This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Has anyone used homeopathy? I'm thinking of trying it, but am quite reserved about it and quite cynical......anyone had success or failures with it or advice about it? Thanks
In reply to heathermeek: Trying it for what?
The only thing it will reliably cure is dehydration, and even that involves a substantial overdose.
The only thing it will reliably cure is dehydration, and even that involves a substantial overdose.
In reply to heathermeek: Homeopathy is widly regarded as hocum of the highest order! Scientology has nothing on Homeopathy!
In reply to heathermeek: Yes, I use it on the Euro millions lotteyr, so far so good.
In reply to heathermeek: this has to be a troll,anyone with the intelligence to type on a keyboard can obviously see homeopathy is a load of rubbish
In reply to heathermeek:
The old Tim Minchin quote sums it up for me...
'You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?
...Medicine.'
The old Tim Minchin quote sums it up for me...
'You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?
...Medicine.'
In reply to toad:
not if its the sugar pill variant, guess it might work for diabetes though.
go for the bach flower remedies instead, least they got some alcohol in them.
> The only thing it will reliably cure is dehydration
not if its the sugar pill variant, guess it might work for diabetes though.
go for the bach flower remedies instead, least they got some alcohol in them.
In reply to mark s:
I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers......ah yes this is the UKC forum!!
> (In reply to heathermeek) this has to be a troll,anyone with the intelligence to type on a keyboard can obviously see homeopathy is a load of rubbish
I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers......ah yes this is the UKC forum!!
In reply to heathermeek: WTF? you ARE getting serious/helpful answers. Homeopathy is quackery and those that see benefits from it are experiencing that old phenomena, Placebo! (and i'm not talking the music band version)
In reply to heathermeek:
Num Num was cured of scabies by burying a dead chicken under a full moon at midnight
Num Num was cured of scabies by burying a dead chicken under a full moon at midnight
In reply to heathermeek:
I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers....
You have.
Homeopathy is a placebo (which can be good).
I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers....
You have.
Homeopathy is a placebo (which can be good).
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Well...ok....maybe they are serious answers then.....I think you maybe have just saved me £60!!
Well...ok....maybe they are serious answers then.....I think you maybe have just saved me £60!!
In reply to heathermeek:
you're welcome!
> (In reply to lowersharpnose)
>
> Well...ok....maybe they are serious answers then.....I think you maybe have just saved me £60!!
>
> Well...ok....maybe they are serious answers then.....I think you maybe have just saved me £60!!
you're welcome!
In reply to heathermeek: Well dilute the silly answers by 10,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times and you'll understand why homeopathy doesn't work.
In reply to heathermeek:
Some other placebos are more expensive than £60.
This is one of the standard pee-takes of homeopathy.
youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&
Some other placebos are more expensive than £60.
This is one of the standard pee-takes of homeopathy.
youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&
In reply to heathermeek: There is absolutely no way that homeopathy can work, it is just water - either in a bottle, or dripped onto a pill. The theory is fundementally rubbish, but even if it was true the "active" element isn't just diluted, it is no longer present in the remedy at ANY dilution.
That isn't very,very,very dilute, btw. It isn't there. Not. One. Molecule.
And if someone comes along and says the word "quantum", it's because they don't have a bloody clue.
That isn't very,very,very dilute, btw. It isn't there. Not. One. Molecule.
And if someone comes along and says the word "quantum", it's because they don't have a bloody clue.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
excellent clip. Love those sketches!
> (In reply to heathermeek)
>
> Some other placebos are more expensive than £60.
>
> This is one of the standard pee-takes of homeopathy.
>
> youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&
>
> Some other placebos are more expensive than £60.
>
> This is one of the standard pee-takes of homeopathy.
>
> youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&
excellent clip. Love those sketches!
In reply to toad:
Ah, but the water *remembers* the active ingredient.
At least the side effects aren't too bad...
Ah, but the water *remembers* the active ingredient.
At least the side effects aren't too bad...
In reply to toad:
When your desperate for something to get better you will try anything!! As I said I wasn't sure about it and if everyone had answered yes its amazing and it works well I would try it, however given these answers.....I think I will leave it....Thanks though
When your desperate for something to get better you will try anything!! As I said I wasn't sure about it and if everyone had answered yes its amazing and it works well I would try it, however given these answers.....I think I will leave it....Thanks though
In reply to toad: The memory of a hole: you've gotta love a massive scam based on Zen.
I'm sure NumNum has a memory of some holes too... is he in fact a homeopathic entity?
b
I'm sure NumNum has a memory of some holes too... is he in fact a homeopathic entity?
b
In reply to heathermeek:
Tim Minchin sums it up nicely:
"Water has memory! And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!"
There are some great books debunking homeopathy. I would recommend "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.
As mentioned, homeopathy may look like it works due to two phenomena: the placebo effect (also covered at length in the aforementioned book) and reversion to mean, i.e. if you leave many diseases long enough you get better anyway.
Tim Minchin sums it up nicely:
"Water has memory! And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!"
There are some great books debunking homeopathy. I would recommend "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.
As mentioned, homeopathy may look like it works due to two phenomena: the placebo effect (also covered at length in the aforementioned book) and reversion to mean, i.e. if you leave many diseases long enough you get better anyway.
In reply to heathermeek: Might seem like a silly question, but: have you tried your GP?
In reply to heathermeek:
What is the problem you need fixing (is medicine proving rubbish - I know it can be)?
What is the problem you need fixing (is medicine proving rubbish - I know it can be)?
In reply to heathermeek:
This is exactly the mindset that the alt-med community preys on. Not the fault of the sufferer, more the moral bankruptcy of the charlatans who exploit such desperation. And I include Boots the Chemist in that list of charlatans and fakes
> (In reply to toad)
> When your desperate for something to get better you will try anything!!
> When your desperate for something to get better you will try anything!!
This is exactly the mindset that the alt-med community preys on. Not the fault of the sufferer, more the moral bankruptcy of the charlatans who exploit such desperation. And I include Boots the Chemist in that list of charlatans and fakes
In reply to higherclimbingwales: Yes tried my GP, he is helpful, just wondered about a different view.
I'll not start describing what its for as it would take all night!
Yes you right about boot etc.....
I'll not start describing what its for as it would take all night!
Yes you right about boot etc.....
In reply to heathermeek:
Unfortunately anecdotal evidence isn't really the greatest way to judge something.
My nan smoked 40 woodbines for best part of 60 years and lived to a ripe old age.
My grandad didn't smoke at all and died of cancer.
In the world of anecdotal evidence, this proves that smoking does not give you cancer.
> (In reply to mark s)
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
>
Unfortunately anecdotal evidence isn't really the greatest way to judge something.
My nan smoked 40 woodbines for best part of 60 years and lived to a ripe old age.
My grandad didn't smoke at all and died of cancer.
In the world of anecdotal evidence, this proves that smoking does not give you cancer.
In reply to ThunderCat:
Totally agree.
As they say: the plural of anecdote isn't data!
> Unfortunately anecdotal evidence isn't really the greatest way to judge something.
>
> My nan smoked 40 woodbines for best part of 60 years and lived to a ripe old age.
>
> My grandad didn't smoke at all and died of cancer.
>
> In the world of anecdotal evidence, this proves that smoking does not give you cancer.
>
> My nan smoked 40 woodbines for best part of 60 years and lived to a ripe old age.
>
> My grandad didn't smoke at all and died of cancer.
>
> In the world of anecdotal evidence, this proves that smoking does not give you cancer.
Totally agree.
As they say: the plural of anecdote isn't data!
In reply to heathermeek: i read an article on homeopathy i cant remember what the ailment was,but it was some water born diesese.the bottle contained some of the said diesese,but it was so diluted that if it was what it said exactly on the bottle the diesese would not be present in the whole universe due to any sample of water containing at least some of the diesese anyway.
Beware of homeopathy. A friend tried some and washed it down with tap water - he was admitted to hospital with an overdose.
In reply to snaresman: I prefer the line by Tim Minchin that goes something along the lines of 'Water has MEMORY! And whilst its memory of that long lost drop of Onion Juice is somehow infinite, it somehow forgets all the POO it's had in it!'
...
...
In reply to angry pirate: Ooh, I didn't see you'd already quoted my quote.
See I'm partially torn between the Tim Minchin quote and by the fact that my Mum's been a fan of homeopathy for over 30 years since my sister's allergic to well, loads of things actually including certain, common medicines & drugs so she had to start looking into alternatives.
I wouldn't knock homeopathy too much - rescue remedy is brilliant, tastes like brandy...
