To ask whether or not people here believe in homeopathy - at the risk of floggin a dead horse...

[MistyB]

Winter: Homeopaths are not unqualified - they follow 3 or 4 year degree courses including anatomy and physiology.

Alistron1: The principle of Homeopathy has been known since the time of Hippocrates from Greece, the founder of medicine, around 450 BC.

I am tempted to answer the bottles falling on the floor question but feel that you would ridicule the answer in the way that the Spanish Inquisition determined that the theory that "the sun was imobile and at the centre of the universe" was "foolish and absurd".

Well there we are. A sensible conversation for a while, descended to abuse and vitriol, and making things up, just like before.

Why the need to be so arsey?

You can't have a sensible conversation about homeopathy, theres no sense in it.

And get yourself a proper dictionary, you must be using a homepathic one (perhaps several forests worth of paper with the memory of a single word within) since you clearly can't use words like vitriol properly.

and by the by, whining about people being mean to you when they disagree with you makes you look like a small child. It seems to be your repeat tactic to an opposing view though, perhaps you should change tack.

Gosh you really don't know what you're responding to or what you're talking about do you.

Go and punch a pillow.

I really do. And, er no thanks, since I'm not remotely angry or upset.

Are you always this confused? Perhaps you need some Carb-Alc, or something.

No, you don't. You think I use homeopathy. You think I believe it works by the dilution or however it is supposed to work. You don't understand the difference between "my views are fluid" and "my morals are fluid". You think I have written about "closed minds". You think homeopathy never shows any benefits. You think it's not sensible to have a conversation about placebo (do tell the scientists who've been studying its mechanism). You give value to your own anecdote but dismiss the anecdotes of others. You don't know what vitriol means. And you don't know that there's a difference between "expressing a disagreement" and "abuse".

No, you don't know what you're talking about.

And by the way, you talk this way when you're not upset? You need anger management.

you know all your comments on the last thread are still there, right, they didn't vanish? and I don't care whether you use sugar pills or not, you took up half of the last thread with your very dreary ramblings about placebo effects and your misunderstanding of simple ideas like deception in medical trials.

You don't get to tell everyone else how to post.

I don't need anger managment, I'm not angry. Didn't you read what I said? Lazy!

I did not read any of the thread, but just wanted to share my experience.

I suffered from debilitating vertigo since my teenage years. Was hospitalized twice as I dehydrated so much, sometimes I was so dizzy I couldn't get to the toilet to vomit. It shattered my confidence and having children seemed out of the question. After years of suffering I went to see a homeopath, he pressed on one of my toes, I jumped through the roof, he prescribed some medicine which I took religiously - and I was much better since then. Had two children, am still not a good traveller in cars, planes and trains and sometimes still feel a bit icky. But nothing like I used to have before.

Also after I had my first child I developed an infected toe (still not sure from what) doctor prescribed antibiotics - no improvement - doctor wanted to admit me to hospital, went to the homeopath who gave me some ointment - better in a few days.

I'm not saying it works all the time for everything, but it has its place and is definitely worth a try. For instance Rescue Remedy works - millions of people use it all the time.

This is how you talk when you're calm? Extraordinary.

I didn't say anything different on the last thread winter. Seriously. You need to step back.

It doesn't have a place and it isn't worth a try because beyond the placebo it doesn't work.

All those people on here who claim to have been 'helped' by homeopathy please remember that the Randi million dollar prize is available if you can distinguish magic water from real water.

gooseberry, please stop claiming that everyone knows and is told by the Homeopath that the pills don't contain anything. it's just not true, I've mentioned this several times and you've failed to respond to it.

the packaging states something about the ingredients being 'in Homeopathic dilutions' and your average person does not appear to know that that means contains bugger all.

Will just note that being arsey and insulting seems perfectly acceptable to some people -- so long as they are on the same side of the argument as you.

No, I will say more than that.

Jaggy, your point is a good one, and admirably delivered without resort to abuse, though you seem to condone it.

Your point is very relevant to the question of what level of deception is required for a placebo to have benefit.

On the other hand, if you question a homeopath (I don't know, I never have) about the active ingredient, you would obtain the information required. This is about on a level with what conventional drug users are offered: if they ask, then sometimes they'll be given the extra information. It's not offered. MMR is a good example. Otherwise they are given the prescription without the information. Some of that information on risk benefit analysis may be relevant to the decision to take or not to take. But if you have trust in your GP, you may not ask.

Placebo works a bit for most people and works a lot on some - we know that. It is not all that surprising when you think about it.

It can work for homoeopathy, for conventional medicine such as antibiotics, it works for praying sometimes. Dancing naked round an altar can make people better too if they believe in it.

