Do Homeopathy patients know the "theory"

[burrahobbit]

I have been talking to a few friends who are consulting homeopaths and are taking homeopathic "medicine"

I found that none of them had any idea of the so called theory- no like cures like, no succussion, NOTHING

As far as they could see, it was just like any doctor's clinic. They got asked about symptoms and prescribed pills. Since in India, most doctors also do not explain anything to patients they did not find anything surprising.

When I outlined the basis of Homeopathy to them, they were frankly incredulous. One of them flatly refused to believe that the basis could be so ridiculous. He was sure I was misrepresenting the facts. "NO medicine" he said "can be so crazy".

I told him that Homeopathy WAS no medicine but I dont think he got it


I just wondered if the situation is the same in the west.

Burrahobbit

[Kumar]

But you haven't mentioned about their results/coments of getting treatments.

I think(:D), it is homeopathic theory, not to make patient panic by telling everything...somewhat like it.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Keep the eyes open till any mass thing is existing but unclear-- till then don't leave hopes & just continue, till it survives or dies naturally, in full.



Ummmmmm.... what?

[geni]

I just wondered if the situation is the same in the west.

Burrahobbit

Yes and no. For the casual user I suspect it is the same. For the more serious user I suspect they know it's jsut water.

[MRC_Hans]

Homeopahty is almost invariably presented something like this:

"Homeopathy uses the principle of like cures like, as researched by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. This is the principle of curing by giving extremely smal ldoses of a drug that will cause the same symptoms as the disease. Homeopathic drugs are highly diluted, and thus without the side effects known from conventional drugs."

So I expect most users get the impression that it is based on valid research and that there is some kind of active substance in the remedies.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

But you haven't mentioned about their results/coments of getting treatments.

I think(:D), it is homeopathic theory, not to make patient panic by telling everything...somewhat like it.Yes, you think right (for once), Kumar. It is a principle of homeopaths not to tell their patients their truth, because that would cause panic. Panic among homeopaths when patients run screaming from their clinics.

Hans

[BillC]

My experience has been that very few in the West know about the serial dilution aspect of homeopathy. This, when described to them, has alone been enough in converting a couple of my friends back to common sense.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, most people don't realize the consequences of serial dilution. They just think, "So they dilute it a number of times, so it's a really low and safe concentration"

The actual numbers are an eye-opener for most.

Hans

[burrahobbit]

Kumar

I did not give any info on the "results/comments" after the treatment as anecdotal evidence is of no relevance in a serious discussion.

I also feel that there is no excuse for keeping patients in the dark

MRC Hans and BillC

Thanks for the response. Glad to know we are all in the same boat

[Kumar]

Kumar

I did not give any info on the "results/comments" after the treatment as anecdotal evidence is of no relevance in a serious discussion.

I also feel that there is no excuse for keeping patients in the dark

MRC Hans and BillC

Thanks for the response. Glad to know we are all in the same boat

Graceful post. Although it is open fact & much/every information is available on internet & other referances about both type of systems--with or without adversities. To be justified, healer from both type of systems, should explain every good,nil or negative possibilty to all patients before any prescription. Next time, any patient shouldn't say, I was not aware about adverse effects. Actually, under modern atmosphere, it is becoming a duty/must of every person, to "to keep him/her well informed in advance". OK?

Edited to enhance meaning.

[John Jackson]

Edited to enhance meaning.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I don't normally comment on other people's postings - but that made me burst out laughing.

[John Jackson]

When I was looking into why people actually use alternative medicines, I realised that they use them for exactly the same reason that most of us use conventional medicines – in both cases, we use them because we believe they work.

Of course, if we look into why medicines work we can spot the difference, but most people just accept claims at face value.

So no, people who use homeopathy etc. do not normally have an idea of the theory behind it; and where they do, it’s a distorted version of the theory.

What I do find, with homeopathy at least, is that to convince people that it’s a load of nonsense is not to argue with them, but to simply show them the actual theory behind it.

