Can you have a bad reaction to homeopathic remedies?

[lovecloud]

Sorry for the silly question, bought a helios homeopathic kit and although it comes with a manual it does not really explain exactly what is in the remedies and how they work etc.

I just find it hard to believe that these tiny little identical balls can work this magic the manual claims.

You cant have an allergic reaction can you?

Huh? The first scientists who suggested the sun was the centre of the solar system were in the 4th century BC.

I don't have firm views either way on homeopathy, but I do find it interesting that scientists spend so much time trying to 'prove' something does or doesn't work according to scientific trials.

We don't know everything about how nature, our brains, bodies and the universe works, and sometimes I get a bit baffled and have to just accept that something just 'is'. I think this is called faith - same thing that people who believe in a higher power have.

There's a big rise in interest in all the stuff than comes under the bracket of 'energy medicine', including homeopathy, reflexology, acupuncture etc, some of which is now embraced by the medical community even though there are still endless arguments about whether and how it scientifically works. If something helps you get better, whether you call it a placebo or anything else, does it matter why, or that you can't explain exactly what happens in medical terms?

Just some thoughts for discussion!
Pinchy xx

can you post a link, nqc?

am interested because many studies in the past have shown that it has a better rate of healing.

Wasn't there some research looking at homeopathy from a physics point of view, rather than biochemistry, which produced an interesting line of questioning?

Word of warning, homeopathy can produce strong side effects – happened to me with remedies I had been prescribed by a homeopath. If you do visit a homeopath, do get them to warn you about any unwanted effects - two homeopaths I visited both kept jolly quiet about it until I rang them saying 'OMG' and they said 'Oh yes, that can happen'. WTF? At least with conventional medicine there are patient information leaflets that spell this out...

But the side effects are one of the reasons I think there may be something in it although heaven knows what, beyond the placebo effect (which shouldn't be dismissed - it is real and there's been some interesting research into it).

hi , i just wanted to add quickly that i used it for my second child during labour and birth and it worked wonders ..so much so that the midwife wrote down what i`d taken and said she was going to recommend it to future moms!!it also helped after ,esp with stitches etc and mastitis,feeding ..hope this helps plus they work on animals so how can it not work ..they dont know about homeopathy+\

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm\Here}. \link{http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=527628\American link}.

There are bazillions. Big study last summer.

Edam - what side effects did you experience, you cant say that and not tell us!!!!!!!!!

C'mon I need to know!!!!!!!

First time I'd been to see a homeopath about migraines - had been having them for years and nothing really helped (well, paracetamol a bit, but only to take the edge off). Got the worst case of thrush ever. Phone the homeopath who said 'oh good, that's getting all the toxins out of your system' or something equally irritating. Oddly enough the only reason I had thrush in the first place was down to being prescribed antibiotics... and after that I never had it again. So fair enough, really, although wasn't terribly impressed at the time.

Second time had been diagnosed with big, scary illness. Friend who was a homeopath prescribed for me (unethical, I know). Went to tell my boss about the illness and ended up sobbing uncontrollably. For four hours. They called a cab and sent me home and I was still crying when I got there. And I am NOT the sort of person who cries at work and this was NOT the sort of environment where crying is acceptable. Called my friend who said, oh yes, one of the remedies I gave you was for grief... gee, thanks.

that's funny, nqc, because in 1997, the Lancet published a summary of 89 placebo controlled studies of homeopathy, that came to exactly the opposite conclusion.

My own opinion, is that scientific studies like this are frequently meaningless, because the researchers can manipulate the results to sound very impressive and scientific, whilst at the same time, ensuring that the desired result is obtained.
This has been particularly evident in the research on whether or not tartrazine and other food additives can affect children's behaviour. As you can imagine, the food industry has a big input into this, and a big reason to find that additives dont affect children's behaviour.
Surprise surprise, there are studies proving that cutting tartrazine out of children's diets gives no improvement in behaviour. All very scientific until you look at the control foods they were using, which included chocolate.

In the case of homeopathy, it is estimated that between a fifth and a quarter of Europeans use it. That's a lot of money being lost by drug companies every year, and a huge incentive to produce research rubbishing homeopathy.

