Protest against 'nothing' by canttakesky

I concur.

I've taken homeopathic remedies and not had a noticeable effect, I can't say I believe, but I see no harm in it, and certainly lots of harm in restricting alternative healthcare.

Still, it doesn't seem that there are a lot of people or a major media push behind this, there might be nothing to it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I've taken homeopathic remedies and not had a noticeable effect,...

My homeopath used to tell me: "If this doesn't work, don't judge homeopathy. Judge me. It means I didn't pick the right remedy, not that remedies don't work."

Whether that is true or not, it does highlight a very important difference between homeopathy and pharm meds. Pharm med prescription is based on a flow chart that frankly, a computer could be programmed to do. Homeopathy is a practioner art, the results of which vary greatly with each practitioner.

In homeopathy, you're picking out one remedy out of a possible 1500 remedies. Then you have to pick the right potency and the right dosage. Finding the correct remedy randomly is one in 150,000 or so, which are the odds for an incompetent homeopath. Even a good homeopath has to do an average of 3 tries to get desired outcomes.

A good homeopath, though, will consistently recommend remedies that are temporally associated with desired outcomes and is worth every penny one pays him/her. It is just very hard to find a good homeopath.

It doesn't help that homeopathic training is at one of its lower points in 200 years.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:20 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think if you declare the contents of an item, then the item should contain the contents declared.

That's true of any product in any industry.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think if you declare the contents of an item, then the item should contain the contents declared.

I agree that the chemicals in question should not be listed as "ingredients" of the product. The ingredient is sugar.

Some homeopathic products list the chemicals as ingredients, because the chemical was used in the making of the product. But most homeopathic products I use are not labeled that way, where an ingredient in the manufacturing is listed as the current contents.

Regular consumers of homeopathy know that the labels are names, rather than a list of physical contents. The "ingredient" tells us how that particular sugar pill was made, soaked with water that had once contained sulfur, or gold, or whatever chemical the name carries, before extreme dilution.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:25 AM

Quote:
Pharm med prescription is based on a flow chart that frankly, a computer could be programmed to do.

I feel almost certain that a computer could do it better, since 300,000 americans a year die from incorrect medication (Overdose, allergies, drug interactions, etc.)

As for treatments, I'm sure there's a fair degree of overlap in treatments used by herbalists, homeopaths, and other alt. med. groups. I know we borrow a fair amount from witches, and more from voodoo. And mainstream medicine sometimes borrows from us. (and a little miffed at a couple they *stole* because they liked them so much they had them schedule one banned only to then rerelease them as Rx drugs at 100 times the cost.)

As for contents, Anthony is right, but I gather that these people are in the UK. The UK has just set up its own FDA, but they do not have the laws we have regarding information on contents. You could not get away with that here I think

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
...but I gather that these people are in the UK. The UK has just set up its own FDA, but they do not have the laws we have regarding information on contents.

That's a good point. I went back to check, and all my American products have labels for the names of the products, but no labels for ingredients.

The ones where a chemical is listed as the name AND an "active ingredient," and sugar was listed as an "inactive ingredient," were made by a French company.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Not to get metaphysical here, but I have always wondered if this practice didn't actually include that component and most of both the practitioners and the recipients were unaware of it - using a liquid medium for energy transference in a manner similar to Reiki, perhaps ?

Bear in mind the ongoing debate over acupuncture and how it's gone from "Complete Hoax!" to "Yanno, there might be something TO that..." - I'd say most of these arguments are more about Big Pharma protecting their market than evidence based, but how the hell do you measure something which most folk don't even believe in ?
It'd be like trying to measure God in a debate about faith healing, wouldn't it ?

And yes, I am of the mind that even Acupuncture uses the same energies cause for a fact they even use the same damn charts as Reiki does, don't they now ?
Not to mention those needles are conductive.

Once upon a time no one believed in bacteria, or viruses, cause they could not be seen nor measured, and that wasn't all that long ago, you know.

