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.

thanks for the links

Can homeopathy be dangerous?

I would argue that yes it can, if the user avoids an evidence-based treatment for a serious condition in favour of homeopathy. However, homeopaths believe it's potent stuff - so presumably are against people being able to walk into Boots for their remedies.

Zack, yes, I am.

I have tried homeopathy several times and found it to have absolutely no effect.

And I say that as someone who has found considerable benefit in acupuncture, reki, herbal remedies and even aromatherapy (and was convinced by the utility of the latter by using it to treat horses!).

When you go to the doctor, you are generally aware that:

1. Drugs have side effects.
2. They may cure other people but not you.
3. You may have been prescribed something that is not entirely appropriate.
4. There may be no cure for your condition.

That's life though. We accept that medicine does its best and will continue to advance. I don't expect to be aware of how it works. I don't work in pharmaceutical research. We have a system of checks in place so that amateurs don't have to attempt to understand something that they have little knowledge base in.

Birdsgottafly that's why I asked early on in the thread if we were talking about homeopathy - by the wiki definition - or eg 'alternative' medicine as a whole. The placebo effect is something that applies in all forms of treatment - when you take paracetemol the headache may well go a little more quickly than the tablets could account for, because you know relief is on the way. Lots of 'natural' products are highly potent drugs with proven clinical effect.

Unless any of the unbelievers have actually taken the time to study H/med, then I don't think they are really able to judge .

As I said, my sister is ,the first year is the same studies taken by those wishing to practice trad medicine .

It takes a long time to qualify ~ you can not just set yourself up and give out sugar tablets .

I personally think it has a place along side traditional medicine .

Scary to think that tap water must contain homeopathic quantities of urine an faeces. Amazed we're all still alive, really!

Of course Lynette, normal sugar doesn't help teething, magic sugar does!

Yes i did realised that you did but then other people brought arnica etc into the thread, which if is of good quality, works.

I think that the placebo effect is a bit like the power of positive thought, it shows that we can somewhat help to heal ourselves. I also worked in pallitative care and see the diference using alternative therapies make alongside medicine. The thread was starting to confuse what it started out as.

Zack, the difference between homeopathy (and, indeed, all "alternative" and "complementary" medicines) and conventional medicine is that the conventional stuff has had serious trials with the results published in respected, peer-reviewed journals that indicates its effectiveness.

Yes, I know that such trials are not always ideal, that the results are sometimes flawed, and that the peer-review process isn't always as unbiased as it should be. But just because proper science isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that things like trials and evidence are unnecessary.

I actually teach a few herbal medicine graduates in my masters course, its all well and good but for the particular topic we are doing systematicn reviews who there is no evidence for their use in treatment . Even the students agree.

People can chose to believe in homeopathy and spend their money on it if they want to. It's the NHS money going towards funding it that bothers me. There is limited funding and cash should go towards treatments that have proven their efficacy in clinical trials.

birds I do agree and would never ever say anything or criticise a treatment in practice (with patients or family). I do get awfully sad at how some are preyed upon though.

I do not believe. It is bad science.

For me, it has a nocebo effect.

What do clinical trials prove? That some substances work on some people some of the time. The same could be said of homeopathy.

zack homoeopathy is unregulated,unprotected title (anyone can set up as one) and they permit selling for profit.lacks credible evidence base.lacks rigorous standardised training

medicine is regulated profession, has protected title, has evidence base and peer reviewed journals. has shortcomings,yes. but not based upon water has a memory hooey

Doley, how can a homeopath do the same as a first year medical student when first year medical students study pharmacology, which is entirely in opposition to how homeopathy supposedly works?

I am a peer reviewer and the process is not that rigorous tbh (or maybe too rigorous as Im awful for rejecting stuff)

"herbal medicine graduates" shocking it alludes to being a robust science and associates itself with medicine in the title

To be fair some 'herbal' medicines do withstand clinical trials and that's why I was keen to clarify what we were talking about. Look at the medical uses of digitalis (foxglove) and quinine (jesuit's bark).

My students have a BSc herbal med . I only have 2 in the msc at present.

"peer-reviewed" is quite often a pile of shite

ZJM, there is thing called statistics, which forms part of clinical trials. It is generally statistics which makes sense of some things work on some people some of the time. Otherwise we could say that just about anything could alleviate cancer symptoms and not provide any treatment of any kind.

"What do clinical trials prove? That some substances work on some people some of the time. The same could be said of homeopathy."

Well, i suppose it could. In the sense that in clinical trials, homeopathic remedies whould be proven to not work on any people any of the time. Except in so far as a placebo and half an hour of a sympathetic person's time can be said to "work"