to think homeopaths really just make money out of the gullible?

[WidowWadman]

A remedy made from diluted bits of the Berlin Wall - seriously, that's surely just a test to find out how far they can push it, isn't?

Claig but this is my problem with it. Because HP is considered to have no side effects people are willing to give it without questioning if medication is necessary at all and what other signals it sends out. Starting secondary school is a perfectly normal part of growing up, to be a bit anxious about it is normal but unless that anxiety is getting out of hand children cope and get on with it. To give your child drugs for it signals that you think the child isn?t able to cope with it on her own and that she needs some sort of help to cope with something her peers just get on with. I don?t like it.

This is a very good article on traditional Chinese medicine - a lot of the arguments for it sound very familiar from homeopathy (lots of individual attention from a traditional practitioner vs hurried appointments with a conventional doctor), along with the resistance to examining whether it actually works through scientific trials (largely because most of the time, it doesn't).

But a lot of currently available 'traditional Chinese medicine' is actually more dangerous than homeopathy, because it involves active substances, invasive procedures and often misuse of pharmaceuticals disguised as traditional medicines.

I remember a few years ago the media was full of articles about the brilliant effects Chinese medicine could have on skin conditions like eczema - then some people tested some of the 'herbal' creams being handed out, and found they were actually full of unlisted steroids. And then there are multiple cases of people suffering serious liver damage after drinking 'natural' herbal potions supplied by traditional Chinese pharmacies, eg from weight loss supplements.

Saintlyjim, that is great if people are treating you for free or charging very little.

I don't have a problem with people doing what works for them - as long as they don't expect me to pay for it or agree that it has any basis in fact. And unfortunately hoemopathy appears to wish to be treated as a respectable branch of medicine, to extent that it is funded by NHS. That is what I fundamentally object to. that should not be allowed to happen unless and until there is some evidence to support its efficacy by way of randomised clinical trials.

Yes, keep an open mind. But as I believe Terry Pratchett once said, not so open that your brains fall out.

I also agree very strongly with what was said below, sorry can't remember by who now as lots of threads since I last popped on...

homeopathy IS dangerous because it encourages this very dangerous anti rational way of thinking i.e. my ignorance is just as valuable as your knowledge because I really FEEL it is important. I am not wanting to stomp all over what makes people feel better, even if they can't be clear how it works, but you really can't expect your belief to have the same force as a practice that has been tried on lots of different people over time and most of the time can be PROVED to have a measurable and beneficial effect.

I find it fascinating that people can be incredibly sceptical of conventional medicine, but quite prepared to use untested, unregulated "alternative" therapies.

If only people applied the same level of scepticism and critical thinking to everything what a wonderful world it would be........

Science is more open minded than woo.

The sceinftic method allows for all comers to provide evidence and if that evidece can be replicated under conditions that reduce the possibility of confounding factors, bias or poor study design casuing a false postive etc etc etc ..then something proven can be adopted. That's how herbal medicine that worked became ...medicine.

Woo doesn't do that. Becuase it's a fixed postion of belief, not a flexible postion of knowledge.

I am an athesit. But if God pokes his head out from behind a cloud this afternoon and goes "boo!", and squillions of other people see the same thing. And he does it a few more times. And there is no demostrable casue of mass hysteria going on. I am going to be inclined to believe in God.

And saying "opps, sorry! Oh bugger, if you let me off the hook for unbelieverhood does that mean I get to sepnd enternity with MIL? Can I see the details of the unbeliever circle of hell again, cos I am not convinced that isn't the worst of the two options."

Same with any form of woo of your choice. Demonstrate under fair conditions with good study design that it works better than a placebo, replicate those results and not only will I use it I will buy shares in Bioron.

"If only people applied the same level of scepticism and critical thinking to everything what a wonderful world it would be...."

Couldn't agree more.

I think we need to be aware of what treatments we use and look intio them and study the side effects. I don't throw the baby out with the bath water over conventional medicine, because I believe that much of it works and is effective, and I also do not throw the baby out with the bath water over homeopathy, because I think it is possible that there may be something in it which is above and beyond a placebo effect.

Yes, I like this.

Good luck binkybix! (not homeopathic - but raspberry leaf tea)

"because I think it is possible that there may be something in it which is above and beyond a placebo effect."

But why would you think this when study after study says there isn't?

It is WATER. Which is tapped or shaken vigorously. It contains no active substances or only tiny, tiny, tiny amounts.

It is said to 'work' because water 'remembers' the substance to which is was once exposed.

Really, really, how can this be anything other than absolute bollocks? What part of this is 'mysterious' requiring further investigation or experimentation?

I find it fascinating that people can be incredibly sceptical of conventional medicine, but quite prepared to use untested, unregulated "alternative" therapies.

One must be sceptical of conventinonal medicine, because of the very real and often severe side effects. Alternative therapies - not so much. The best alternative remedy to conventional medication is the body itelf - the most powerful healer and cure there is.