Of course, I have a simpler test for folks who pitch a fit about what OTHER people do to THEMSELVES of their own free will....
(And think about why the above bothers me so, neh?)

You don't believe those energy contact points exist, fine, lemme poke you in one....

-Frem

PS. Yes, I cheat, guess you'd call it a weaponized version of that calming touch trick.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not to get metaphysical here, but I have always wondered if this practice didn't actually include that component and most of both the practitioners and the recipients were unaware of it - using a liquid medium for energy transference in a manner similar to Reiki, perhaps ?

That is interesting. I have never met my homeopath personally. We had always done our consultations via phone or webcam. Then I go out and buy whatever remedy he recommends, and get my desired outcomes. So if it is his energy I'm getting, I'd be getting it long distance. I have heard of long distance Reiki, though I don't know how it works.

I have heard some say that it is the energy of the remedy manufacturer that we are getting. Most of it nowadays though is made by machines. Some say those made by hand do a better job. I don't know.

I understand those people want to protest what they believe to be an empty myth. Whatever makes them happy.

For me, it's cheap, it doesn't hurt, and I get what I want. I used to have excruciating gall bladder attacks every 2-3 months. I took a remedy for 2 months, and they stopped. I haven't had them in 4 years and counting. I didn't have to get surgery, I don't need to be dependent on some med for the rest of my life. Yeah, I'm a satisfied customer. And that is just one story.

If I don't get what I want, as is sometimes the case, I go to someone else to buy another product to get what I want. It's pretty much common sense. I really don't see the harm.

Quote:
PS. Yes, I cheat, guess you'd call it a weaponized version of that calming touch trick.

Very interesting, Frem. (Note to self: Don't cross Frem.)

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:52 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

I have occasionally taken a remedy. The most noticeable effect I ever saw was when I took an anti-inflamatory, anti-venom remedy. I had just been bitten by a black widow, and my finger was swelling up and turning an awful color. My girlfriend immediately gave me this hypericum remedy and we left for the ER. By the time we got there, the swelling was down and that terrible color was completely gone. It was amazing to watch, and I didn't end up needing any further treatment for it. I'm glad to have that stuff in the house. I'm well aware of most arguments against it, and I don't know that much about why and how it can work, and I'm sure there are things homeopathy can't do, but when it works, at least in my experience, it works.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:57 AM

Quote:
Frem
Big Pharma protecting their market

Pretty much sums it up. This one doesn't look big enough here to make me suspect anything though. The anti-herbalists have passed many bans, and the WHO is calling for a worldwide ban on all herbals. That's a conspiracy. This at the moment looks like 300 random people. That may change.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

http://www.1023.org.uk/

This is a worldwide protest against homeopathy. The reason they are protesting it is because homeopathy is "nothing" and does "nothing."

Quote:
Buy a vial of 30C homeopathic sulphur at your local pharmacy and one thing you can be sure you won't find in the bottle is any sulphur. You have significantly more chance of winning a triple rollover on the lottery than you have of finding even a single atom of sulphur in that tube; but the label still reads 'Sulphur'.

It seems to me akin to atheists protesting the non-existence of God.

Anyway, I found it of interest.

It's because it is being marketed as medicine with healing value, and people take it expecting to be cured. And while there may be no harm in it if you are treating the common cold or other minor ailments, it can be more devestating if you are using it to treat serious illness, rather than using more conventional and proven treatments.

I would also like to add that the alternative medicine industry is a huge profit marking industry, and full of unqualified charlatans. And I say this as someone who uses alternative medicines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:22 PM

As in the actual article.

