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.

Daisy -- your example of someone recieving homeopathic treatment instead of conventional treatment and the adverse impact thereof.

I could actually give an example Gooseberry...here you go

homeopathy death

People seem to be forgetting that some conditions lead to certain death or disability without medical intervention.

Nobody here is claiming that medications come free of risk etc, but for the most part it's far superior to the alternative.

What a muddle.

You want placebo used, but without deception. Not possible.

You want it out of private practitioners' hands, and in the hands of the state GP. But you don't want the taxpayer to subsidise deception.

Once one form of that deception is removed, the NHH, you'll be happy to see deception return in another form at the taxpayers' cost; placebo by GP.

Which bits are wrong?

Thanks alistron - was looking for that.

Alistron: that's an anecdote. I thought they were to be discounted?

On the other hand, if you are interested in anecdote - well, you know what I'm going to say. Plenty more on your side of the argument wrt death, damage, poor research and so on.

What shall we do -- not trade anecdotes or what? Because my list could be a bit long.

Jaggy - one of several links here reporting the effect of homeopathic dilutions.

Alistron1 - there are studies that show that Homeopathy works. The C&P below shows randomised tests, double blind, performing better than placebo, published in the Lancet and the BMJ. (the I believe referred to "being ignored" not that I believe they exist!)

"Reilly and colleagues have conducted a series of trials in patients with hay fever, asthma and perennial rhinitis. Patients were given skin tests and remedies were chosen on the basis of reactivity. This design allows individualisation whilst avoiding the issues of case-taking and the effect that this has on the process. The results demonstrate a significant difference between the placebo and homeopathic groups which is reproducible. (NB! Strictly speaking these are trials of isopathy.)

Anon. Reilly?s challenge (editorial). Lancet 1994; 344: 1585.

Reilly DT, Taylor MA. Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homoeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever as a model. British Homoeopathic Journal 1985; 74: 65-75.

Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Campbell J, Beattie N, McSharry C, Aitchison T, Carter R, Stevenson R. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 334: 1601-1606.

Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hay fever as a model. Lancet 1986; ii: 881-886.

Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison T, Lancaster T, Vickers A. Randomised controlled trial of homeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series British Medical Journal 2000; 321: 471-476.

Double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations from common allergens (tree, grass, weed) with placebo. 40 patients diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms were treated over a 4 week period. Results showed significant positive changes in the homeopathy group compared with the placebo group (p

Daisy -- was it a bit hard to find?

On the other hand, google medical error death, or some such, and you'll be overwhelmed.

I am surprised at the negativity here tbh as a lot of my consultants(and I am seen by 9!) are not this hostile to it!

Gooseberry, how is that an anecdote?

Dilys, a 40 patient 4 week trial is not exactly rigorous - hence why it's probably largely ignored.

I'm not hostile towards it. I simply disagree with it.

It's a single case. Apparently they are not data.

However, there are plenty more equally well verified cases on "the other side". A point you've ignored and no doubt will continue to do so.

Noddy: the layman screameth louder than the medic: a little knowledge is not necessarily a good thing.

MistyB: I will have a look at your links. But I simply can't see how it could work -- it's a suspension of disbelief I can't leap to.

And I remain a staunch defender. You are very calm in the face of the ridicule and abuse. Very good.

there a lot more deaths and serious injuries from homeopathic dealings than one, I could give you a hundred. Try this list for a start.

Oh you do want to trade anecdotes? Seriously? We have that long?

Do you think there's any point to it, as my list will inevitably be so much longer than yours?

Do you want the same sort of links from me? Thousands of them?

Has anyone brought this up yet?

There has of course been mismanagement, incompetence and venality in the world of pharmaceuticals.

But I'm not sure why saying this automatically means that it's OK for homeopaths to dupe people for profit too!

Why get so angry and abusive about homeopathy and ignore the greater mendacity and damage elsewhere?

Because it's easy, that's why. It's pretty lazy too.

It doesn't automatically mean it's OK for homeopaths to "dupe" people. But as many people are saying they want placebo in the hands of the GP, they don't seem to mind the duping, they just mind who does it. The level of "duping" would also have to be established: it's possible and likely that many homeopathy users enter voluntarily into the placebo contract, which might make it less effective, but at least makes the dishonesty more mutual.

And when duping people has active benefits, it does all become more complicated.

But actually, it's easier (and lazier) to ridicule.

I may name change after this thread as people apparently "now know that I am a gulible loon"!! There is nothing like a reasoned polite debate.

I think you can ignore that poster, they weren't frightfully nice. Also it's a rather low level of contact so I would say you can safely ignore as not worth any attention.

So, let me get this straight. Youa re saying that you know that homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredients and "work" only as a placebo. So all the training courses, the different remedies, the history taking and all the rest is just part of the smoke and mirrors? That it's OK for people to continue with this confidence trick because if they didn't, the placebo effect wouldn't work, because in order for it to work, the patient has to believe in it?

So basically, it's OK to dupe people so long as it's for their own good? Phew - there's moral relativism for you!

Er, no thanks Whats your point, dead babies aren't important to the question of whether quackary can be dangerous?

And yes, when prescribing medicine, placebo or otherwise, I'd rather a trained medical professional who has degrees and diplomas in understanding the human body did it, rather than someone who is either gullible or fraudulent who has no training and has passed no exams in anything.

Is that such an odd opinion to

Winter: I think your point must be that some dead babies are more important than others.

A point of view you are very welcome to.

Seeker: I've made my argument incredibly clear.