Therefore we shouldn't make dancing naked round an altar illegal and nor should we make homoeopathy illegal. As long as they don't claim it has a medical basis.

It's not enough to say that since the placebo effect will kick in we can claim homoeopathy is real. If we allow that then the sale of fake antibiotics will also have to be allowed on the same basis.

Imagine selling a diabetic insulin that was actually sugar. Yes it would be better (because of placebo) than nothing at all, but it would be criminal to deceive them wouldn't it.

It's hard to know what you want. To what extent are claims made of a medical basis? I'm not sure of this myself. Do you mean a scientific basis? Would it be ok to say it works sometimes, which is what you can say for conventional medication.

"It's not enough to say that since the placebo effect will kick in we can claim homoeopathy is real."

I don't know what you mean by this. The benefits are real, sometimes. Same as with conventional medication.

Yes placebo works with conventional medication. But it comes with potential side effects.

It's hard to know why the vitriol and anger to be honest.

Sorry, I didn't mean the benefits are the same as conventional medication. I mean, the benefits are real sometimes, and sometimes not, as they are sometimes real with conventional medication and sometimes not.

I don't know if people going to a GP are told to what extent their medications are expected to work. I don't go to the GP or the doctor and I don't take conventional medications or homeopathy.

You say "I don't know what you mean by this. The benefits are real, sometimes. Same as with conventional medication."

That comparison is misleading based on what you have said yourself. Conventional medication can work because it has a basis in reality AND by placebo. Your sentence implies that homoeopathy can also work independently of the placebo effect.

There is no difference between selling homoeopathy as having a medical effect outside of placebo and selling sugar pills with fake labels claiming they are penicillin. Both can work only by the placebo effect and both should lead to criminal prosecution.

No, I don't think it works outside of placebo effect but homeopathy certainly has benefits. So a practicioner can say, this has been shown to improve people's conditions.

So you think it should be illegal?

What about my other points?

Why the ire directed at homeopathy? All the problems with it, the deception, the failures, the incomplete information, all obtain just as much with conventional medication, with the difference that the damage is much greater there. Why not direct your anger to something that does more damage than homeopathy?

Perhaps you already do. Perhaps you are consistent.

I think for a full assessment we would need to know the benefits-risks of homeopathy and the benefits-risks of conventional medication, which is nigh on impossible to calculate.

Much more, and more serious damage is done by conventional medication but that's proportional to the number of people who use it. It's impossible to assess the damage it does, too.

So really, we end up with a puzzle. I don't think suggesting homeopathy should be illegal solves the puzzle. I do think people could expend their efforts better campaigning against mendacity and harm in the conventional field, however.

Sibella1
Rescue Remedy has brandy in it! It's not homeopathic. It's herbal. There is a very, very important distinction. Homeopathic remedies have no active ingredients, the "dilution" is so extreme that there is nothing "active" left in it.

There is no proof whatsoever that homeopathic remedies work except through the placebo effect.

So you think it should be illegal?>>

Read some of my posts Gooseberrybushes and you will see I just said that I do NOT think we should make these things illegal. Only the false claim that it has an effect outside of the placebo effect.

You however are supporting the right to lie to make a profit. Just like someone selling fake penicillin which you will presumably also support. Anything to make a buck is okay I guess.

I thought you were genuinely debating this at one time, but it seems like it was all just deliberate misinformation. Some people have the excuse that they believe in the diluted ingredient thing or that they can't organise their thoughts well enough to see the flawed or circular arguments, but you know better.

Btw you ask "Why not direct your anger to something that does more damage than homoeopathy?" I do. You should hear me on religion and the damage it does to society. It's not really a separate subject though. As in this there are those who are deluded and those who delude them for profit and power. It impedes progress and damages lives.

I have issues with the NHS too. I will always oppose dishonesty and there is plenty in all fields, but the field of Homoeopathic Magic is based on deception, it has no other content.

"There is no difference between selling homoeopathy as having a medical effect outside of placebo and selling sugar pills with fake labels claiming they are penicillin. Both can work only by the placebo effect and both should lead to criminal prosecution."

is there a difference between criminal prosecution and illegal?

If you think homeopathy sells itself by medical effect you think it should be subject to criminal prosecution. If you think it doesn't, then what's your problem?

What exactly do you want?

I am genuinely debating this. I'm not engaged in misinformation at all. I think you are suggesting these things because it does actually make quite a lot of sense to question the issues of deception/placebo/conventional harm in terms of this debate. But it's a bit awkward for you -- it's so much easier to say "it doesn't work by active ingredient" and leave it there.

I wasn't talking about religion, I was talking about conventional medicine. As you have an interest in this field, the harm done to the patient and so on, it's surprising you limit it to the easier target.

Or is it.