[Zep]

In India, it seems to be common to find that many patients do not actually have the educational background to appreciate even the simplest reasons WHY homeopathy is a crock, chemically speaking. You often have to go back beyond "basics" and into the schoolroom to teach them science at junior school level first!

[UrsulaV]

I think a lot of 'em don't. I had no idea, myself, until I mentioned some homeopathic cat treatment in passing, and a friend went absolutely ballistic (thank goodness.) Once I sorted through the maze of water memory and dilutions, (which took a bit, because I kept thinking "No, this has to be a crackpot internet thing, nobody could believe THIS--where's the real stuff?") I was shocked and appalled.

The whole "treatment" aspect is largely uncoupled with "theory," at least in my limited experience.

[Bowser]

My homeopath has always been very open with me and always gave me more time than my allopaths. And she has been very effective in her choice of remedies.

Meanwhile, there is no good excuse in the western countries not to do your own research for ANY medical or health treatment you are receiving.

I admit I don't fully explain to my pets what I am giving them - they don't object because they think it is just water.

[Mojo]

My homeopath has always been very open with me and always gave me more time than my allopaths. And she has been very effective in her choice of remedies. Has she actually explained the implications of the dilutions used?

[geni]

My homeopath has always been very open with me and always gave me more time than my allopaths. And she has been very effective in her choice of remedies.

You have never seen a allopath. Real doctors are in somewhat short suppy and as a result there is a limit on how much time they can spend per person. Of course I do have to woulder why anyone would want to spend large amounts of time talking to a doctor. Isn't there anyone else you would rather talk to?


Meanwhile, there is no good excuse in the western countries not to do your own research for ANY medical or health treatment you are receiving.

Oh I can think of loads. We would soon here people complaining if there was anly serious risk of paracetamol taken at normal doses so I'm not going to spend hour researching it.


I admit I don't fully explain to my pets what I am giving them - they don't object because they think it is just water.

So your pets know more than you do.

[Psiload]

Meanwhile, there is no good excuse in the western countries not to do your own research for ANY medical or health treatment you are receiving.

And after doing your own research, there is no good excuse for concluding that homeopathy is anything other than a foolish delusion.

[Deetee]

Edited to enhance meaning.
:yikes:
Kumar, continue like this and you just might end up with a nomination for the November language award!

[MRC_Hans]

For certain definitions of "language" only.

Hans

[Bowser]

And after doing your own research, there is no good excuse for concluding that homeopathy is anything other than a foolish delusion.Since it works very well for me and my pets and quite a number of people that I know, I would be beyond foolish to conclude it was anything of the sort.

[geni]

Since it works very well for me and my pets and quite a number of people that I know, I would be beyond foolish to conclude it was anything of the sort.


Foolish delusions can work quite well for a given value of "works". Of course any attmept to try them on something such as appendicitis will have undesirable effects.

[steenkh]

I can confirm that most people in the west also do not know anything about homoeopathy. My in-laws are from Austria and here normal G.P.s prescribe homoeopathic remedies, you get them at the pharmacy and of course in the health shops.

Nobody I have spoken to knew anything about homoeopathy. Most think that "it has something to do with herbs", and people do not believe me when I tell about like-cures-like or serial dilutions. I actually have to show them the "30C"-marking on the bottle in order to convince them that I am not pulling their leg!

[Bowser]

geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.

[steenkh]

In a homoeopathy booklet at the local pharmacy where we live in Austria there was actually a one-page article about the scientific view of homoeopathy. The general idea was that some scientists have reservations but the evidence for homoeopathy is overwhelming, and more and more studies show that there is an effect. The booklet ended with a note that a definite large-scale test was performed in Germany.

The booklet was some years old, and I have no idea what German tests were in the making at that time, but I do notice that the scientific world has not been rocked lately.

[steenkh]

I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die.
But, as far as I know, homoeopaths claim that their miracle water can heal anything so why should you die if you chose to be treated solely by homoeopathy?

Besides, "homoeopathy cures, allopathy suppresses", and if you believe that crap, you definitely should not chose an "allopathic" solution that could also have *shudder* side effects!