I wouldn't knock homeopathy too much - rescue remedy is brilliant, tastes like brandy...
In reply to charley:
different things.
Bach flower remedies do, as you say, contain brandy but at the price you end up paying you could buy a decent bottle and not worry about the alt med crap.
Homeopathy works on the "law of similarities". So something that causes symptoms similar to an illness will cure it. However they soon figured out that taking poisons could damage the repeat sales and backed it up with the more dilute it is the stronger. Thats what the 30c etc shows, that is been diluted one drop in 100 however many times.
So for 30c you end up with a dilution of:
1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.
So ensuring it isnt going to kill you but also ensuring that it is just water.
> I wouldn't knock homeopathy too much - rescue remedy is brilliant, tastes like brandy...
different things.
Bach flower remedies do, as you say, contain brandy but at the price you end up paying you could buy a decent bottle and not worry about the alt med crap.
Homeopathy works on the "law of similarities". So something that causes symptoms similar to an illness will cure it. However they soon figured out that taking poisons could damage the repeat sales and backed it up with the more dilute it is the stronger. Thats what the 30c etc shows, that is been diluted one drop in 100 however many times.
So for 30c you end up with a dilution of:
1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.
So ensuring it isnt going to kill you but also ensuring that it is just water.
In reply to heathermeek:
It doesn't work, but if you are naive/stupid enough to believe that it might or does work, then the placebo effect might work for you instead.
It doesn't work, but if you are naive/stupid enough to believe that it might or does work, then the placebo effect might work for you instead.
In reply to Robert Durran:
so you've tried it then?
> (In reply to heathermeek)
>
> It doesn't work, but if you are naive/stupid enough to believe that it might or does work, then the placebo effect might work for you instead.
>
> It doesn't work, but if you are naive/stupid enough to believe that it might or does work, then the placebo effect might work for you instead.
so you've tried it then?
In reply to heathermeek:
have you read any of the theory behind it?
You have a choice of needing to rewrite a fair amount of science or alternatively considering it as much use as eating a randomly selected smartie.
Unless its at such low (by homeopathic standards, high by any other) concentration at which point it becomes herbal medicine which needs addressing on its own pros and cons.
> so you've tried it then?
have you read any of the theory behind it?
You have a choice of needing to rewrite a fair amount of science or alternatively considering it as much use as eating a randomly selected smartie.
Unless its at such low (by homeopathic standards, high by any other) concentration at which point it becomes herbal medicine which needs addressing on its own pros and cons.
In reply to heathermeek:
No, because, not being naive/stupid, there is no point in doing so.
If you are actually asking how I know it doesn't work without trying it, well that is like asking how I know I would hurt myself if I fell of a high cliff (something I have also not done): overwhelming theoretical reasons as well as overwhelming evidence.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> so you've tried it then?
No, because, not being naive/stupid, there is no point in doing so.
If you are actually asking how I know it doesn't work without trying it, well that is like asking how I know I would hurt myself if I fell of a high cliff (something I have also not done): overwhelming theoretical reasons as well as overwhelming evidence.
In reply to dissonance:
Do sceptics get less benefit from a placebo?
Are we stuffed because we are rational?
Do sceptics get less benefit from a placebo?
Are we stuffed because we are rational?
In reply to lowersharpnose:
i believe some studies have shown the same effect even when it was stated it was a placebo.
Guess would vary though, placebos seems to be a damned complicated area.
You also have the other factors eg although the sugar pill is useless the half an hour chat and cup of tea with the alt med bod might cheer you up and hence get you to recover faster.
> Do sceptics get less benefit from a placebo?
i believe some studies have shown the same effect even when it was stated it was a placebo.
Guess would vary though, placebos seems to be a damned complicated area.
You also have the other factors eg although the sugar pill is useless the half an hour chat and cup of tea with the alt med bod might cheer you up and hence get you to recover faster.
In reply to dissonance:
The chat would not cheer me up. I would be thinking this is all crap and asking them what evidence there was for xxx.
The chat would not cheer me up. I would be thinking this is all crap and asking them what evidence there was for xxx.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Hmmmm so I guess that makes the NHS stupid then as they can offer it...no need to get sarcastic! Its good to have a well rounded view of all the things available out there, and interesting to learn from others experiences.....as you have not experienced it I guess I have to take your advice and decide whether to listen or not. Whether its a placebo or not if something works in any which way it can, surely thats a success.
> (In reply to heathermeek)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> No, because, not being naive/stupid, there is no point in doing so.
>
> If you are actually asking how I know it doesn't work without trying it, well that is like asking how I know I would hurt myself if I fell of a high cliff (something I have also not done): overwhelming theoretical reasons as well as overwhelming evidence.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> No, because, not being naive/stupid, there is no point in doing so.
>
> If you are actually asking how I know it doesn't work without trying it, well that is like asking how I know I would hurt myself if I fell of a high cliff (something I have also not done): overwhelming theoretical reasons as well as overwhelming evidence.
Hmmmm so I guess that makes the NHS stupid then as they can offer it...no need to get sarcastic! Its good to have a well rounded view of all the things available out there, and interesting to learn from others experiences.....as you have not experienced it I guess I have to take your advice and decide whether to listen or not. Whether its a placebo or not if something works in any which way it can, surely thats a success.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
dunno, if i wasnt paying i might enjoy the argument. I take your point though.
> The chat would not cheer me up. I would be thinking this is all crap and asking them what evidence there was for xxx.
dunno, if i wasnt paying i might enjoy the argument. I take your point though.
In reply to heathermeek:
AIUI, your GP cannot prescribe a placebo medicine, but can suggest a placebo treatment.
AIUI, your GP cannot prescribe a placebo medicine, but can suggest a placebo treatment.
In reply to heathermeek:
Honestly, you are flogging a very dead horse on here with this subject. The homeopathic methodology doesn't stand up to the sort of scientific scrutiny that the vast majority of vocal people on here subscribe to as a method for evaluating the world around them and the actions of the people in it.
Take a look at the threads that have been started on here regarding homeopathy
http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/search.html?cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&a...
and you will see that you are looking for supportive information (I don't mean endorsing, but supportive in the sense of it being helpful to you making what you feel would be a more informed decision) among people who by their general allegiance and opinion are unable to offer you both sides of the argument.
I suggest that you do some research online, speak to a couple of practitioners, take on board the opinions offered here already and then just make your own mind up. If the truth is that it is beneficial purely for placebo effect then you're in the best place as you will naturally bias your search to suit your already held belief. If it is that science can be used to demonstrate the efficacy then you will find that by looking for it among the scientific community. If it is that homeopathy is total horseradish then I expect it will be come evident to you from your investigations. But asking a this community for a balanced view is unlikely to get you the answers that you are looking for and quite probably will earn you anger and irritation.
Look elsewhere and make decisions based upon information rather than ridicule. Good luck.
(oh and for what it's worth, I think that there is no medical efficacy to homeopathy)
Honestly, you are flogging a very dead horse on here with this subject. The homeopathic methodology doesn't stand up to the sort of scientific scrutiny that the vast majority of vocal people on here subscribe to as a method for evaluating the world around them and the actions of the people in it.
Take a look at the threads that have been started on here regarding homeopathy
http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/search.html?cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&a...
and you will see that you are looking for supportive information (I don't mean endorsing, but supportive in the sense of it being helpful to you making what you feel would be a more informed decision) among people who by their general allegiance and opinion are unable to offer you both sides of the argument.
I suggest that you do some research online, speak to a couple of practitioners, take on board the opinions offered here already and then just make your own mind up. If the truth is that it is beneficial purely for placebo effect then you're in the best place as you will naturally bias your search to suit your already held belief. If it is that science can be used to demonstrate the efficacy then you will find that by looking for it among the scientific community. If it is that homeopathy is total horseradish then I expect it will be come evident to you from your investigations. But asking a this community for a balanced view is unlikely to get you the answers that you are looking for and quite probably will earn you anger and irritation.
Look elsewhere and make decisions based upon information rather than ridicule. Good luck.
(oh and for what it's worth, I think that there is no medical efficacy to homeopathy)
In reply to EZ:
a balanced view has been given, its been acknowledged it may have placebo effect and hence help.
You seem to be taking the fox news approach to "balanced".
plenty of information has been given.
> But asking a this community for a balanced view is unlikely to get you the answers that you are looking for and quite probably will earn you anger and irritation.
a balanced view has been given, its been acknowledged it may have placebo effect and hence help.
You seem to be taking the fox news approach to "balanced".