I also think it's very patronising to suggest that homeopathic medicine depends on the patient feeling flattered by attention from the doctor, considering the number of common homeopathic remedies like arnica, that are sold over the counter by people who have never visited a homeopthic consultant in their lives. The fact that someone is drawing such a mean-spirited and inaccurate conclusion, suggests to me that the people carrying out the research may have been looking for the particular result that they claim to have found.

Hmm, I'd say the 1997 Lancet study \link{http://www.student.uit.no/~ulfes/homeopathy.pdf\here} says their meta-analysis says it's not clearly just placebo, but also, that it's not clearly effective for any specific condition.

I think we've learned more about placebos since then. I'd assume the 2005 Lancet meta-analysis includes new information that overrides the 1997 study.

Frankly, this sort of change is exactly why science is more reliable than homopathy. The central principles of homeopathy was established in the 19th century and has not changed. Science works by trial and error, so is constantly improving.

Oh, here's a link to a \link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm\bbc} article on the lancet study.

well, this kit completely failed to work for me and at the time, I had total faith in it working. IMO homeopathic treatments are an expensive waste of time - this kit in particular gets my goat as it's rather expensive and aimed at nervous first-time mums. Rather stronger pain relief is called for during childbirth!

OK, these people who are so cynical about research which does not support homeopathy on the grounds that pharmaceuticals are big business, how come the pro-homeopathy research isn't equally dubious for exactly the same reason? Complementary therapies are huge business these days - Nightynight, you yourself give a figure of between a fifth and a quarter of Europeans using homeopathy. What the meta-analysis showed was that many if not most of the pro-homeopathy studies were really quite dubious in terms of methodology. And this was not done by scientists who were in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, by the way. Personally, I find a thorough meta-analysis which looks carefully and in an informed manner at methodology, sample size etc far more convincing than vague, unsupported claims of bias.

indeed, big business - i hate it just how uncritical people can be just because it's "alternative". My ante-natal yoga class
-captive market of nervous, impressionable mums-to-be most with money to burn and little sense left - was used by the teacher as a free platform for the advertising of
local (unvetted & extremely expensive) alternative practitioners, every single bloody week ...cupping,reflexology, homeopathy, flower remedies ..and this often for serious antental complaints.
I'm not saying there isn't a need for a alternatives to the mainstream, just that we shouldn't consume them mindlessly or to be so naive as to think practitioners are doing it solely for the good of our health! There are some cowboys out there who can make an easy buck when we're at our most vulnerable -pregnant, ill etc

I prefer to think of this stuff as 'complementary' rather than 'alternative'. No-one's saying homeopathy or acupuncture can replace surgical procedures, for instance, but both/either may help with pain relief and emotional and physical recovery after an op.

In my view the best practitioners in conventional and complementary medicine understand that the best results often come when they work together rather than seeking to rubbish/disprove either side.

My acupuncture doctor, eg, is a qualified medical doctor who happens to have specialised in acupuncture as she is Chinese and there's not the same divide there. She is part of an NHS working party which is looking at integrating acupuncture into the NHS for conditions like pain relief (especially back pain and post-op healing), fertility treatment and to help women through the menopause, all of which respond particularly well to the treatment. She points out that using acupuncture first rather than drugs or intervention could save a lot of money as well as potentially being less stressful for patients. Although she is scathing about practitioners who prescribe treatments of any kind, oral or physical, without rigorous training.

It's also worth bearing in mind that complementary practitioners often view the way our bodies work in a different way to conventional medicine, and unless you get/understand/believe this basis for them, it is indeed very difficult to explain how and why they work.

Pinchy xx

kathy, nobody has more money than the drugs industry, and I supported my suspicion of bias with an example that I had personally checked out and discovered to be inaccurate (the food additives study, which research notoriously is overlooked by the food industry), so it is hardly a "vague" suspicion.

I think it is a bit naive to dismiss the 1997 study with "we've learned a lot about placebos since 1997" It is a trap to assume at any moment that we know everything.