[Rasmus]

geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.

Kindly explain, then, where drinking tiny amounts of water as "medicine" can be "effective".

Rasmus.

[MRC_Hans]

geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.No, it is not a matter of understanding where both can be effective.

Homeopathy builds on three theories (vital force, like cures like, potentized medicine), none of which have any observational backing whatsoever, and it has not been verified in experimental settings.

Homeopathy is not a matter of understanding, it is a matter of belief.

Hans

[Mojo]

It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. Actually, it might be (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12562974&query_hl=2).

[PatKelley]

geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Shouldn't they just give you a very dilute tincture of inflamed appendix?

[MRC_Hans]

Shouldn't they just give you a very dilute tincture of inflamed appendix?Actually, that would be isopathy ;).

Would work just as well, however.

Hans

[Mojo]

In a homoeopathy booklet at the local pharmacy where we live in Austria there was actually a one-page article about the scientific view of homoeopathy. The general idea was that some scientists have reservations but the evidence for homoeopathy is overwhelming, and more and more studies show that there is an effect. The booklet ended with a note that a definite large-scale test was performed in Germany.

The booklet was some years old, and I have no idea what German tests were in the making at that time, but I do notice that the scientific world has not been rocked lately.How old was the booklet? It couldn't have been referring to this (http://www.randi.org/jr/200511/111805setback.html#i1). could it?

[John Jackson]

It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.
Homeopaths will tell you that using “allopathy” negates or suppresses the effects of homeopathy. They are not meant to be used together.

Homeopathy is not meant to be a complementary therapy; it’s truly alternative medicine, or more strictly speaking, an alternative to medicine.

Using homeopathy is fine as long as there’s nothing seriously wrong with you. If you ever rely on homeopathy for something serious however, it will let you down – guaranteed.

[Rolfe]

How old was the booklet? It couldn't have been referring to this (http://www.randi.org/jr/200511/111805setback.html#i1). could it?I doubt it.

In recent years there have been a number of so-called controlled trials published by a group in Germany, showing positive effects for homoeopathy. The protocol is very clever. Instead of using an inactive placebo as a control, they use a licensed medicine. This seems justified because many new trials of real drugs take this approach - first, because it may not be ethical to leave a group of people suffering from the condition in question without treatment of any kind, and second, because you really want to know if the new stuff is as good as or better than the regular stuff, rather than just trying to show it does something.

However, the homoeopaths then get very clever. They choose vague conditions for which there is a licensed treatment which possibly has very little effect. There are things like that around. Serc for dizziness was one stroke of genius. I've also seen a homoeopathic back-rub shown to peform just as well as a non-homoeopathic back rub. That sort of thing. Thus, even if the homoeopathic treatment does nothing, it will perform as well as the licensed medicine! Whoopee!

Then they get even more machiavellian. They compare not just the remedies themselves, but the whole approach. Thus, the homoeopathic patient gets his hour-long symptom-matching ritual, plus a prescription for an inactive medicine. While the orthodox medical patient gets a quick five minutes and a presctiption for an inactive medicine. Done this way, you can often justify a claim that homoeopathy performs better than real medicine.

They did a series of similar trials using that approach, and then published a meta-analysis of all of them. You'd believe that homoeoapthy was the secret to eternal life after reading that lot, I believe (I haven't seen it all).

We had a thread about this, and a lot of links were given and papers cited, and I can't for the life of me remember how to link to it. But it does sound as if it was this brilliantly conveived PR job that the booklet was referring to.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

We had a thread about this, and a lot of links were given and papers cited, and I can't for the life of me remember how to link to it. But it does sound as if it was this brilliantly conveived PR job that the booklet was referring to. This one (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=42366)?

[geni]

geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.

So when suffering from something wich could potenialy kill you you turn to real medicine but when dealing with something that will get better on it's own you use homeopathy. What more need I say.

[Rolfe]

This one (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=42366)?Yes. Well done! You have to read quite far down before people start to post links to the actual publications, but that's the one.

Rolfe.