> Look elsewhere and make decisions based upon information rather than ridicule. Good luck.
plenty of information has been given.
In reply to EZ:
Yes, she might as well get the answer she is presumably looking for by just making it up herself as by looking elsewhere (in the same way that, if I asked what the moon was made of, I could get the answer "cheese" by making it up myself). I take it that by a "balanced view", you mean one where made up fanciful bollocks is given equal weight to properly obtained scientific evidence.
> asking a this community for a balanced view is unlikely to get you the answers that you are looking for and quite probably will earn you anger and irritation.
Yes, she might as well get the answer she is presumably looking for by just making it up herself as by looking elsewhere (in the same way that, if I asked what the moon was made of, I could get the answer "cheese" by making it up myself). I take it that by a "balanced view", you mean one where made up fanciful bollocks is given equal weight to properly obtained scientific evidence.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Really I mean a view that isn't born out of ridicule. I stated my position at the bottom of my post in part so that I don't get held up for endorsing the practice. I don't. The point is though that a balance of opinions will necessarily by definition include yays, nays and not sures and the only thing that asking here will do is get nays.
Really I mean a view that isn't born out of ridicule. I stated my position at the bottom of my post in part so that I don't get held up for endorsing the practice. I don't. The point is though that a balance of opinions will necessarily by definition include yays, nays and not sures and the only thing that asking here will do is get nays.
In reply to dissonance:
Haha did I just get lumped in with Fox news. Damnit!
I can see that the OP is frustrated by the thread. All I was doing was suggesting that this is a biased sample because the majority of opinions are against the practice. Now it's hardly a foundation for good reasoning to take from a biased sample and presume that it will result in a well informed position. The OP does also (if not convinced by the opinions offered already) need to speak to a couple of practitioners. There are for whatever they may be worth people who endorse the practice and a balanced sample will include discussing with those people too.
Sometimes when we are in the thick of an argument it's nice to be offered an out. No?
Haha did I just get lumped in with Fox news. Damnit!
I can see that the OP is frustrated by the thread. All I was doing was suggesting that this is a biased sample because the majority of opinions are against the practice. Now it's hardly a foundation for good reasoning to take from a biased sample and presume that it will result in a well informed position. The OP does also (if not convinced by the opinions offered already) need to speak to a couple of practitioners. There are for whatever they may be worth people who endorse the practice and a balanced sample will include discussing with those people too.
Sometimes when we are in the thick of an argument it's nice to be offered an out. No?
In reply to heat hermeek: Don't try it. You may as well go hunting leprechauns. My mother had cancer and after medicine failed, she quite understandably tried the alt med and religion ( trip to Lourdes etc). None of it worked. The only one honest enough to admit its limitations etc was normal medicine.
Don't let the con artists / deluded wellmeaners trick you / give you false hope.
Don't let the con artists / deluded wellmeaners trick you / give you false hope.
Forgot to say. Hope you get better, whatever you have.
In reply to EZ: So if somebody says "I've heard the earth is actually flat, is this true?" and everyone comes on and says "no, it's an oblate spheroid", you'd be concerned that it was a biased sample?
I suspect you believe homeopathy works but even you are embarrassed to admit it.
I suspect you believe homeopathy works but even you are embarrassed to admit it.
In reply to heathermeek:
I feel that Heathermeek has been a bit harshly treated here. Ask a straightforward qustion and get a load of sarcastic ranting in reply (as well as some serious answers).
Heather. Whenever you take any kind of remedy and see an improvement it can be for one of 3 reasons:
1. Something in the remedy worked.
2. Your mind triggered the improvement because you thought it would work (placebo).
3. You got better anyway because that's just what happens with some ailments (regression to the mean).
Homeopathy requires a leap of faith based on some "science" that is out of kilter with our normal understanding. To some that is quackery and to others that is faith in something we just can't understand. I suggest you go and look online or in the bookshop for some broader information on homeopathy to get a better understanding.
As a statistical analyst myself I work on fact-based decisions and my personal conclusion is that the purveyors of Homeopathy want you to believe that what they are selling will lead to 1. (above), when in reality what is happening is 2. or 3.
For context, the NHS is moving away from Homeopathy as there is no scientific foundation to the claims.
Hope you get better.
M
I feel that Heathermeek has been a bit harshly treated here. Ask a straightforward qustion and get a load of sarcastic ranting in reply (as well as some serious answers).
Heather. Whenever you take any kind of remedy and see an improvement it can be for one of 3 reasons:
1. Something in the remedy worked.
2. Your mind triggered the improvement because you thought it would work (placebo).
3. You got better anyway because that's just what happens with some ailments (regression to the mean).
Homeopathy requires a leap of faith based on some "science" that is out of kilter with our normal understanding. To some that is quackery and to others that is faith in something we just can't understand. I suggest you go and look online or in the bookshop for some broader information on homeopathy to get a better understanding.
As a statistical analyst myself I work on fact-based decisions and my personal conclusion is that the purveyors of Homeopathy want you to believe that what they are selling will lead to 1. (above), when in reality what is happening is 2. or 3.
For context, the NHS is moving away from Homeopathy as there is no scientific foundation to the claims.
Hope you get better.
M
In reply to heathermeek:
Maybe people are just not reading the question and leaping in with a load of sarcastic comments to make them feel better and look good....Go back to the original question people....I said 'but am quite reserved about it and quite cynical' thus meaning I probably do have a similar view point to most of the answers on here however I was interested after hearing about it to see if anyone had any helpful comments.....or positive comments. Obviously we all know its diluted etc but I thought I may just get some useful comments not a load of rubbish written by monkeys! If you can't write useful stuff rather than below the belt comments just don't bother at all....If its really that crap why bother wasting your time writing on here.
> Has anyone used homeopathy? I'm thinking of trying it, but am quite reserved about it and quite cynical......anyone had success or failures with it or advice about it? Thanks
Maybe people are just not reading the question and leaping in with a load of sarcastic comments to make them feel better and look good....Go back to the original question people....I said 'but am quite reserved about it and quite cynical' thus meaning I probably do have a similar view point to most of the answers on here however I was interested after hearing about it to see if anyone had any helpful comments.....or positive comments. Obviously we all know its diluted etc but I thought I may just get some useful comments not a load of rubbish written by monkeys! If you can't write useful stuff rather than below the belt comments just don't bother at all....If its really that crap why bother wasting your time writing on here.
In reply to heathermeek:
Relax Heather, and read my former answer not an hour ago
Remember this is UKC and a lot of people hide behind the anonimity and like to show off - keyboard heroes.
I think you will struggle to get any truly unbiased data on Homeopathy. I suggest trying online. Also do get hold of the book "Bad Science" as was mentioned earlier.
Relax Heather, and read my former answer not an hour ago
Remember this is UKC and a lot of people hide behind the anonimity and like to show off - keyboard heroes.
I think you will struggle to get any truly unbiased data on Homeopathy. I suggest trying online. Also do get hold of the book "Bad Science" as was mentioned earlier.
In reply to heathermeek:
People who believe they have had positive results as a result of homeopathy. People who actually provably have had positive outcomes as a direct result of treatment with only sugar/water/goodwill will be harder to find. Even homeopaths seem to struggle.
It's a scam. Some of the people pushing it know this, some don't and believe their own nonsense. It's still a scam, a lucrative and dangerous one at that. You might feel better after it but then you might just feel better anyway. A hug would probably be more effective, proper medical treatment even more so.
If you're ill, see a doctor, you've paid for it already and they're best able to help you get better. A homeopathist charges and can't help you.
You are getting serious answers. Homeopathy is nonsense on a par with dropping coins in a wishing well as a medical treatment.
jk
> I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
People who believe they have had positive results as a result of homeopathy. People who actually provably have had positive outcomes as a direct result of treatment with only sugar/water/goodwill will be harder to find. Even homeopaths seem to struggle.
It's a scam. Some of the people pushing it know this, some don't and believe their own nonsense. It's still a scam, a lucrative and dangerous one at that. You might feel better after it but then you might just feel better anyway. A hug would probably be more effective, proper medical treatment even more so.
If you're ill, see a doctor, you've paid for it already and they're best able to help you get better. A homeopathist charges and can't help you.
> I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers......ah yes this is the UKC forum!!
You are getting serious answers. Homeopathy is nonsense on a par with dropping coins in a wishing well as a medical treatment.
jk
In reply to Rampikino: Hi, yes you answer was great and useful, thank you. Well rounded and informative.....I think that my mind about it was made up in the first place but good to get pros and cons of it. My comment wasn't directed at your comment, yours was helpful, thanks
In reply to heathermeek:
I thought it was the answer to my particular problem - I thought I could get the help I needed without the liver damage that's associated with conventional approaches.