Quote:
Perhaps the greatest danger occurs when homeopathy replaces a conventional treatment. I first encountered this problem in 2006 when I tried to find out what homeopaths would offer to a young traveller seeking protection against malaria. Working with Alice Tuff and the charity Sense About Science, we developed a storyline in which Tuff would be making a ten week overland trip through West Africa, where there is a high prevalence of the most dangerous strain of malaria, which can result in death within three days. Tuff, a young graduate, would explain to homeopaths that she had previously suffered side-effects from conventional malaria tablets and wondered if there was a homeopathic alternative.

Before approaching homeopaths, however, Tuff visited a conventional travel clinic with exactly the same storyline, which resulted in a lengthy consultation. The health expert explained that side-effects were not unusual for malaria tablets, but that there was a range of options, so a different type of tablet might be advisable. At the same time, the health expert asked detailed questions about Tuff's medical history and offered extensive advice, such as how to prevent insect bites.

Next Tuff found a variety of homeopaths by searching on the internet, just as any young student might do. She then visited or phoned ten of them, mainly based in and around London. In each case, Tuff secretly recorded the conversations in order to document the consultation. The results were shocking. Seven out of the ten homeopaths failed to ask about the patient's medical background and also failed to offer any general advice about bite prevention. Worse still, ten out of ten homeopaths were willing to advise homeopathic protection against malaria instead of conventional treatment, which would have put our pretend traveller's life at risk.

The homeopaths offered anecdotes to show that homeopathy is effective. According to one practitioner, 'Once somebody told me she went to Africa to work and she said the people who took malaria tablets got malaria, although it was probably a different subversive type not the full blown, but the people who took homeopathics didn't. They didn't get ill at all.' She also advised that homeopathy could protect against yellow fever, dysentery and typhoid. Another homeopath tried to explain the mechanism behind the remedies: 'The remedies should lower your susceptibility; because what they do is they make it so your energy – your living energy – doesn't have a kind of malaria-shaped hole in it. The malarial mosquitoes won't come along and fill that in. The remedies sort it out.'

The investigation took place in the run-up to the summer holiday season, so this became part of a campaign to warn travellers against the very real dangers of relying on homeopathy to protect against tropical diseases. One case reported in the British Medical Journal described how a woman had relied on homeopathy during a trip to Togo in West Africa, which resulted in a serious bout of malaria. This meant she had to endure two months of intensive care for multiple organ system failure. In this case, the placebo effect offered no protection.

That's the harm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's because it is being marketed as medicine with healing value, and people take it expecting to be cured.

1. When they're cured, everything is great.
2. When they're not cured, they go, "What a waste of money." Then they try something else.

This process happens in conventional medicine too. If we're talking about failed expectations, conventional medicine does as much harm as homeopathy.

Quote:
it can be more devestating if you are using it to treat serious illness, rather than using more conventional and proven treatments.

How is it more devastating than using "proven" treatments?
Let's take cancer.

1. You try chemo and radiation. The cancer doesn't respond. You die.
Everyone says, "That is just some bad luck that you didn't happen to respond to proven treatments."

2. You try homeopathy. The cancer doesn't respond. You die.
Everyone says, "That's what you get for trying quackery. You die. You could have been saved had you tried proven treatments."

From my point of view, it looks like confirmation bias, not "devastation."

Quote:
I would also like to add that the alternative medicine industry is a huge profit marking industry, and full of unqualified charlatans. And I say this as someone who uses alternative medicines.

I completely agree.

I also would add, though, that the conventional medicine industry is ALSO a huge profit making industry, and full of unqualified charlatans.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
One case reported in the British Medical Journal described how a woman had relied on homeopathy during a trip to Togo in West Africa, which resulted in a serious bout of malaria. This meant she had to endure two months of intensive care for multiple organ system failure. In this case, the placebo effect offered no protection.

That's the harm.

My husband went to Africa after taking all the proper conventional prophylactics and vaccines. He got malaria and yellow fever and all that jazz. In this case, NEITHER the conventional products NOR the placebo effect offered protection.

Difference? His case didn't get published in the BMJ.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:45 PM

I think confirmation bias could be reasonably accused on all sides of the issue, both pro-homeopathy and pro-conventional.

