Homeopathy

[flyingcloud]

So, I was always a believer, always carried arnica pills around as well as Rescue Remedy. I can't say I had a firm conviction, but did it because so many people swore by it.

Incl MIL who is a nurse and her sister who is a pharmacist. Any sign of a illness, pain or minor complaint and they recommend a homeopathic treatment.

Until I read a thread on here a while ago debunking most of the myths of homeopathy. I did some googling and found that actually, there is very little proof that it works.

So, who is right? If two health care professionals are convinced of its effectiveness maybe Google was wrong?

I don't want to start a fight here, but am genuinely curious how something with so little scientific proof of effectiveness has come into widespread use.

That's not to say that I don't believe in the placebo effect and I know that DD thinks she feels much better if I give her an arnica pill or two if she has a bump (but that's just the sugar, right?)

"It's just that her contribution is so very tiny it can't be seen. But nevertheless, she totally won."

Let's not get distracted snorbs. YOU have to resort to catcalling to win, as you so rightly put it. You're so very committed to your point of view. Are you getting paid?

There's no connection between the tone of you and your croneys responses and the fact that she has left the discussion. What's to win anyway? She left because you've turned this into one of those desperately boring discussions where people argue about "semantic notions". Sorry OP.

Well, I've got work to do and this is boring. You all have a good old b**tch about Wheezy behind her back, make yourselves feel better, and I'll see you at playtime.

well, that Wheezy's got a bit of a strop on, hasn't she?

I didn't see her leaping to the defence of my nescafe argument.

Agree with Snorbs.

There are two basic ways in which we could potentially going about establishing whether or not homeopathy could work:

We can either do a theoretical analysis from a biochemistry POV. That doesn't lead us anywhere as we simply cannot find anything in the molecular structure of homeopathically prepared water that is different from just ordinary water. Not to mention that the assumption of similia similibus curantur (like cures like) cannot be shown to be true. You can argue that this doesn't prove that there is no effect, but that would mean you'd also have to accept any other untestable hypothesis such as Russel's teapot (which actually works the very same way).

The more useful approach would be to engage in empirical testing. Even if we don't know how, if homeopathy works it should have a statistically significant measurable effect. This has been done a gazillion times and has never been successful. We can therefore conclude with reasonable certainty that it really doesn't work.

Anecdotal evidence is always problematic because it is impossible to know the exact circumstances and to rule out the placebo effect being at work. It also tends to be highly unconvincing unless you're already a believer. Hence the reason that a hindu or muslim is highly unlikely to convert on the basis of person X having visions of the virgin Mary.

The claim that "science doesn't know everything, therefore homeopathy works" is a well known logical fallacy (argumentum at ignoratiam). If you don't know the answer to X that doesn't make explanation Y true by default.

"I became interested in the homeopathy because my son, who was diagnosed with colitis (prescription drug induced) and epilepsy, was getting worse and worse on his conventional medicine. Someone said go and see a homeopath and I did. Within 6 months he was asymptomatic."

and

"Only last week I myself had a cold, I sat around drinking nescafe, and after a few days it was completely gone. The same happened when I had a broken leg, though it didn't heal until after several months or drinking nescafe."

Anectdotal evidence based on personal experience.

Do we accept it or don't we?

Surely Wheezy and Milunas do?

Now that you mention it: Nescafé cured my pleuritis! I have a cup a day and it was gone within a couple of weeks. My grandmother on the other hand used to prefer Incarom ersatz coffee. When she developed TB as a young girl she barely survived and suffered from the consequences of it for the rest of her life. She's also now dead.

Fatal coffee choice, methinks! (See, I even have a control group in my limited sample!)

Whenever I've started getting ill, it's ALWAYS when I'm wearing pants.

On the other hand, I always find that I start getting better when I'm wearing pants.

It's a conundrum and I really feel more money should be spent on research.

I've got q horrible, horrible cold. But I've just had a glass of red wine and I feel much better.