So I poured a dram of Scotch into our cold water tank. I ran the tap for a while - nothing. I even had a bath in the stuff.
Still, at least I hadn't poured the whole bottle in. This time I poured a dram into a glass and added a wee drop of water. Bingo!
Sorry! Hope you get better!.
I thought it was the answer to my particular problem - I thought I could get the help I needed without the liver damage that's associated with conventional approaches.
So I poured a dram of Scotch into our cold water tank. I ran the tap for a while - nothing. I even had a bath in the stuff.
Still, at least I hadn't poured the whole bottle in. This time I poured a dram into a glass and added a wee drop of water. Bingo!
Sorry! Hope you get better!.
In reply to heathermeek: It's very hard to understand the numbers involved. If you look at Dissonances post, it shows how dilute 30c is, but doesn't really give you an idea of what that means. I could say it's the equivalent of an eye dropper in the Atlantic, but that would be misleading - it's much, much more dilute than that!
It was developed at a time when there was no real understanding of how medicines work, and as a consequence has a lot of really idiotic (with hindsight) mumbo jumbo around it - like succussing. As modern methods have run away in terms of effectiveness and understanding, homeopathy has been left in the mud, and lots of ridiculous justifications (like the quantum physics rubbish I alluded to last night) have been made up in order to keep homeopaths in business.
The placebo element is almost a red herring, it's common to all treatments, from chemotherapy to witch doctors.
Some practitioners believe in homeopathy, many don't - which is why it's worth pointing at the big chemist chains (not just Boots) that cynically sell a product which doesn't simply not work, but which in fact CANNOT work.
Even if it was just for minor ailments, I'd be annoyed at this, but it's been repeatedly "prescribed" by some homeopaths (there was a BBC expose last year) for serious things like malaria. Ripping off the worried well (and I don't for a moment assume you are in this category) is one thing - causing avoidable death or serious illness is entirely different
It was developed at a time when there was no real understanding of how medicines work, and as a consequence has a lot of really idiotic (with hindsight) mumbo jumbo around it - like succussing. As modern methods have run away in terms of effectiveness and understanding, homeopathy has been left in the mud, and lots of ridiculous justifications (like the quantum physics rubbish I alluded to last night) have been made up in order to keep homeopaths in business.
The placebo element is almost a red herring, it's common to all treatments, from chemotherapy to witch doctors.
Some practitioners believe in homeopathy, many don't - which is why it's worth pointing at the big chemist chains (not just Boots) that cynically sell a product which doesn't simply not work, but which in fact CANNOT work.
Even if it was just for minor ailments, I'd be annoyed at this, but it's been repeatedly "prescribed" by some homeopaths (there was a BBC expose last year) for serious things like malaria. Ripping off the worried well (and I don't for a moment assume you are in this category) is one thing - causing avoidable death or serious illness is entirely different
In reply to nniff:
Having a bath in scotch may just be the answer, as for putting it in the coldwater tank, brilliant......ermmm stop putting ideas into my head! I tried it neat last night, all my problems just disappeared!
> (In reply to heathermeek)
>
> I thought it was the answer to my particular problem - I thought I could get the help I needed without the liver damage that's associated with conventional approaches.
>
> So I poured a dram of Scotch into our cold water tank. I ran the tap for a while - nothing. I even had a bath in the stuff.
>
> Still, at least I hadn't poured the whole bottle in. This time I poured a dram into a glass and added a wee drop of water. Bingo!
>
>
> Sorry! Hope you get better!.
>
> I thought it was the answer to my particular problem - I thought I could get the help I needed without the liver damage that's associated with conventional approaches.
>
> So I poured a dram of Scotch into our cold water tank. I ran the tap for a while - nothing. I even had a bath in the stuff.
>
> Still, at least I hadn't poured the whole bottle in. This time I poured a dram into a glass and added a wee drop of water. Bingo!
>
>
> Sorry! Hope you get better!.
Having a bath in scotch may just be the answer, as for putting it in the coldwater tank, brilliant......ermmm stop putting ideas into my head! I tried it neat last night, all my problems just disappeared!
In reply to heathermeek:
Unfortunatley yes the NHS is misguided in offering it because many many studies have shown it doesnt do any better than placebo.
Peoples opinions of what they think works and what they like really dont mean anything compared to the actual data.
Unfortunatley yes the NHS is misguided in offering it because many many studies have shown it doesnt do any better than placebo.
Peoples opinions of what they think works and what they like really dont mean anything compared to the actual data.
In reply to heathermeek:
You won't get a great positive response on here to questions about homeopathy, because the industry makes the banking sector look ethical. I work in pharmaceutical development for one of the "big evil pharma companies" we submit gigantic reports to regulatory agencies (latest one was nearly 1 million pages!) which have been carefully compiled over about 10 years of research and large scale clinical trials. The regulatory agencies then spend the better part of a year looking for gaps in the document before turning up at our factories and auditing them with extreme prejudice. If we are lucky we'll be able to sell something at the end of that but we will be very strictly regulated on what we can say about the product.
Meanwhile someone is milking a bee, or boiling up some deadly nightshade in a shed. He'll then very carefully throw away what he has made, pour some water into a bottle and stick a lable on it that claims it cures cancer, aids and panic attacks. He'll then claim that his product is better than the product of the evil pharmaceutical company because it aligns your inner something or rather.
Some poor sod is then going to follow the poor advice of the homeopath and die of something nasty. If a pharmaceutical company made claims even half as outlandish as the homeopath we'd all get jailed, the regulators hand out multi-million dollar fines for minor clerical errors and billion dollar fines for false selling. That is why lots of people don't like homeopaths.
You won't get a great positive response on here to questions about homeopathy, because the industry makes the banking sector look ethical. I work in pharmaceutical development for one of the "big evil pharma companies" we submit gigantic reports to regulatory agencies (latest one was nearly 1 million pages!) which have been carefully compiled over about 10 years of research and large scale clinical trials. The regulatory agencies then spend the better part of a year looking for gaps in the document before turning up at our factories and auditing them with extreme prejudice. If we are lucky we'll be able to sell something at the end of that but we will be very strictly regulated on what we can say about the product.
Meanwhile someone is milking a bee, or boiling up some deadly nightshade in a shed. He'll then very carefully throw away what he has made, pour some water into a bottle and stick a lable on it that claims it cures cancer, aids and panic attacks. He'll then claim that his product is better than the product of the evil pharmaceutical company because it aligns your inner something or rather.
Some poor sod is then going to follow the poor advice of the homeopath and die of something nasty. If a pharmaceutical company made claims even half as outlandish as the homeopath we'd all get jailed, the regulators hand out multi-million dollar fines for minor clerical errors and billion dollar fines for false selling. That is why lots of people don't like homeopaths.
In reply to Reach>Talent: I posted something risible that our village homeopath had written (well, cut and pasted) for our village newsletter. I posted it because I thought it was badly written nonsense. Then Rubbishy pointed out that the symptoms it could supposedly "cure" were almost exactly the same as meningitis - which without swift action can easily cause brain damage or worse. This then strays into the realms of dangerous nonsense and therefore deserves all the ridicule that can be thrown at it.
In reply to andy: thats very true
In reply to heathermeek:
The trouble is, starting a thread on a forum doesn't entitle you to control how people respond to it or get irritated if they don't respond how you intended. Nobody would seriously expect to have control over people's responses but plenty of people do seem to get irritated or even angry when people don't conform to their idea of what should be posted in "their" thread, particularly on UKC.
People were genuinely trying to be helpful by telling you what they thought you needed to know about Homeopathy and you did get some very well thought through answers, as well as the more entertaining ones.
The trouble is, starting a thread on a forum doesn't entitle you to control how people respond to it or get irritated if they don't respond how you intended. Nobody would seriously expect to have control over people's responses but plenty of people do seem to get irritated or even angry when people don't conform to their idea of what should be posted in "their" thread, particularly on UKC.
People were genuinely trying to be helpful by telling you what they thought you needed to know about Homeopathy and you did get some very well thought through answers, as well as the more entertaining ones.