[steenkh]

How old was the booklet? It couldn't have been referring to this (http://www.randi.org/jr/200511/111805setback.html#i1). could it?
Actually, I think you are right! I wonder why I did not think of it myself when I saw Randi's column!

[steenkh]

Yes. Well done! You have to read quite far down before people start to post links to the actual publications, but that's the one.

Another thread that should be nominated for the Forum Spotlight!

[Kumar]

geni, I can easily see a value in both homeopathy and convention medicine, and for a combination of the two, depending on the circumstances. I have never had appendicitis, but I expect I would be seeking the best of both because I would not want to die. It would not be "foolish" to use homeopathy as a supplement to post-operative healing. It is a matter of understanding where both approaches can be effective and where they can be even better working together.

Thanks. I made a note of this post because it somewhat awnser question in my signature. Also my dream.:)

[Psiload]

Since it works very well for me and my pets and quite a number of people that I know, I would be beyond foolish to conclude it was anything of the sort.

No... it would actually be very wise of you to consider the well-understood mechanisms of placebo/coincidental healing rather than jump to the wholly unproven and implausible(if not impossible) homeopathy conclusion.

Think of it like the Kentucky Derby... its not foolish to put your money on a horse rather than a unicorn.

[flume]

Since it works very well for me and my pets and quite a number of people that I know, I would be beyond foolish to conclude it was anything of the sort.Have you tried an experiment?
You would need a mild symptom which repeats itself fairly often, for which you think a particular homeopathic remedy helps in a way that is clearly observable. Then you would need to get some homeopathic blank pills and a lot of little containers and a random list of numbers. Get a friend to put a remedy pill or a blank pill in each container, assigning the numbers randomly to the containers, but recording which number had which type of pill.
Whenever your cat has a hairball or whatever, you randomly pick one of the tubes, write down the number, give the cat the pill, and record the results. Do this MANY times. Then break the code to find out if there was a difference between to remedy and the blanks. (There are lots of ways you could do this - but you need a lot of observations, not just a couple).
Doing this experiment uses too small a sample to draw a clear conclusion. But it might be enlightening.

[Dave_46]

I have never had appendicitis

I have. Eight years ago. Bugger homeopathy, I went under the knife. I wanted to live.

Dave

[burrahobbit]

The other reaction I have had (for both Homeopathy and other woo- Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani- we have a LOT of alternative medicine) is "I dont want to know. It works so it works"

With regard to the knowledge level, funnily enough it is the "educated" guys that go in for the woo. The illiterates head straight for the regular doctors

[Jellby]

Homeopaths will tell you that using “allopathy” negates or suppresses the effects of homeopathy. They are not meant to be used together.[/FONT]

But "standard" medicine says homeopathy just does nothing (it doesn't suppresses anything). So, if you take both, any effect you notice has to be due to the standard treatment, as the homeopatic one has been cancelled.

[steenkh]

Actually, many homoeopaths recommend that you use their remedies in connection with "allopathic" medicines. They claim that the homoeopathic effect is enhanced :D

[Mojo]

In fact, homoeopaths will claim pretty much anything. It must be nice not to be constrained by inconvenient facts.

[Rolfe]

They seem to claim anything that enters their head at that moment! Not surprising, as they have no standards of proof, and are quite used to making it up on the fly.

Classical homoeopathy is strictly "alternative", with most homoeopaths quite insistent that the use of real medicines will "antidote" the homoeopathic remedy. Some even claim that vaccination in infancy is enough to prevent homoeopathic remedies working in an adult. Others extend the list of taboo substances to things like coffee, perfume, even mint, I think. So there's virtually always a get-out if nothing useful seems to have happened.

As regards the effect of real medicine in antidoting homoeopathic remedies, this is from a recently-published book by a couple of veterinary homoeopaths.There is little doubt that most orthodox drugs impede the action of homeopathic remedies. This is not surprising when one considers that the action of most of these medicines is in direct contradiction to that of homeopathy; anything which suppresses a reaction of the body will act counter to homeopathy, and considering the subtle energetic nature of homeopathic medicine it is only logical that such powerful drugs as corticosteroids and NSAIDs will antidote its effects.I still wonder why corticosteroids should have such a marked effect, when the body is already awash with endogenous corticosteroids. Which are just as biologically active as those given as drugs, if not more so.