I think the most important thing we can teach our children bar none is that correlation does not equal causation

It's extremely naive and simplistic to pin Steve Jobs death on the failure of complimentary medicine. Many people sadly die everyday from all sorts of illnesses whilst being treated with conventional drugs. They are not a cure-all. Nor are they fully evidence-based. In fact there is no scientific evidence for >50% of all conventional medical procedures in the NHS. A drug like Prozac though no better than placebo, can still manage to earn Fizer profits in the order of $4 billion, (yet when homeopathy is accused a being 'merely' a placebo, campaigns are mounted for its eradication from the NHS.) And evidence-base is not the last word in science. There are many leading figures in conventional medicine who are concerned about the unwarranted status of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) as THE gold standard for judging the efficacy of any therapeutic procedure. For example, Sir Michael Rawlins Chair of NICE said "RCTs, long regarded as the 'gold standard' of evidence, have been put on an undeserved pedestal. Their appearance at the top of hierarchies of evidence is inappropriate, and hierarchies are illusory tools for assessing evidence. They should be replaced by a diversity of approaches that involve analysing the totality of the evidence base" (See Rawlins M, De Testimonio 2008). This would include observational studies, patient related, and clinical observations.
We all need to wise-up ... as parents we can often treat our children safely and effectively with homeopathy, herbs and other therapies which encourage their own (healthy) immune response.
For 15 years I've treated my 3 kids mainly with homeopathy, and occasionally conventional medicine. It's a good balance and works - there is plenty of high-quality evidence that shows it to work better than placebo (see Society of Homeopaths website). And for those who want to quote the (deeply) flawed Science and Technology Committee Report it's an unreliable document - ratified by only 3 of the 14 MP's on the committee, and the Government has not adopted it's findings. I could go on ...
Basically find yourself a well-qualified, registered homeopath , get a Kit, use the Homeopathy Helpline, read some books ... and you will soon see healthier, happier children and teenagers who can throw a fever, get a cough, stomach upset, hayfever and all sorts of bigger stuff and recover quickly and healthily, mostly without resorting to any other drugs. Good luck. (not sure if I'm allowed here, but I can also recommend good books to read, and sites to visit if anyone interested!

It's naive and simplistic to believe you dcs are any healthier because you use homeopathy. My dd 14 is never ill and doesn't need to take any conventional medicine let alone homeopathy to keep her healthy.

I have q 10 year old and a 15 year old.

Last wek the 15 year old went to the dr with massively swollen glands. The dr said Nash virus, keep warm and rest and it will get better. It did. She hadn't been to the dr since she was 4 and had croup. She didn't really need to go then but I was scared.

Ds is 10. He has had a series of football related injuries but no illnesses. They could hardly be healthier- and they have never ever had a homeopathic remedy in their lives.

Oh and ..... I thought this was a site for mums, with children ... to share positive and helpful experiences.
Instead it would seem that this discussion has been hijacked by a bunch of sceptic anoraks, and I would venture that few of you are women, or have kids, because if you did you wouldn't be engaging in this ugly vitriol to get your points across.

Vitriol? Where?

Excellent - healthy children are good, with or without remedies. I happen to have seen homeopathy work in hundreds of cases, and often when parents have seen several doctors before consulting with a homeopath.

It's one option in our democracy - but better to have options and to be able to exercise choice in the healthcare one chooses. And only by becoming properly informed and knowledgeable can we exercise that choice and make sensible decisions.

Changing name Miluna/ahrl doesn't make your argument any stronger.

ahrl can you please explain how Rawlins criticisms of RCT relate to homeopathy? His points were broadly the following:

• If a condition is rare, there may not be sufficient patients to conduct an RCT
• RCTs are hellishly expensive
• They may be somewhat futile if a dramatic effect is pretty much immediately observable
• Trials are often abandoned early, which may lead to important observations being missed (e.g. side effects)
• Due to the fact that RCTs tend to focus on a specific patient type, preductions about the population as a whole may be harder to generalize than we usually tend to assume

Points one and three are completely irrelevant here; homeopathy is neither obviously effective to a generally recognizable degree nor is its application limited to anything particularly rare.

Given the profit margin on water remedies I would also expect manufacturers of homeopathic products to be in a position to finance trials easily.

The only things I see in this that could have any possible impact on homeopathy are a) the duration of trials and b) whether their results can be generalized sufficiently. Looking at how many times homeopathy has been tested in principle I would say it is safe to assume that there were at least a few studies whose methodology was absolutely sound and which should have shown dramatic results.

You are, incidentally, wrong to say that anyone (apart from woo meisters) is seriously criticising the concept of evidence based medicine. Criticism of a particular methodology doesn't mean that either this particular research method or the need to test drugs for effectiveness is invalid as such.

The Society of Homeopaths which you kindly quote is obviously not an unbiased source. It hence surprising that even they write that the majority of clinical trials they list are simply inconclusive (i.e. do not show a positive or negative effect of homeopathy) and that more research is needed. What they do not mention is that the more methodologically sound trials are less likely to show that homeopathy is effective than those whose quality may be more questionable.