In reply to heathermeek:
hi heather,
sorry if you've been put out by the tone of the replies- but the venom is directed against homeopathy, not you. i don't think its people posting needlessly hostile replies just to make them feel good- there are a lot of people who feel very strongly that homeopathy is quackery designed to part people in need from their money, and are inclined to say so pretty directly. there is certainly no good quality evidence that homeopathy works, and plenty that it doesn't.
tbh, you *did* get helpful replies. everyone has told you the current best evidence on it, which is that it doesnt work. surely that is useful, and not "rubbish written by monkeys".
if people had make incorrect but positive comments on it, how would that have been helpful or useful?
i'm sorry to hear that you have problems that are proving hard to fix with mainstream medicine, and wish you good luck in getting some sort of solution that helps. and not all complementary therapies are necessarily rubbish; but it is reasonable to test them to the same standards we expect for mainstream medicine, and when homeopathy is tested using randomised controlled trial, it just doesnt work,
best wishes
Gregor
hi heather,
sorry if you've been put out by the tone of the replies- but the venom is directed against homeopathy, not you. i don't think its people posting needlessly hostile replies just to make them feel good- there are a lot of people who feel very strongly that homeopathy is quackery designed to part people in need from their money, and are inclined to say so pretty directly. there is certainly no good quality evidence that homeopathy works, and plenty that it doesn't.
tbh, you *did* get helpful replies. everyone has told you the current best evidence on it, which is that it doesnt work. surely that is useful, and not "rubbish written by monkeys".
if people had make incorrect but positive comments on it, how would that have been helpful or useful?
i'm sorry to hear that you have problems that are proving hard to fix with mainstream medicine, and wish you good luck in getting some sort of solution that helps. and not all complementary therapies are necessarily rubbish; but it is reasonable to test them to the same standards we expect for mainstream medicine, and when homeopathy is tested using randomised controlled trial, it just doesnt work,
best wishes
Gregor
In reply to Luke90: yes certainly got some entertaining one that made me laugh....I'm not at all irritated just a bit let down by the contempt that seems to be in SOME posts as generally UKC is somewhere good to get good advice. The things people are saying are really just reiterating what I think and know about it but when people start calling people stupid or naive that gets a bit below the belt. There has been some very well thought out answers so thank you everyone for those, again being cynical about it and not totally convinced by it I would still not use it but good to hear opinions
In reply to andy and MKean
My ex runs a team of statisticians as a clinical research manager (or Nerd Wrangler as I call her).
She has two roles, one is to objectively review all the trial data coming in on new cancer drugs, and review the data coming in on existing drugs - she looks at efficacy and side effects. The reporting proceedures her and her colleagues go thorugh is immense, and the GP reporting system is becoming ever more vital in obtaining constant review of drugs already in practice. Thing is, the average punter has no idea of this system and just think Big Pharma = Bad Pharma.
As has been said, the same cannot be said of pressed fairy snot, flogged by some tie dye wearing new age housewife which is probably carcinogenic.
and Boots are the worst snake oil salemen of them all.
My ex runs a team of statisticians as a clinical research manager (or Nerd Wrangler as I call her).
She has two roles, one is to objectively review all the trial data coming in on new cancer drugs, and review the data coming in on existing drugs - she looks at efficacy and side effects. The reporting proceedures her and her colleagues go thorugh is immense, and the GP reporting system is becoming ever more vital in obtaining constant review of drugs already in practice. Thing is, the average punter has no idea of this system and just think Big Pharma = Bad Pharma.
As has been said, the same cannot be said of pressed fairy snot, flogged by some tie dye wearing new age housewife which is probably carcinogenic.
and Boots are the worst snake oil salemen of them all.
In reply to John Rushby:
Agreed, I try and avoid Boots where I can. I'm not sure I can accurately describe their business practices without getting myself sued, suffice to say I'm not a fan.
Agreed, I try and avoid Boots where I can. I'm not sure I can accurately describe their business practices without getting myself sued, suffice to say I'm not a fan.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
They sail very close to the wind. At least in holland and Barrat you know that you are buying pixie dust. Boots try to dress hard marketing into something a little more caring, as has been said before, sticking a middle age woman, who 3 weeks before worked in Greggs, into a white coat does to make her doctor.
They sail very close to the wind. At least in holland and Barrat you know that you are buying pixie dust. Boots try to dress hard marketing into something a little more caring, as has been said before, sticking a middle age woman, who 3 weeks before worked in Greggs, into a white coat does to make her doctor.
In reply to heathermeek:
Homeopathy or, more accurately, it's pushers are contemptible. That is why there has been contempt. Simple as that.
I used both words. I'm sorry, but people who know what homeopathy is and believe it might work are naive and if they still believe it works despite being told honestly about the overwhelming evidence to the contrary then I am afraid they are stupid.
> I'm not at all irritated just a bit let down by the contempt that seems to be in SOME posts.
Homeopathy or, more accurately, it's pushers are contemptible. That is why there has been contempt. Simple as that.
> When people start calling people stupid or naive that gets a bit below the belt.
I used both words. I'm sorry, but people who know what homeopathy is and believe it might work are naive and if they still believe it works despite being told honestly about the overwhelming evidence to the contrary then I am afraid they are stupid.
In reply to heathermeek:
It;s inevitable that some people will think they get a good experience from homoeopathy, Illnesses/conditions rarely stay the same; they get worse or mor usually the get better. Statistical chance/natural progression + placebo can look like a 'cure'.
> (In reply to mark s)
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
>
> I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers......ah yes this is the UKC forum!!
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure its a load of rubbish as I have met people who have had very positive results from it....
>
> I thought I might actually get some serious/ helpful answers......ah yes this is the UKC forum!!
It;s inevitable that some people will think they get a good experience from homoeopathy, Illnesses/conditions rarely stay the same; they get worse or mor usually the get better. Statistical chance/natural progression + placebo can look like a 'cure'.
In reply to John Rushby:
i am still waiting for the homeopaths to go and picket them. After all one of the main arguments in response to the inconvenient fact that properly conducted trials show sod all effect is that the remedies have to be individually selected and prescribed by an expert.
So buying off the shelf surely damages the good name of homeopathy and should be cracked down on.
> and Boots are the worst snake oil salemen of them all.
i am still waiting for the homeopaths to go and picket them. After all one of the main arguments in response to the inconvenient fact that properly conducted trials show sod all effect is that the remedies have to be individually selected and prescribed by an expert.
So buying off the shelf surely damages the good name of homeopathy and should be cracked down on.
In reply to heathermeek:
Haha. Good post
> Maybe people are just not reading the question and leaping in with a load of sarcastic comments to make them feel better and look good
Haha. Good post
In reply to John Rushby:
ha! love it.
> In reply to andy and MKean
>
> Nerd Wrangler as I call her).
>
> Nerd Wrangler as I call her).
ha! love it.
In reply to Robert Durran:
no argument there from me ! Its worse as they can prevent effective treatment being sought
these people are ill and whilst it may well be naive or stupid to bury ones head in the
sand its pretty bloody harsh of you. example (not sure about Hom. but alt. med)
Steve Jobs ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8841347/Steve-Jobs-regretted-tr...
If you aint ill/carer/involved etc then your terms probably apply.
Me i attempt to explore some of these issues with our 1st year psychology undergraduates (AAA at a level) when discussing scientific notation in Excel
> Homeopathy or, more accurately, it's pushers are contemptible. That is why there has been contempt. Simple as that.
no argument there from me ! Its worse as they can prevent effective treatment being sought
> I used both words. I'm sorry, but people who know what homeopathy is and believe
>it might work are naive and if they still believe it works despite being told honestly >about the overwhelming evidence to the contrary then I am afraid they are stupid.these people are ill and whilst it may well be naive or stupid to bury ones head in the
sand its pretty bloody harsh of you. example (not sure about Hom. but alt. med)
Steve Jobs ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8841347/Steve-Jobs-regretted-tr...
If you aint ill/carer/involved etc then your terms probably apply.
Me i attempt to explore some of these issues with our 1st year psychology undergraduates (AAA at a level) when discussing scientific notation in Excel
In reply to lithos:
I was really assuming that. Fair point though.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> These people are ill and whilst it may well be naive or stupid to bury ones head in the sand its pretty bloody harsh of you.
> If you aint ill/carer/involved etc then your terms probably apply.
> These people are ill and whilst it may well be naive or stupid to bury ones head in the sand its pretty bloody harsh of you.
> If you aint ill/carer/involved etc then your terms probably apply.
I was really assuming that. Fair point though.
Homeopathy is to medicine what larger is to beer.
In reply to Philip:
I think you mean water, not beer.
> Homeopathy is to medicine what larger is to beer.
I think you mean water, not beer.
In reply to Robert Durran:
And I, of course meant lager, not beer....
> (In reply to Philip)
>
> I think you mean water, not beer.