For the pro-homeopathy side, it's "I took this alternative medicine and my symptoms went away, it must have worked."

But, before I get into this, let's say that unless something has studies behind it, I don't trust it. If an alternative medicine has studies behind it that explain and verify the claimed effects, like Griffonia and 5HTP, I can respect that. If there's no data, I'm pretty dismissive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:11 PM

I hadn't thought of the placebo thing. Yes, some might be relying on a bottle of water, so, yes, the bottle should be correctly labeled. I don't want laws to protect people from being morons though, because those same laws would protect the rest of us from being smart.

I choose alternative medicine because I think the underlying science is superior. I stick to herbals, and I have several that I can take for my anxiety, I know what each of them does, and understand the chemical mechanism of action, all the potential side effects, which are usually, but not always, minimal, as herbals are food, and not synthetic analogues. I know that the pharm treatments erase me memory and make me stupid. I'm not interested in going there again. Sometimes Pharm gets it right. But *you* as the informed consumer have to know that it's right. You can't trust the doctor to know. He's not really god.

Quote:
CTS
1. You try chemo and radiation. The cancer doesn't respond. You die.
Everyone says, "That is just some bad luck that you didn't happen to respond to proven treatments."

2. You try homeopathy. The cancer doesn't respond. You die.
Everyone says, "That's what you get for trying quackery. You die. You could have been saved had you tried proven treatments."

That was pretty spot on.

Quote:
alternative medicine industry is a huge profit marking industry, and full of unqualified charlatans

Not really. I mean, except for the charlatans bit, that's true. again, you need to be the informed consumer.

1 in 3 Americans uses alternative healthcare, and industry which takes in $34 billion dollars annually, making it roughly 1% of the healthcare sector.

If you want to get really holistic about it, the WHO, evil organization that it is, does regular statistical studies on the overall efficacy of healthcare systems. The winner is the hindu ayurvedic. We all know what the loser is.

Of course, people's health problems aren't holistic, they're specific, they have a particular condition, and if that's appendicitis... Actually, I'm beginning to doubt that, but for now, go to the hospital.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
For the pro-homeopathy side, it's "I took this alternative medicine and my symptoms went away, it must have worked."

That's why I try not to use the word, "worked." I say, "temporal association or correlation with desired outcome," which is a simple observation. No causal relationship implied. :)

Quote:
If there's no data, I'm pretty dismissive.

I am skeptical of everything, but not dismissive. Meaning, I don't rush out to try it, but I also don't preclude the possibility that a trial might demonstrate a temporal correlation with desired outcomes.

I was VERY skeptical of homeopathy before I tried it. The explanations I had read does not make any sense at all within the current body of scientific knowledge. They might as well have talked about sprinkling pixie dust on the pillow before you sleep. So I understand the skepticism.

But one day, I was desperate. VERY, very desperate. When you are desperate, you try anything. A scientist friend (chemist) told me her chronic urinary infection left after she tried homeopathy. I figured, well, why not?

I told myself, if I am going to try, I would give it an earnest try. After three weeks, I got my desired outcome. So I tried it tentatively for something else. And I got desired outcomes again. Since then, I've had 5 years of desired outcomes. The mechanism may well be the placebo effect. But if the placebo effect can result in my not having to get gallbladder surgery or be on meds or be in pain, and it happens to be cheap, why the hell not?

To be clear, I would never, NEVER advance this personal opinion as a scientific one. I'm not trying to convince anyone homeopathy "works." Or that it makes sense. Or that anyone should go out and try it.

I don't see the harm in trying for the placebo effect (homeopathy is literally tiny sugar pills), or whatever "effect" homeopathy has.

To me, it is as silly as protesting, "No placebo effects!"

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's because it is being marketed as medicine with healing value, and people take it expecting to be cured.
1. When they're cured, everything is great.
2. When they're not cured, they go, "What a waste of money." Then they try something else.