Anyway, that's the classical view. Real medicine will stop the homoeopathy from working, therefore you must come off real medicine before you'll get any benefit from homoeopathy.

However, an entirely contrary view has become common, especially in Britain where homoeopathy managed to get itself incorporated into the NHS. Realising that the above advice would be suicidal (not to mention frequently homicidal) medical homoeopaths have re-branded and re-marketed their product as "complementary medicine". In this version, the patient stays on whatever real medicine he or she requires, but the homoeopaths offer a little bit extra on top, and/or claim that use of homoeopathy can reduce the dose of the real medicine needed to maintain good health. This is of course completely against the principles of classical homoeopathy, but it's such good product placement (while removing the homoeopath from the danger of an action for negligence if someone were to be advised to discontinue essential medication) that it's become the most widespread form of homoeopathy in this country. Thus it is entirely justifiable to conduct trials of homoeopathy as an "adjunctive" treatment - that's how it's usually used, and in the "clinic" (as opposed to the controlled trial) the homoeopaths claim as good a success rate with this method as with any other.

Leela (at H'pathy) is an intersting example of this breed. When challenged that the standard H'pathy advice to consult a homoeopath first was dangerous, as it might lead to serious diseases going unrecognised, she insisted that all homoeopaths only see already-diagnosed patients who are already on medication, and no responsible homoeopath would ever recommend discontinuing this. Nevertheless she still claimed to be able to reduce the dose of insulin a diabetic patient would need to maintain stability, another testable claim with no evidence at all to back it up.

However, in a different thread, the same Leela was bemoaning the fact that homoeopaths only get to see patients after they've been treated by conventional means. She was quite sure that homoeopathy could completely cure diabetes, if only they were allowed to see patients before they'd been irretrievably antidoted with all that nasty insulin.

I can't say I've ever encountered a claim that homoeopathic treatment will increase the activity of a conventional medicine, but given their propensity for claiming anything that enters their heads, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Rolfe.

[athon]

The other reaction I have had (for both Homeopathy and other woo- Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani- we have a LOT of alternative medicine) is "I dont want to know. It works so it works"

With regard to the knowledge level, funnily enough it is the "educated" guys that go in for the woo. The illiterates head straight for the regular doctors

My response is that thalidomide worked great for morning sickness as well.

Athon

[Darat]

To the OP - since the evidence I've seen of homeopathic practitioners posting on this and other forums is that they don't know much about the so-called theory that underlies their magic potions I suspect that most people being frauded by a homeopathic snake-oil sales person will know even less. (Mind you in their crazy world less is more so perhaps that means they know everything?)

[Mojo]

I still wonder why corticosteroids should have such a marked effect, when the body is already awash with endogenous corticosteroids. Which are just as biologically active as those given as drugs, if not more so. I already answered this one. The endogenous ones are happy natural corticosteroids, all full of subtle and positive energies, while the ones administered as drugs are nasty evil CHEMICALS, made in huge factories which are destroying the environment, by mad scientists and bloated plutocrats who eat their own young. :jaw-dropp :eek: :jaw-dropp ;)

Drugs. Just say no, kids. :D

[John Jackson]

Yes, I was talking about classical homeopathy – how it’s meant to be practised.

As usual, Rolfe has explained things very clearly.

“Complementary homeopathy” is not true homeopathy, but in the irrational world of pseudoscience, I guess anything goes.

I’m an insulin dependant diabetic; and I’d like to see what homeopathy could do for me in place of insulin. I suspect it might help relieve my thirst ;) before I fell into a coma.

[Darat]

Yes, I was talking about classical homeopathy – how it’s meant to be practised.

As usual, Rolfe has explained things very clearly.

“Complementary homeopathy” is not true homeopathy, but in the irrational world of pseudoscience, I guess anything goes.

