what can be explained by molecular theory. Scientific discovery is littered with discoveries that went beyond what conventional theory of the time assumed - the world goes round the sun, the world is round, there are small particles than molecules etc.

Are you also suggesting that only people with scientific qualifications can come to an informed opinion about Homeopathy even if they have no experience of it or of studying the effects of homeopathic dilutions?

Again, it is uninformed people who do not know about the homeopathic dilutions and have confused herbal and homeopathic on this thread.

x-post unquietdad :)

"Scientists have observed the changes in properties of water with homeopathic dilutions and agree that it goes beyond what can be explained by molecular theory. "

Really?

Bugger, I can't even spell ANECDOTE now! I'd better go and take a homeopathic remedy and see if it contains Memory Of Spelling to help me.

Do you want to distinguish data from evidence? Anecdote is certainly evidence. Unless you want to deny that too?

You think you understand, and you're trying to talk down about it, and be silly with illustrations.

But I'm sorry to say, you don't understand what placebo is, if you think it is coincidence. And by trying to claim that a false correlation is a perfect example of placebo, it's perfectly plain yo uthink it is coincidence.

My advice would be: if you're trying to be patronising, try first to make sure you know what you're talking about.

no you don't have to be a scientist of course, but to dismiss the fact that the stuff is so diluted, I was just curious.

man that didn't make sense.

unquietdad said homeopathy was an example of false correlation, not placebo.

People believe homeopathy works. It could have been placebo effect, or regression to the mean as mentioned above, not homeopathic treatment. therefore false correlatin.

that's what i got from UQD's post, hope that's what you meant!

(hope that's what UQD meant)

Personally, i highly doubt it works and is merely a placebo/way to sell small bottles of water

as someone once said
"theres a name for herbal remedies and other therepies that work, its called medicine and the nhs uses them"

I haven't addressed it because there is a lot to say in response to H's post. No rush surely -- it took her twelve hours to write it. And it is actually worth reading, unlike the unpleasant stuff she posted last night.

But quickly: homeopathy doesn't "work" by regression to the mean. It only "works" by placebo (imo). Regression to the mean has nothing to do with the placebo, or homeopathic treatment. It's just something that happens anyway, as you know.

Any applicable effect of regression to the mean would also obtain with every study of every conventional and alternative treatment. As a method of distinguishing between the scientific validity of studies of conventional and alternative treatments, it's meaningless.

People use "evidence" in an extraordinarily loose way. It comes up in the religion threads too - "I've experienced God, that's evidence he exists." You may call it evidence, but that doesn't mean it is.

I totally understand what the placebo effect is. My point is that you can get it just as easily from doing something which it is totally impossible to "medicalise", like howling at the moon, running round the house widdershins or banging your elbow on the door three times.

As a child I went through a stage of being frightened to go to sleep. I found it helped me to say, before I went to sleep, a little mantra that went something like "Nothing will scare, worry or alarm me tonight." It made me feel better. No medical reason for it to do so, but it helped to build my confidence. Without the aid of tricksters. I just think it's sad that some people don't grow out of this irrationality.

Goose - thank you for comments earlier.

Unless you are denying placebo effect completely in homeopathy, then false correlation does not apply.

I'm not prepared to pay ridiculous ££££££ for an unproven placebo effect, which I could get myself for free.

No, you totally don't understand what placebo effect is, and you keep proving it over and over again.

Will this do. Evidence:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:

bored

s'ok MistyB I meant it. Sorry I can't go further but still I think it's very valuable.

"Any applicable effect of regression to the mean would also obtain with every study of every conventional and alternative treatment."

Yes, yes it does. You're quite right.

Which is why trials have to show statistical significance in order for any effect to be recognised as valid: ie they have to show that it was statistically unlikely that the effect was down to chance.

In fact, they should show clinical significance in order to be seen as useful, since statistical significance, while showing that something probably works, isn't always enough to make it worth using a treatment.

Unfortunately, homeopathy has consistently been shown not to have statistically (never mind clinically) significant effect in large, well-conducted, blinded, randomised controlled trials, or, failing that, rigorous meta-analysis which can help to spot genuine effect in smaller trials (they still have to be well-designed). Which are the best tool we have to measure effect and making sure we rule out bias and chance.

Homeopaths believe that this is because homeopathy is special and unable to be measured by the tools that we use for judging medicine. I disagree.

And you have to weigh evidence, not just present it. That's the point people miss about it. It's not enough to say "I have personal testimony that it works", because hundreds of others will have personal testimony that it doesn't. This makes personal testimony pretty much useless, because people can say what they like.

Objective, long-term, proper peer-reviewed trials (with controls) are the only way to determine if a supposed "alternative" medicine works. if it works, fine, it is "medicine", and no need for the alternative/homeopathic tag. if it doesn't, then it remains quackery.

Anecdote does not equal data. I hope that annoys you, because I'm going to keep saying it.

suzikettles said what I meant about trials, above, and expressed it more clearly.

I too am surprised by the strength of anti homeopathic feeling from people who have not experienced it and clearly do not understand it. Homeopaths study anatomy and physiology and do not present their remedies as anything but the dilutions that they are. Also, they do not lie about their remedies being in fact placebos anymore than drug companies conceal their potential side effects (though there have been cases of drug companies behaving in this way!)

I am not a rabid (really onlion - rabid??) anti conventional medicine conspiracy theorist and do not want to get into a slagging match about whose qualifications, experiences are more / less valid. On here at least, we should be entitled to put forward our opinions without being accused of being "thick".

However, I do believe that there is evidence that is largely ignored to show that Homeopathy works and that if there were a more open minded approach to research that were not constrained by prejuidice and conventional medical protocol and more money available for this research, the picture would be different. There are countries who have a much less confrontational relationship between conventional and complimentary medicine and where Homeopathically trained GPs exist.

In the EU, we spend more money on treating the side effects of medical intervention (some of this intervention is very necessary and life saving and I do not dispute this!) than on any one single disease. Homeopathy presents a possible alternative to this.

I do not assume that all medical intervention is bad and have and will in the future consider all options available to me and my family, take professional advise and choose the one which is likely to have the most benefit and least harm.

Gooseberrybushes - "Unless you are denying placebo effect completely in homeopathy, then false correlation does not apply."

No that's just not true. Do you understand that?

"However, I do believe that there is evidence that is largely ignored to show that Homeopathy works and that if there were a more open minded approach to research that were not constrained by prejuidice and conventional medical protocol and more money available for this research, the picture would be different."

can't get my head round that bit. what are these constraints that stop us discovering the magical properties?

UQD: It doesn't annoy me, it's just a bit sad really. I mean, what level is that?

Have you got any kind of grasp of placebo yet? Do you imagine it's just to do with perception of symptoms, self discipline and a vague happy feeling?

Misty: "There are countries who have a much less confrontational relationship between conventional and complimentary medicine and where homeopathically trained GPs exist." Absolutely. It's considered rather forward thinking. Certainly they are not stupid, dumb or rip off merchants.

Suzi: I responded to the "regression to the mean" argument because this was pointed out as some kind of end of argument proof, a significant and convincing breakthrough. In reality, it's not worth bringing up or even mentioning.

If you are looking for a statistically greater significant effect than placebo, you may not find it. But you seem to dismiss the importance of placebo, which in my opinion would be a mistake. Not only that, you'd be on the wrong side of the argument of many with medical/scientific training.

But you could still dismiss it. I'd definitely be interested in your reasons for doing so. As I said earlier, I'm beginning to think that many people on this thread believe it's not worth getting better unless you get better with pharmaceutical products.