Except if what they have neglected to do, ie find a treatment that is actually based in scientific theory and researched effectiveness, rather than take a treatment that is not based on any current scientific or medical theory.

Quote:
This process happens in conventional medicine too. If we're talking about failed expectations, conventional medicine does as much harm as homeopathy.

really? I've found that conventional medicine does not promise anything. It gives you statistics of effecacy, and usually a huge list of risk factors.

Quote:
Let's take cancer.

1. You try chemo and radiation. The cancer doesn't respond. You die.
Everyone says, "That is just some bad luck that you didn't happen to respond to proven treatments."

2. You try homeopathy. The cancer doesn't respond. You die.
Everyone says, "That's what you get for trying quackery. You die. You could have been saved had you tried proven treatments."

The difference is one is a placebo, the other has some effect on some kinds of cancer at certain stages. Again, my experience has been that doctors give you the full reality of the possibility of treatment with chemo and radiation. Patients will know the statistics.

Quote:

I also would add, though, that the conventional medicine industry is ALSO a huge profit making industry, and full of unqualified charlatans.

I'd agree that it is a profit making business, particularly the pharmaceutical side, but doctors do have to be qualified and have to abide by codes of ethics to remain registered. Anyone can hang up a shingle as a 'alternative medicine practitioner'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:49 PM

Quote:
but doctors do have to be qualified and have to abide by codes of ethics to remain registered.

...Ehhh... They have to be certified, and if they kill a patient they're subject to a review by board, but I know plenty of doctors who don't know their heads from their asses. And those boards may not find the underlying problem.

Or, in the very least, with a few minutes browsing the internet I can diagnose my own symptoms that they've never been able to figure out. What's more, they're too reliant on tradition, even when newer studies disprove tradition, and rarely critically minded enough when looking at a medical journal. They're also very susceptible to influence from pharmaceutical companies.

My feeling is doctors may become obsolete soon. Surgeons will probably continue to exist. No one with any sense of self-preservation would try to operative on themselves.

But then, if someone absolutely does not and cannot understand basic biology and chemistry, then a doctor may be helpful for them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:16 PM

You can actually report doctors who malpractice and they can be deregistered and prevented from practicing. That's not to disagree that there are degrees of competence with doctors, like any other profession but at least they are all working to the same basic understanding of science and medicine. A lot of doctors now work with the more complementary medicines and naturopaths and vice versa, if there has been proven value to the treatment. Naturopathy has a lot of value,IMO and there has been a lot of clinical testing of herbs to understand their properties. Homeopathy, it's a crock.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Homeopathy, it's a crock.

What does it matter that it's a crock if it yields results?

If someone tells me to hop on my left foot, and then my right, then twirl around while rubbing my belly, etc., and I do that, and then my cancer disappears, do I really care that my dance was a crock?

I'd be putting up a banner on my house that says: "The placebo effect RULES."

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:51 PM

PENGUIN

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think if you declare the contents of an item, then the item should contain the contents declared.

That's true of any product in any industry.

--Anthony

Fair and Balanced??

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:22 PM

I'm not prepared to comment on homeopathy, I don't know much about it. My understanding from the cursory glance this thread has given me is that it doesn't have a whole lot of scientific data behind it.

That said, I can say the same about some traditional medicine practices.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My understanding from the cursory glance this thread has given me is that it doesn't have a whole lot of scientific data behind it.

You're right. It's based on 200 years of anecdotal evidence. There is SOME experimentation. Any positive results are decried by the mainstream as inconclusive or poorly executed, and any negative results are waved triumphantly in the air as evidence of quackery. Par for the course.

It doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit into the biochemical paradigm, and it offers no mechanism that is plausible to most people.