(Acknowledgements: thanks to my wonderful if grossly deluded father - your antics have taught me my mad debunkering skillz! )

PS: I think this is seriously the first time I have heard someone use the word "sceptic" in a manner that was meant to be derogatory.

ahrl/miluna (why the name change?), you've got me there. I'm not a woman. You don't have to be - note the bit in the logo where it says "By parents, for parents". I am a parent. And to answer your mate Wheezy's question, I do indeed get paid. I get paid to build and manage computer networks. I don't get paid to say that homeopathy is bunkum. That's just a hobby.

On the other hand, how did you find this thread? I can't see any posts on mumsnet under either of your names in anything other than this thread. Did you join specifically for this thread? (And Wheezy's first post on mumsnet, less than a month ago, was about... homeopathy. What a peculiar coincidence.)

As for healthier children, my children are robustly healthy to the point where the 100% attendance certificates they routinely get from school are binned as "boring". They've never had a sugar pill in their life and very, very rarely need real conventional medicine either.

I'd still love to hear your explanation of the "highly scientific" basis for homeopathy. I'm a giant ear waiting for your songs of science. Do tell.

I will give you one thing though. I have often heard that whereas a normal cold runs its course within 14 days, homeopathy can get that down to a mere two weeks.

Oh, I don't like starting fights... (wuss here).

MIL is very upset with me for questioning her, she said I had obviously read some biased crap on t'internet and needed to read more. I feel a bit mean-spirited for questioning her 'beliefs' and would like some scientific research to back up my claims. Or maybe I'll just let it lie, not worth having a family argument over.

And yes, I was too lazy to do an advanced search, so started a new post.

Use Google scholar or pubmed to search you will find research papers.
There is a review on pubmed of research by a homeopath and even he can't come up with any research that proves homeopathy works.

Sorry am on phone so can't link

I love MN. Just saying. I love that sensible people turn up whenever there is a homeopathy thread.

Most people don't understand the nature of evidence.

"I took it and then I felt better" does not mean that something works.

There is no evidence that taking a little pill that has been soaked in magic water (water that has had essence of belladonna in it, diluted, banged on a horsehair-stuffed leather saddle, diluted again, banged again, and diluted and banged until there is not one molecule of belladonna in the water) does anything that a pill that has been soaked in non-magic water doesn't do.

Therefore homeopathy does not work.

Taking a pill given to you by someone who talks to you nicely and says in a reassuring voice that it will make you feel better, does make you feel better. This is amazing and interesting and crazy. But homeopathy does not work.

Trills "Taking a pill given to you by someone who talks to you nicely and says in a reassuring voice that it will make you feel better, does make you feel better."

That really is the far more interesting part of the whole debate. How does this work, and how can we develop this to help more people?
I really don't think the answer is by hoodwinking them to spend money on sugar pills

I'm a woman, and what I get paid to do is science. Getting pissed off with psuedoscience is just a bit of a hobby. Children 1 - happy and healthy with a minimal amount of conventional medicine, good food and exercise thanks.

Norks - ITA. It'd be really cool if there was an honest ethical way of harnessing the placebo effect.

as parents we can often treat our children safely and effectively with homeopathy, herbs and other therapies which encourage their own (healthy) immune response

Homeopathy - I've not seen any research that supports the notion that diluted-to-nothing solutions do cause an immune response. This seems like something that should be testable in vitro without mass trials - so maybe there is something you can point me to?

Herbs - only if you're bloody sure what you're doing. Unlike many alternative therapies they have actual active compounds which may do you good but can be harmful if misused.

My own preferred immune system stimulants are pets and mud - and of course, vaccinations.

The thing that really makes me very upset and angry is that people die from alternative therapies, i recently read about a baby who died because the father insisted on using his own homeopathy treatments, for his child, who needed real medicine in a hospital.

Then there are the strange kinesology stuff, which killed an irish man, who died after being 'cured' of his peanut allergy, after the alternative practitioner gave him some 'treatment' he gave him some peanut butter. He died after he struggled to get home to find his inhaler after suddenly developing breathing problems very soon after eating the peanut butter.

I dont care that these deaths are rare, I just know that if such alternative practitioners were under greater regulation, those people would still be alive. full stop.

so going on about placebos , or sugar water is one thing, but dont delude yourself, this is no magic wand, and faires dont exist.

i do consider them all, no matter how good their counselling skills or true belief in such things to be potenitally dangerous.

Placebos are very good for things that get better on their own, or where we don't have any medicines that have actual physical chemical pharmacological effects.

For everything else, go get some real medicine.