Homeopathy may be a placebo. If so, it's a jolly good one. Better than pink pills and other placebos, actually, since it works on babies and animals as well as many people. So what exactly is the anti-homeopathy brigade hoping to achieve?
Will the world be a better place if you "expose" homeopathy, so that everyone who has taken it knows that they were a naive fool who was conned?
When I read some of the posts about homeopathy here, Im left wondering, what exactly did I (an arnica user) do to offend you?

I think that some areas of complimentary medicine are more effective than others. I think complimentary medicine, as a whole, would be more respected and successful (and popular) if it was open to the possibility that sometimes, methods don't work, ideas are wrong, and maybe it's time to give up on some ideas.

There are certainly some things complimentary or alternative medicine does better than mainstream medicine. Practitioners are often better at listening to people, and looking at their problems and symptoms as a whole. These things make a real difference, and are important! (For example, a neighbour of mine went to a herbalist/homeopath/various other stuff type person, for her sleep problems. She didn't get prescribed things, she had a good chat about her diet and eating habits and what woke her at night etc etc, and this person's suggestions were entirely sensible and workable.)

Homeopathy doesn't generally do any harm. However, I had very bad experiences with a homeopathic vet, back home, which led me to look into homeopathy and develop quite a strong anti-homeopathy bias.

I do get exasperated with people being thoroughly skeptical about mainstream medicine and science, and then accepting whatever random tripe is sold in a health food store. If I see another bloody bottle of high-oxygen water for sale, I will scream.

Nightynight, your example has nothing to do with homeopathy! All it proves is that some science has been biased.... er, yes!

'Nobody has more money than the drugs industry' - so what are you saying, that the richer side in any debate is automatically the most corrupt? I'm afraid I don't agree.

You say 'It is a trap to assume at any moment that we know everything.' Nightynight, no-one here is claiming to know everything (though there are certainly a lot of CAM practioners out there who have no interest in research and brook no disagreement on the grounds that their area consists of 'ancient wisdom'!). The point about the 2005 meta-analysis being preferred to the 1997 one is that science is incremental. The authors of the 2005 study will have taken into account everything that the authors of the 1997 account took into account, plus all the extra things that have been learned since then. It's the 'standing on the shoulders of giants' analogy - if we can see further today it is only because we are benefiting from the work of those who came before us. And if the authors of the earlier study want to respond to the later one, they will have had plenty of opportunity to do so, but as far as I know they have not.

And in answer to Nightnight's other question, what do those of us arguing against the effectiveness of homeopathy hope to achieve - I think that's a really important & interesting question.

I can only speak for myself, but firstly, I'm arguing against the efficacy of homeopathy (rather than for it) because that is what the evidence seems to me to be saying. I don't have a problem with complementary and alternative medicines per se in the least - I am interested in which ones do, and which ones don't, seem to work. The current thinking is that some forms of herbalism are very effective and there is increasing evidence for acupuncture working for certain kinds of pain relief, for example.

I agree with you absolutely, Nightynight, about homeopathy being a very effective placebo. There is interesting and important research being done at the moment into placebos - how and why they work, what makes some better, etc. Now, surely it is more interesting and useful to actually investigate these issues rather than just saying 'Let's not investigate homeopathy at all for fear of offending believers?'

Finally you are asking what homeopathic arnica users have done to offend us! Nothing at all and I'm sorry if I or anyone else has given that impression.
I have no problem with people on here, or anywhere else saying, 'I believe it works for me' - in fact I think it's fascinating to hear what it works for etc (eg the people who got through labour on just homeopathy - wow!). What I do have a problem with is the large proportion of those who peddle (and are making money from, CAM, and this includes journalists eg in Sunday supplements who are under pressure from advertisers in the CAM industry) talking bollocks, either because they can't be bothered to do their homework (you would not believe the number of times when herbal arnica is conflated with homeopathic, for instance) or because they are trying to make money by exploiting people at vulnerable times.
[takes deep breath]
Should probably parp myself now!

Oooh, is arnica not homeopathic then?

I know quite a few people who believe in homeopathy, and I don't get into arguments with them. I say "I don't do homeopathy". And they (almost) all leave it be.

Kathy1972 - are you me?
Just wondering.

Weird, I've done a bit of a websearch, and there's clearly an arnica plant, making arnica a herbal thing. But there is also homeopathic arnica, Weleda make one at 6c and 30C dilution.