>
> I think you mean water, not beer.
And I, of course meant lager, not beer....
When I broke my cruciate ligament earlier in the year I tried homeopathy to help. I had ground tiger knee and chimp ligament juice laced water
It seems despite the dedication to a strict homeopathy and reflexology regime the ligament failed to grow and secure the knee.
Having spent £50000 on alternatives I ended up using surgery. Although it fixed the problem fully I feel slightly violated and take long showers to remove the memory of surgeons hands.
It seems despite the dedication to a strict homeopathy and reflexology regime the ligament failed to grow and secure the knee.
Having spent £50000 on alternatives I ended up using surgery. Although it fixed the problem fully I feel slightly violated and take long showers to remove the memory of surgeons hands.
In reply to heathermeek:
I've only tried a very small amount of it, without success
> Has anyone used homeopathy?
I've only tried a very small amount of it, without success
In reply to heathermeek: Any therapy works if the patient says it works. I have never homeopathy, but I know that many people do use it and they say it works. Lots of modern day medicine is only in use because the patient reports that it works, and that very often (but not always) is the only definitive evidence that is available or necessary.
In reply to heathermeek:
This says it all for me: http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=3097
This says it all for me: http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=3097
In reply to cragtaff:
For example?
> Lots of modern day medicine is only in use because the patient reports that it works, and that very often ... is the only definitive evidence that is available
For example?
In reply to heathermeek: Homeopathy means "like suffering"... I think that says it all.
In reply to HStudierende:
That's marvellous! For anyone actually interested in homeopathy, it's worth clicking on the website it links to which actually gives a very thorough introduction to Homeopathy... http://www.1023.org.uk/
That's marvellous! For anyone actually interested in homeopathy, it's worth clicking on the website it links to which actually gives a very thorough introduction to Homeopathy... http://www.1023.org.uk/
In reply to cragtaff:
Unless they're wrong?
> (In reply to heathermeek) Any therapy works if the patient says it works.
Unless they're wrong?
In reply to cragtaff:
Have you actually heard of:
1. The placebo effect?
2. Double blind trials?
Look them up, they're concepts worth understanding.
Have you actually heard of:
1. The placebo effect?
2. Double blind trials?
Look them up, they're concepts worth understanding.
In reply to cragtaff:
That is a rather loose definition of 'works'. If a patient takes a medicine and then gets better it does not mean necessarily that the medicine was the cause of them getting better. David Hume worked this out a while back.
I've taken homeopathic remedies for various things - at the urging of pushy but misguided relatives - and the best I can say is that it didn't make things significantly worse.
I am deeply sceptical of the claims of homeopaths. That water can have a memory seems unlikely. At a molecular level water is a constantly shifting non-structure of weak hydrogen bonds that are strong enough to stop water becoming water vapour, but constantly break up and reform at temperatures between freezing and boiling. The constant breaking and reforming suggests that - in the absence of large scale structures that might somehow stabilise the bond and for which we have no evidence - it is not possible for water to have a memory.
I've met a few homeopaths in social settings and its interesting to see how and what they think about their own field of study. Chatting at one point to a friends landlord who runs a homeopathic clinic, he mentioned that he had been to a conference on alternative remedies. He had been particularly taken by a presentation on quarks and quantum thingummies. My training was in physics with a phd in particle physics so quantum thingummies is not a subject I'm unfamiliar with.
He was using the words I was familiar with but not the concepts. He used them the way that Star Trek uses them - to stitch together an interesting story just long enough for it to be told - but he wasn't, as far as I could tell, aware that he was talking utter balls.
He was genuinely interested to talk to someone who knew about this stuff, but he simply didn't have the framework to differentiate between the science fiction peddled - knowingly or unknowingly - at the conference and scientific fact. I like to think that our conversation made him think a little about what he was blithely telling people, but I suspect that unlike homeopathic remedies its repeated dilution by the opinions of the people he regularly spent time with gave it a rather fleeting half-life.
What he did have was a deep fund of success stories and - more surprisingly - failure stories. It doesn't work for everyone, was his take on it. Attributing the successes and failures correctly is where the difficulty lies. Is it chance, or do the medicines do something that a simple sugar pill wouldn't?
Contrary to what a few people upthread say, most people wouldn't change their opinion of homeopathy based on a single paper. If a paper was published stating that homeopathy did have a positive effect that was greater than placebo, it wouldn't change many minds. Most people would dismiss it, or find a bazillion flaws in it. This is easy to do with many scientific papers if your intent is purely to find flaws. By flaw here, I don' mean something fatal to the papers conclusion, but anything that might give a reasonable person pause from an unusually large number of typos to a tiny sample size.
For homeopathy to be considered proven I think a lot of people would like to see a experimental demonstration of water memory that persists for months, is capable of encoding a wide variety of pharmacologically active molecules, and produce their opposite effect in a patient, and survives the curious manufacturing process by which homeopathic remedies are produced as well as being swallowed with whatever a person happens to have eaten that day. None of this exists. They'd also like to see a replicable large scale study that shows homeopathy works. The largest metastudies on homeopathy in fact show that it has no positive effect above that of a placebo.
> (In reply to heathermeek) Any therapy works if the patient says it works. I have never homeopathy, but I know that many people do use it and they say it works. Lots of modern day medicine is only in use because the patient reports that it works, and that very often (but not always) is the only definitive evidence that is available or necessary.
That is a rather loose definition of 'works'. If a patient takes a medicine and then gets better it does not mean necessarily that the medicine was the cause of them getting better. David Hume worked this out a while back.
I've taken homeopathic remedies for various things - at the urging of pushy but misguided relatives - and the best I can say is that it didn't make things significantly worse.
I am deeply sceptical of the claims of homeopaths. That water can have a memory seems unlikely. At a molecular level water is a constantly shifting non-structure of weak hydrogen bonds that are strong enough to stop water becoming water vapour, but constantly break up and reform at temperatures between freezing and boiling. The constant breaking and reforming suggests that - in the absence of large scale structures that might somehow stabilise the bond and for which we have no evidence - it is not possible for water to have a memory.
I've met a few homeopaths in social settings and its interesting to see how and what they think about their own field of study. Chatting at one point to a friends landlord who runs a homeopathic clinic, he mentioned that he had been to a conference on alternative remedies. He had been particularly taken by a presentation on quarks and quantum thingummies. My training was in physics with a phd in particle physics so quantum thingummies is not a subject I'm unfamiliar with.
He was using the words I was familiar with but not the concepts. He used them the way that Star Trek uses them - to stitch together an interesting story just long enough for it to be told - but he wasn't, as far as I could tell, aware that he was talking utter balls.
He was genuinely interested to talk to someone who knew about this stuff, but he simply didn't have the framework to differentiate between the science fiction peddled - knowingly or unknowingly - at the conference and scientific fact. I like to think that our conversation made him think a little about what he was blithely telling people, but I suspect that unlike homeopathic remedies its repeated dilution by the opinions of the people he regularly spent time with gave it a rather fleeting half-life.
What he did have was a deep fund of success stories and - more surprisingly - failure stories. It doesn't work for everyone, was his take on it. Attributing the successes and failures correctly is where the difficulty lies. Is it chance, or do the medicines do something that a simple sugar pill wouldn't?
Contrary to what a few people upthread say, most people wouldn't change their opinion of homeopathy based on a single paper. If a paper was published stating that homeopathy did have a positive effect that was greater than placebo, it wouldn't change many minds. Most people would dismiss it, or find a bazillion flaws in it. This is easy to do with many scientific papers if your intent is purely to find flaws. By flaw here, I don' mean something fatal to the papers conclusion, but anything that might give a reasonable person pause from an unusually large number of typos to a tiny sample size.
For homeopathy to be considered proven I think a lot of people would like to see a experimental demonstration of water memory that persists for months, is capable of encoding a wide variety of pharmacologically active molecules, and produce their opposite effect in a patient, and survives the curious manufacturing process by which homeopathic remedies are produced as well as being swallowed with whatever a person happens to have eaten that day. None of this exists. They'd also like to see a replicable large scale study that shows homeopathy works. The largest metastudies on homeopathy in fact show that it has no positive effect above that of a placebo.
In reply to heathermeek:
Quack quack!
Alternative medicine that has been proven to work is called real medicine. People do homeopathy for one of two reasons: because they weren't listening properly when they were at school or because they are bonkers.
Quack quack!
Alternative medicine that has been proven to work is called real medicine. People do homeopathy for one of two reasons: because they weren't listening properly when they were at school or because they are bonkers.