But it "works" for me ("works" defined as temporal correlation). So hey, placebo effect rules. :)

PS. That is one reason I am very interested in Montagnier's research, and why, despite the horrid paper, I think that line of inquiry is worth pursuing. It just needs to be done right, with better controls, and it shouldn't be published until he has something more rigorous. Publishing that paper was a big mistake, but he doesn't seem to care he's the laughingstock of the medical community. Whatever, right?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:05 PM

Your medicine and your science does not have to impress me to make you happy. But I don't have to believe in anything that can't be measured or proven. And, as a side note, I don't, and you probably won't be able to convince me without the data. Call me closed minded, it's not like it changes anything or I can convince you otherwise. Nor am I going to try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Your medicine and your science does not have to impress me to make you happy.

Lucky for me, right? :)

Quote:
But I don't have to believe in anything that can't be measured or proven.

As is your prerogative. No one is trying to make you believe anything or convince you without data.

I think we are all just lounging about RWED, sharing our personal POVs. Cause we apparently got nothin' else to do.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:46 PM

Ah.

>_> Sometimes I wonder if I'm prescient, but there's no such thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My understanding from the cursory glance this thread has given me is that it doesn't have a whole lot of scientific data behind it.
You're right. It's based on 200 years of anecdotal evidence. There is SOME experimentation. Any positive results are decried by the mainstream as inconclusive or poorly executed, and any negative results are waved triumphantly in the air as evidence of quackery. Par for the course.

It doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit into the biochemical paradigm, and it offers no mechanism that is plausible to most people.

But it "works" for me ("works" defined as temporal correlation). So hey, placebo effect rules. :)

PS. That is one reason I am very interested in Montagnier's research, and why, despite the horrid paper, I think that line of inquiry is worth pursuing. It just needs to be done right, with better controls, and it shouldn't be published until he has something more rigorous. Publishing that paper was a big mistake, but he doesn't seem to care he's the laughingstock of the medical community. Whatever, right?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

200 years changes the picture. A lot.

200 years ago, the concept of pure water was extremely different than it is today. Recent experiments appear to focus on a pure solution that has no nanoparticles in it. 200 years ago no one knew what a nanoparticle was, and if they did, they would have no way to filter it out.

Purification of the water then might have removed bacteria, but left behind antigens, signaling proteins, even macrophages associated with bacteria once present in the water.

Something along these lines could explain what might make it work.

Ironically, the principle is not that different from a vaccine ;)

Also, there's more to the consumption of pure water than placebo. Mineral solutes aside, it's also water, and there are worse things for your health than pure water.

Perhaps modern experiments are *too* pure. Maybe the light contamination was what caused an effect in the first place.

Quote:
From Wikipedia:
Hahnemann observed from his experiments with cinchona bark, used as a treatment for malaria, that the effects he experienced from ingesting the bark were similar to the symptoms of malaria. He therefore decided that cure proceeds through similarity, and that treatments must be able to produce symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease being treated.[34] Through further experiments with other substances, Hahnemann conceived of the law of similars, otherwise known as "let like be cured by like" (Latin: similia similibus curentur)[35][36] as a fundamental healing principle. He believed that by using drugs to induce symptoms, the artificial symptoms would stimulate the vital force, causing it to neutralise and expel the original disease and that this artificial disturbance would naturally subside when the dosing ceased.[34] It is based on the belief that a substance that in large doses will produce symptoms of a specific disease will, in extremely small doses, cure it.

Sums up the basic principle?

You see the analogy to vaccination. Actually, this is the logical model, so vaccination could be called homeopathic remedy. Most vaccines are preventative of course, preceding infection, but not all. Some vaccines are for diseases the patient already has, but is slow to develop an immune response to.

Specifically, his choice of Cinchona is the correct one, as near as we've gotten, and his logic, while not scientific, is still a reflection of some basic scientific principles, that related actions have underlying causes which we may understand now, and he did not then, but he had a hunch that these mechanisms of the body were related, and that hunch was correct.