I’m an insulin dependant diabetic; and I’d like to see what homeopathy could do for me in place of insulin. I suspect it might help relieve my thirst ;) before I fell into a coma.

But it's too late for you - those alopathic poisons have damaged you beyond the reach of homeopathy.

[Rolfe]

I suspect it might help relieve my thirst ;) before I fell into a coma.
The vast majority of homoeopathic remedies are not presented as water, they are sugar pills. Certainly anything you buy OTC will be sugar pills (£4.95 for a teaspoonful of sugar - nice work if you can get it!). I rather like the "sugar pills" as a sound-bite, too. Suitably derogatory, as well as being true, and it also reminds the informed listener of the utter irrelevance of any "memory of water" theories.


So. It would probably send you even faster into that coma.

Rolfe.

[Capsid]

The vast majority of homoeopathic remedies are not presented as water, they are sugar pills. Certainly anything you buy OTC will be sugar pills (£4.95 for a teaspoonful of sugar - nice work if you can get it!). I rather like the "sugar pills" as a sound-bite, too. Suitably derogatory, as well as being true, and it also reminds the informed listener of the utter irrelevance of any "memory of water" theories.


So. It would probably send you even faster into that coma.

Rolfe.
Don't they call them pillules? Another way of dressing up something it's not?

[John Jackson]

I suppose they treat diabetes with homeopathic glucose - then evaporate the "remedy" onto a lactose pill. :D

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Homeopahty is almost invariably presented something like this:

"Homeopathy uses the principle of like cures like, as researched by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. This is the principle of curing by giving extremely smal ldoses of a drug that will cause the same symptoms as the disease. Homeopathic drugs are highly diluted, and thus without the side effects known from conventional drugs."

So I expect most users get the impression that it is based on valid research and that there is some kind of active substance in the remedies.

Hans

Their cynical fakery is demonstrated by exactly that form of words which you highlight: "Homeopathic drugs are highly diluted"

For people who have no idea of chemistry "highly diluted" implies a potential for something still to be there, whereas "replaced by solvent" does not. The other careful word-choice is something similar to "tiny doses", whereas "none" would be accurate.

Mind you, our experience of the MAS collective suggests that some are just plain stupid and regard chemicals as infinitely divisible rather than a bag of marbles where repeated divisions mean that ultimately you either have 1 marble or 0 marbles in your bag.

[Sherman Bay]

If you look at the ingredients list for common, over-the-counter drugs, you will find that the active ingredients are often small -- a 1% solution for topical cortizone cream is considered strong, for example.

I suspect the average drugstore customer cannot differentiate between a seemingly weak 1% solution and homeopathic bottles with "very dilute" mixtures.

As John Allen Paulos might say, "It's all about innumeracy." (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809058405/102-5020513-3268160?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bugger homeopathy... I wanted to live.



Er...I see your problem, you should have taken it by mouth.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yes, I was talking about classical homeopathy – how it’s meant to be practised.

As usual, Rolfe has explained things very clearly.

“Complementary homeopathy” is not true homeopathy, but in the irrational world of pseudoscience, I guess anything goes.


But this raises one of their fatal internal contradictions. They are utterly dependent on the validity of accumulated anecdotal evidence, but their practices are riven with incompatible approaches to homeopathy. I have never yet succeeded in getting a homeopath to think through the implications for this for their evidence base. In every instance, at least one of the two sides is wrong. We know that both sides are wrong, but it is pathetic that when they have just presented one side of such a dichotomy and you ask them why we should believe them and not the other side they usually become abusive and ignore the question.

[Mojo]

Er...I see your problem, you should have taken it by mouth.Well, for all the good they do you might as well [remainder of sentence omitted to avoid breach of rule 8].

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

As regards the effect of real medicine in antidoting homoeopathic remedies, this is from a recently-published book by a couple of veterinary homoeopaths.

How are you getting your quotes from that book? You haven't bought it, have you?

[Rolfe]

How are you getting your quotes from that book? You haven't bought it, have you?No, but Alex Gough did, and he's emailed a few choice excerpts around.