In reply to cragtaff:
I've got £5 here that says your exposure to pharmaceutical regulation is limited or non-existent:
The closest to this would be anti-depressants which are generally tested on patient perceptions however they still include long term outcome studies. They have to beat a placebo and usually an existing drug that has a proven track record in a double blinded trial. They will have to do this in multiple trials in various populations. No homeopathic preparation has ever been able to do this.
I've got £5 here that says your exposure to pharmaceutical regulation is limited or non-existent:
The closest to this would be anti-depressants which are generally tested on patient perceptions however they still include long term outcome studies. They have to beat a placebo and usually an existing drug that has a proven track record in a double blinded trial. They will have to do this in multiple trials in various populations. No homeopathic preparation has ever been able to do this.
In reply to heathermeek: People keep mentioning Ben Goldacre. So, here he is explaining homeopathy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZiLsFaEzog&feature=watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZiLsFaEzog&feature=watch_response
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I think I've read somewhere that even some of the better established drugs like Prozac have weird performance under test with quite dubious provable efficacy when the patient is unaware of what they're taking. However they have significantly better than than placebo performance when they are informed. Seems plausible but I could be mistaken and I've no idea where I'd have read it so there's no guarantee it was reliable!
jk
> The closest to this would be anti-depressants which are generally tested on patient perceptions however they still include long term outcome studies. They have to beat a placebo and usually an existing drug that has a proven track record in a double blinded trial. They will have to do this in multiple trials in various populations. No homeopathic preparation has ever been able to do this.
I think I've read somewhere that even some of the better established drugs like Prozac have weird performance under test with quite dubious provable efficacy when the patient is unaware of what they're taking. However they have significantly better than than placebo performance when they are informed. Seems plausible but I could be mistaken and I've no idea where I'd have read it so there's no guarantee it was reliable!
jk
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Isn't there an irony that by considering anti-depressants you quote for a line of pharmaceuticals that when tested basically rely upon the patient's claim of more or less of a sense of well being to establish their efficacy.
If I had to choose between the two, having seen first hand the results of trying to break chemical dependency on an SNRI, I'd take homeopathy every time and I don't believe it works.
Sidebar: I do love that medical science employs empirical methods to achieve "certainty" but that empiricism has definitive equivocation in being defined in one sense as "The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience." Hahaha
Isn't there an irony that by considering anti-depressants you quote for a line of pharmaceuticals that when tested basically rely upon the patient's claim of more or less of a sense of well being to establish their efficacy.
If I had to choose between the two, having seen first hand the results of trying to break chemical dependency on an SNRI, I'd take homeopathy every time and I don't believe it works.
Sidebar: I do love that medical science employs empirical methods to achieve "certainty" but that empiricism has definitive equivocation in being defined in one sense as "The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience." Hahaha
In reply to jkarran:
Hmm, isn't the difference between "unaware of what they're taking" and "when they are informed" the very definition of "placebo"?
> quite dubious provable efficacy when the patient is unaware of what they're taking. However they
> have significantly better than than placebo performance when they are informed.
> have significantly better than than placebo performance when they are informed.
Hmm, isn't the difference between "unaware of what they're taking" and "when they are informed" the very definition of "placebo"?
In reply to GrahamD:
try a bit less; that ought to do the trick
> (In reply to heathermeek)
> [...]
>
> I've only tried a very small amount of it, without success
> [...]
>
> I've only tried a very small amount of it, without success
try a bit less; that ought to do the trick
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Quite possibly, those are my words based on a dim memory. I was really just wondering if it rang any bells with anyone as it's interesting if true. Quite possibly I'm mixing up memories, read something unreliable/out of context or I'm simply wrong.
jk
> Hmm, isn't the difference between "unaware of what they're taking" and "when they are informed" the very definition of "placebo"?
Quite possibly, those are my words based on a dim memory. I was really just wondering if it rang any bells with anyone as it's interesting if true. Quite possibly I'm mixing up memories, read something unreliable/out of context or I'm simply wrong.
jk
In reply to EZ:
Isn't there an irony that by considering anti-depressants you quote for a line of pharmaceuticals that when tested basically rely upon the patient's claim of more or less of a sense of well being to establish their efficacy.
Not if you read my post correctly.
Isn't there an irony that by considering anti-depressants you quote for a line of pharmaceuticals that when tested basically rely upon the patient's claim of more or less of a sense of well being to establish their efficacy.
Not if you read my post correctly.
In reply to jkarran:
A drug with "weird performance" in studies would never get past the regulators
> (In reply to mkean)
> >
> I think I've read somewhere that even some of the better established drugs like Prozac have weird performance under test with quite dubious provable efficacy when the patient is unaware of what they're taking. However they have significantly better than than placebo performance when they are informed. Seems plausible but I could be mistaken and I've no idea where I'd have read it so there's no guarantee it was reliable!
>
> jk
> >
> I think I've read somewhere that even some of the better established drugs like Prozac have weird performance under test with quite dubious provable efficacy when the patient is unaware of what they're taking. However they have significantly better than than placebo performance when they are informed. Seems plausible but I could be mistaken and I've no idea where I'd have read it so there's no guarantee it was reliable!
>
> jk
A drug with "weird performance" in studies would never get past the regulators
In reply to jkarran:
There has been a lot of recent research because a lot of trials on medications like anti-depressants have shown that drugs show a worse response than they used to against a placebo. The drugs aren't getting worse, the placebo is getting better! Interestingly different placebos work better in different populations:
Red placebos work better in China (lucky colour)
Blue placebos are favoured in India.
Most populations get a better result from more invasive placebos (injection v pill)
Thicker syrups are better placebos than clear liquids...
There has been a lot of recent research because a lot of trials on medications like anti-depressants have shown that drugs show a worse response than they used to against a placebo. The drugs aren't getting worse, the placebo is getting better! Interestingly different placebos work better in different populations:
Red placebos work better in China (lucky colour)
Blue placebos are favoured in India.
Most populations get a better result from more invasive placebos (injection v pill)
Thicker syrups are better placebos than clear liquids...
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I'd have thought that long term outcome studies still rely on asking if the patient feels better?!? No?
I'd have thought that long term outcome studies still rely on asking if the patient feels better?!? No?
In reply to EZ:
Plus counting the bodies.
Plus counting the bodies.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I don't get that. Sorry.
I wasn't trying to pick at you or your post, more at the whole anti-depressant thing. I have seen the results of anti-depressants and I wouldn't say [from my experience] that they are a good idea. But that is a whole other thread.
I don't get that. Sorry.
I wasn't trying to pick at you or your post, more at the whole anti-depressant thing. I have seen the results of anti-depressants and I wouldn't say [from my experience] that they are a good idea. But that is a whole other thread.
In reply to EZ:
Basically for some medications the only way you know they are working is by looking at the number of people that start the trial and the number of people that finish the trial. If people taking your new wonder drug are kicking the bucket then odds on it isn't working.
Basically for some medications the only way you know they are working is by looking at the number of people that start the trial and the number of people that finish the trial. If people taking your new wonder drug are kicking the bucket then odds on it isn't working.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Just being funny here: I suspect that outcomes of trials on homeopathic remedies are far better than for pharmaceuticals then for depression.
Just being funny here: I suspect that outcomes of trials on homeopathic remedies are far better than for pharmaceuticals then for depression.
In reply to EZ:
I don't know the average mortality rate for this sort of thing but I'd suggest that any anti-depressant that gets licenced will have a much lower suicide rate than the placebo group
I don't know the average mortality rate for this sort of thing but I'd suggest that any anti-depressant that gets licenced will have a much lower suicide rate than the placebo group
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Suicide rates are a little circumstantial unless the dead person left a note explaining why they did it.
Suicide rates are a little circumstantial unless the dead person left a note explaining why they did it.
In reply to EZ:
Suicide rates are a little circumstantial unless the dead person left a note explaining why they did it.
THis is a rather poor example and not the easiest concept to explain via an internet forum but would you except that a group of people who expressed fewer episodes of suicidal thoughts and topped themselves less frequently were more likely to be contented than the opposite group?
Suicide rates are a little circumstantial unless the dead person left a note explaining why they did it.
THis is a rather poor example and not the easiest concept to explain via an internet forum but would you except that a group of people who expressed fewer episodes of suicidal thoughts and topped themselves less frequently were more likely to be contented than the opposite group?