Now this make more sense to me than the biophysics argument, because, as I said, I think that applicable biophysics is a century away, in terms of getting useful predictable results, rather than just random destructive ones. Yes, fry the brain enough, and people will lack the capacity to be insane. Radiation therapy is pretty much based on this concept, and they're getting better at it, but frankly, I think it will soon be abandoned. Maybe some day when we know the exact frequencies that interrupt the exact molecular structure of the cancer, but again, a century away

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Homeopathy, it's a crock.
What does it matter that it's a crock if it yields results?

If someone tells me to hop on my left foot, and then my right, then twirl around while rubbing my belly, etc., and I do that, and then my cancer disappears, do I really care that my dance was a crock?

I'd be putting up a banner on my house that says: "The placebo effect RULES."

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

It matters to me. And I think that the placebo has limits. If I have acute appendicitis, a placebo won't help.

I have and do use one homepathic remedy 'rescue remedy', which was extremely useful for the child who is having a hissy fit because of its placebo affects, or maybe it was the alcohol. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sums up the basic principle?

Wikipedia is NOT my favorite place to get info on homeopathy. I could put a finer point on it, but, eh... it's close enough.

The crux of homeopathy is not biochemical. The dilutions of the original chemical are so extreme that it is doubtful (indeed, many are *certain*) there are any molecules of the original substance left in the water.

So how would it "work" then, if it is just water with nothing in it?

Enter biophysics. The general speculation (and I emphasize the word speculation) is that the serial dilution and serial agitation changes the EM properties of the water, which then changes the EM properties in the human body in such a way as to heal itself.

Wherefore the EM line of inquiry of serially diluted/agitated water by Benveniste and Montagnier.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 9:47 PM

CTS

200 years ago there was no biophysics. Nor would they have been able to remove trace proteins from the water because they had no nano-titration system.

Quote:
CTS
It's based on 200 years of anecdotal evidence.

The idea is "the same" less of the same. You see how the mechanism could have worked in the early days, not through EMF, but through trace elements. Also, not so trace. Cinchona bark is not water.

Water has a rather complex chaos to it electrical system which is very large and random, or ordered in its own way. That concept is what made me think of Serial Experiment Lain. Though it's not water... I won't say any more.

ETA:

As for the biophysics angle, I know you're waiting for the great scientific breakthrough, but my hunch, and I am familiar with this field, I studied it through the graduate level, is that you won't see until 200 years in the future. I think you're going to have to work on that "How to live to be 640 plan."

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but that's just my gut feeling. Meanwhile, it makes for great sci-fi. Like liquid metal guy. Is he possible? Sure. Can we do that? No. Not for a while yet. But when you get indestructible nanites that can communicate by contact or wireless, they could make a liquid machine through some form of acephalous networking. I could probably write out more less how to do it, but it's going to be a while before it shows up at my door and tries to kill me ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:44 AM

KANEMAN

Homeopathy is about as reliable as Astrology, and about as idiotic. The rationale for the remedies are as pathetic as farting in your child's ear when he has an ear-ache. I think I'll join Mince and huff some gasoline.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 8:04 AM

CITIZEN

Homoeopathy has never been shown to work. Every reputable study I've ever come across shows Homoeopathic remedies have no discernible effect beyond a placebo. Or, in other words, it doesn't work any more than imagining you can get better (ETA: it doesn't work any better than doing nothing). I'd go as far to say in light of that, unless Homoeopaths can actually provide scientific evidence that it actually works, they should be open to fraud charges.

In the words of Tim Minchin:
“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?

Medicine.”

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
...unless Homoeopaths can actually provide scientific evidence that it actually works, they should be open to fraud charges.

Whoa!! Now we have a fight on our hands.

Should we? Shouldn't we? It won't go anywhere. It'll waste a lot of time. But we haven't fought in a while...and fighting is fun, maybe.

Decisions, decisions.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 9:37 AM