Rolfe.

[Sanamas]

From the people that I've talked to, many seem to think that homeopathy is just a synonym for herbal or "natural" medicine.

If everyone who bought homeopathic remedies was given a clear and direct explanation of what homeopathy is before making their purchase, I suspect that sales would drop tremendously.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

From the people that I've talked to, many seem to think that homeopathy is just a synonym for herbal or "natural" medicine.

If everyone who bought homeopathic remedies was given a clear and direct explanation of what homeopathy is before making their purchase, I suspect that sales would drop tremendously.

It would be nice to think that but, alas, I'm afraid that's not the reality. Most people do not engage in critical thinking, especially where it might involve something they really want to believe. Religion is a classic example of that theory. In that respect, homeopathy is no different.

[steenkh]

Well, those homoeopathic customers I told about serial dilutions thought it sounded very strange and they were not sure I could be right, and when I told them that their pills were just sprayed with the magic water they usually laugh and say that now they know that I am pulling their leg!

[Zep]

YOU'RE pulling their leg?? Surely it is the homeopaths who are doing that!

[AnotherSillyAlias]

YOU'RE pulling their leg?? Surely it is the homeopaths who are doing that!

If all this leg pulling has caused yo any sort of injury or pain I have a terrific homeopathic remedy for you. Failing that, for a small consideration I could be willing to pray for you.

[Kumar]

But it's too late for you - those alopathic poisons have damaged you beyond the reach of homeopathy.

:):) Not poisons but stong chemicals. It can be bast thought. I may have personal observation & experiance somewhat alike it....addictions or excess can damage kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and overall brain.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

:):) Not poisons but stong chemicals. It can be bast thought. I may have personal observation & experiance somewhat alike it....addictions or excess can damage kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and overall brain.

No, you have personal observation of the effects of badly controlled diabetes in a patient who is trying to do absolutely anything except manage it properly.

[burrahobbit]

Question on etiquette

Having started a thread, are you allowed to lurk if you have nothing new or relevant to post.

Or are you expected to make periodic listening noises

[Kumar]

From the people that I've talked to, many seem to think that homeopathy is just a synonym for herbal or "natural" medicine.

If everyone who bought homeopathic remedies was given a clear and direct explanation of what homeopathy is before making their purchase, I suspect that sales would drop tremendously.

No, most people in my country who take homeopathic remedies know what they are taking. Most know it, therefore they are convinced that these are with no or least adverse effects.

[Mojo]

No, most people in my country who take homeopathic remedies know what they are taking. Most know it, therefore they are convinced that these are with no or least adverse effects.Do you have any evidence to back this up? Perhaps they think it is "with no or at leastadverse effects" because that's what the homoeopaths tell them. If that's so, it's a pity they don't also inform them that they have no positive effects either.

Incidentally, if you're going to make claims about "most people in my country," you need to say what country that is, otherwise the claim is meaningless as it can't possibly be verified.

[Kumar]

There are very/many "self treatments". It is common & well practiced. Rest you check, why should I bother for you players?

[Mojo]

Rest you check, why should I bother for you players?OK, tell us what country you're in and we'll try to check the veracity of your statement.

[Rolfe]

I was reading an article in the Sunday paper about "SightSavers", a charity dedicated to providing free ocular surgery for blind children and adults in Asia. They had some lovely uplifting stories, then there was the one about the Pakistani man who regained his sight after a free cataract operation - and took up a new career as a homoeopath. :(

Rolfe.

[Stu]

From that article in the Telegraph on Friday about Dr Spence and his recent paper. (I'd post the link, but I'm not allowed)

"They love his attentiveness, and, though they don't have any idea what is in the little packets of white powder that he prescribes for them every few months, they love his medicine even more."

"Neither Evans nor Williams knew what was in their remedy, and they were so grateful to be better that they didn't bother to ask."

So I guess his patients don't know the theory.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

So I guess his patients don't know the theory.

and/or homeopathy can't cure Alzheimer's.