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Sorry mate. I really was just messing around with it. I understand the trialing process. You don't need to convince me... just don't try and prescribe me anti-depressants! Haha
Sorry mate. I really was just messing around with it. I understand the trialing process. You don't need to convince me... just don't try and prescribe me anti-depressants! Haha
In reply to EZ:
Thats good, because I design manufacturing processes and trial design involves far too much biology for my liking!
Thats good, because I design manufacturing processes and trial design involves far too much biology for my liking!
In reply to Reach>Talent:
In simple terms, in the trial(s) that got it licenced, probably, but there is an argument that it is possible to get a drug licenced with modest evidence of small short-term benefits, and a fuller study of longer term risk/benefit might cloud the picture.
While homeopathy is resoundingly evidence free, there's still plenty of work for the pharmaceutical and research communities to do to improve the quality of their trial evidence. Publication bias towards trials with positive outcomes is an obvious old chestnut.
I remember talking to a leading reviewer way back who talked about the singular lack of evidence for many existing treatments, not so much newer pharmaceuticals, but older drugs and treatments. Stuff like antibiotic eyedrops used for infections in children, dished out on a regular basis (and next to zero reliable evidence that it does more than promote antibiotic resistance), or that orange stuff they routinely daub your surgical wound in to prevent infection, which is no more effective than soap and water.
In simple terms, in the trial(s) that got it licenced, probably, but there is an argument that it is possible to get a drug licenced with modest evidence of small short-term benefits, and a fuller study of longer term risk/benefit might cloud the picture.
While homeopathy is resoundingly evidence free, there's still plenty of work for the pharmaceutical and research communities to do to improve the quality of their trial evidence. Publication bias towards trials with positive outcomes is an obvious old chestnut.
I remember talking to a leading reviewer way back who talked about the singular lack of evidence for many existing treatments, not so much newer pharmaceuticals, but older drugs and treatments. Stuff like antibiotic eyedrops used for infections in children, dished out on a regular basis (and next to zero reliable evidence that it does more than promote antibiotic resistance), or that orange stuff they routinely daub your surgical wound in to prevent infection, which is no more effective than soap and water.
In reply to Ava Adore:
'Weird performance', maybe not but again those are my words, my flaky memory. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented for something significant to be missed or played down by the clinical trials.
jk
> A drug with "weird performance" in studies would never get past the regulators
'Weird performance', maybe not but again those are my words, my flaky memory. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented for something significant to be missed or played down by the clinical trials.
jk
In reply to heathermeek:
So....I had booked an appointment.....just to see what all the fuss was about, obviously still sceptical about it....however, in the absolute unbelievable way my brain is (is not) working at the moment, I lay in bed last night thinking I had forgotten to do something......I remembered my appointment was 2 days ago!! oh well that just shows how bothered by it I was......hidden meaning maybe! Needless to say I won't re-book! But at least the thread has provided some interesting and funny discussions, therapy in it self I think!
So....I had booked an appointment.....just to see what all the fuss was about, obviously still sceptical about it....however, in the absolute unbelievable way my brain is (is not) working at the moment, I lay in bed last night thinking I had forgotten to do something......I remembered my appointment was 2 days ago!! oh well that just shows how bothered by it I was......hidden meaning maybe! Needless to say I won't re-book! But at least the thread has provided some interesting and funny discussions, therapy in it self I think!
In reply to dirtyfly:
correct
> Nope have not used it, it is a HOAX , you'll be wasting your money ...
correct
In reply to toad:
You should really watch this one for a laugh.
It seems now that E=C2
youtube.com/watch?v=R_y4-z-kDqQ&
> (In reply to heathermeek) There is absolutely no way that homeopathy can work, it is just water - either in a bottle, or dripped onto a pill. The theory is fundementally rubbish, but even if it was true the "active" element isn't just diluted, it is no longer present in the remedy at ANY dilution.
>
> That isn't very,very,very dilute, btw. It isn't there. Not. One. Molecule.
>
> And if someone comes along and says the word "quantum", it's because they don't have a bloody clue.
>
> That isn't very,very,very dilute, btw. It isn't there. Not. One. Molecule.
>
> And if someone comes along and says the word "quantum", it's because they don't have a bloody clue.
You should really watch this one for a laugh.
It seems now that E=C2
youtube.com/watch?v=R_y4-z-kDqQ&
In reply to MHutch:
It has the advantage over soap and water that it is immediately and strikingly obvious which bits have been daubed.
> or that orange stuff they routinely daub your surgical wound in to prevent infection, which is no more effective than soap and water.
It has the advantage over soap and water that it is immediately and strikingly obvious which bits have been daubed.
In reply to heathermeek:
Following on from this whole discussion...
I saw that a friend had a tube of Arnica Montane cream from Boots that had some very flimsy looking pharmaceutical justification and did appear to be a remedy rather than anything truly medicinal. Is this another example of the quackery?
Following on from this whole discussion...
I saw that a friend had a tube of Arnica Montane cream from Boots that had some very flimsy looking pharmaceutical justification and did appear to be a remedy rather than anything truly medicinal. Is this another example of the quackery?
The important point about any quack remedy or indeed anything you want to sell, is that you mustn't sell it too cheap, otherwise the gullible won't think it's any good.
I work in an industry related to the cosmetics industry and the profits made by sellers of posh cosmetics and toiletries are simply staggering. My wife wastes her money on expensive face creams and won't buy the Boots stuff because it's cheaper and she can't believe it's any good. Otherwise she's a perfectly intelligent woman.
I work in an industry related to the cosmetics industry and the profits made by sellers of posh cosmetics and toiletries are simply staggering. My wife wastes her money on expensive face creams and won't buy the Boots stuff because it's cheaper and she can't believe it's any good. Otherwise she's a perfectly intelligent woman.
In reply to heathermeek:
Youve got homeapathy
> (In reply to heathermeek)
>
> So....I had booked an appointment.....
>
> So....I had booked an appointment.....
Youve got homeapathy
In reply to heathermeek: I used it to cure my cat Bumpkins who was suffering from depression after he killed a bird.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
True, but as Richard Branson found out when he decided to take over the world of Cola with Virgin Coke - it is easy to make a drink containing water, sugar and flavourings and then price it such that you make a 90% margin. It is quite another thing to actually sell it in quantities that make you a profit. He fell foul due to a lack of promotion and advertising.
Anyone can make a cheap face cream, but selling it is quite another thing.
> I work in an industry related to the cosmetics industry and the profits made by sellers of posh cosmetics and toiletries are simply staggering. My wife wastes her money on expensive face creams and won't buy the Boots stuff because it's cheaper and she can't believe it's any good. Otherwise she's a perfectly intelligent woman.
True, but as Richard Branson found out when he decided to take over the world of Cola with Virgin Coke - it is easy to make a drink containing water, sugar and flavourings and then price it such that you make a 90% margin. It is quite another thing to actually sell it in quantities that make you a profit. He fell foul due to a lack of promotion and advertising.
Anyone can make a cheap face cream, but selling it is quite another thing.
Just picture this, if water retains the properties of whatever was diluted on it, even after a huge number of dilutions then lets look at the other side of the coin, with what do you flush your toillet with ? does the water i get from the tap still retains the properties of the last flush ?
In reply to heathermeek:
You could always say what the problem itself is, and ask if anyone has ideas for making it better?
> (In reply to toad)
> When your desperate for something to get better you will try anything!!
> When your desperate for something to get better you will try anything!!
You could always say what the problem itself is, and ask if anyone has ideas for making it better?
In reply to FH1920:
My goodness. That just shows it's a tax on thick people. Or rather, thick, gullible people. The woman has obviously read something so that she can come up with these concepts and ideas about energy and mass, but it seems more effort to make this stuff up, than to inform yourself about how these theories actually work. Perhaps it's just evolution in action in the modern age. The stupid go to these charlatans, don't get better, and that's it - fewer stupid people in the world.
Tim
My goodness. That just shows it's a tax on thick people. Or rather, thick, gullible people. The woman has obviously read something so that she can come up with these concepts and ideas about energy and mass, but it seems more effort to make this stuff up, than to inform yourself about how these theories actually work. Perhaps it's just evolution in action in the modern age. The stupid go to these charlatans, don't get better, and that's it - fewer stupid people in the world.
Tim
In reply to Green Porridge:
I'm afraid thats not that simple, most people that use these stuff arent stupid, they are just ignorant !
What frighten me most is the time wastedon bullshit could be the time that takes a cancer from bing curable to being terminal !
I'm afraid thats not that simple, most people that use these stuff arent stupid, they are just ignorant !
What frighten me most is the time wastedon bullshit could be the time that takes a cancer from bing curable to being terminal !
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...