Gracelo: you said something I agree with, I can't find it now: about tailoring conventional medication to individuals, and thinking about whether they really need it at all.

One should be politely sceptical about EVERYTHING. One should consider the proof and make informed decisions as a rational adult.

This can be done very quickly in certain circumstances - should I take antibiotics for a life threatening infection or dance around a moonlit glade and drink rosewater?

Or you may have the luxury of time and you can read and discuss a bit more. And find no proof whatsoever that homeopathy has a beneficial impact on anything other than the practitioner's bank balance.

May I be permitted the luxury of a small snort at the notion of my wonderful healing body - I would be dead several times over in the last few years were it not for conventional medicine after my body decided not to be so wonderful and healing after all.

But why would you think this when study after study says there isn't?

Becuase desire for mysterious, or desire for one's prefence not to be written off, or desire to have a self image as "deep" or "thinker" or "open minded" or "more enlightened and evolved" or "not a sheeple, am a free thinker me!" or....pick any another positive descriptor that best suits that particular individual......over rides the long standing inability to provide solid supporting evidence ?

Desire is a big motivator in humans.

Crumbled in many ways I don't think we are that far apart from each other. My children with their 2 biologist parents and mother involved somewhat in drug discovery and development are probably the least medicated among their friends. We think extremely carefully before we agree to any drugs for the children or us.

Crumbledwalnuts - you do seem to have a lot of faith in the body's ability to heal itself.

That's fine when it comes to minor infections, but seriously misplaced when it comes to cancer, diabetes, HIV, tuberculosis, heart disease etc etc. There is a reason why average lifespans have been increasing. People who do not have access to modern medicine do not all live long and healthy, self-healed lives: many of them die or are crippled by diseases which can be managed or cured by modern medicine and surgery. I, my parents and a large number of people I know would almost certainly be dead if we had not received active medical intervention.

And why should we not be sceptical of the claims of alternative medicine, when they are patently untrue? If you mean we should just tolerate them as fancy placebos, that is OK to some extent, but a) some of them are actively harmful (see Chinese medicine article above) and b) they are ineffective, but if people actually believe all the guff surrounding them, they sometimes choose them in preference to effective treatments for serious illnesses.

I am going to keep posting [[http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2012/ucm314629.htm this] til someone notices! Why it wasn't the final nail in the homeopathy coffin I'll never know........

"because I think it is possible that there may be something in it which is above and beyond a placebo effect."

But why would you think this when study after study says there isn't?"

Because there are many highly intelligent people, with no axe to grind, no money to make, who believe it has helped them. I think it needs more studies.

I don't know if it works, but I suspect that the last word has not been said about it and tehe jury is still not out on it.

curlew, I agree we must be sceptical about the concentrations in homeopathic medicines and be able to ascertain that they contain what they say they do, and I think it needs regulation. Not sure what body does this.

Also, yes herbal medicine can be very dangerous if not done carefully and taken to excess. But that doesn't mean that herbs are without medical benefit.

Sorry, link

"The sceinftic method allows for all comers to provide evidence and if that evidece can be replicated under conditions that reduce the possibility of confounding factors, bias or poor study design casuing a false postive etc etc etc ..then something proven can be adopted."

The reality is that millions of people don't trust the scientists in white coats who try to sell and tell us that genetically modified food is safe for us to eat and will save the planet for us. We know that they have big money and lobby our politicians to try to allow their organisms to be used in food without labelling it, so that the consumer is unaware what they are eating.

We know they stand to make big money from their seeds and many people do not trust their motives.

Opinion polls show that the majority do not believe the lobbyists and the politicians who lobby for them that genetically modified food is safe.

In many cases they have not done trials on its safety and many people do not acceopt their word that it is safe.

It wouldn't surprise me if more people believe in homeopathy, as Cherie Blair seems to do, than in eating frankenfurter burgers which may one day be spliced with the genes of the lesser spotted dingbat and sold to us as a way of saving the planet.

Water may not have memory, but the people certainly do, and they aren't prepared to fall for any old voodoo.

Oh please. People fall for "any old voodoo" all the time.

You are right, they did vote for New Labour, but they eventually saw the light!

I do think the homeopaths need to find a better example than CB as their standard bearer for intelligent rational homeopaths. She may have come top in her Bar school exams but she has seemingly gone out of her way ever since to reveal herself as gullible and relying on any number of dodgy people.

We know they stand to make big money from their seeds and many people do not trust their motives.

....and yet they do not apply the same logic to the people making big money from sugar pills and seem willing to trust their motives despite the distinct lack of evidence to support claims made.

I get people being untrusting and skeptical of taking industries at their word due to "profit margin interests". I just don't get how that untrusting, skeptical approach withers and dies when the profits come from sugar pills, weak brandy, or hand waving over chakkras.

Cui bono applies to Big Alt Med as an industry too.