Are there any believers of homeopathy here?

[loveofourlord]

It's not quite that direct; the homeopathic 'Principle of Similars' suggests that anything that causes similar symptoms can potentially be used to cure the malady when taken in very low doses (e.g. raw onion makes your eyes & nose water, snuff makes your eyes & nose water, and makes you sneeze, so both might be potential remedies for a cold); selection of the most effective remedy from several substances that produce the same symptoms is called 'proving', and involves giving a dozen or so people homeopathic doses (i.e. nothing) of each remedy and having them record their thoughts, feelings, dreams and habits, which are then analyzed to find the most efficacious remedy. All subjective, no controls.

Incidentally, the originator of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, thought that even extreme dilutions would still leave some of the 'active' ingredient in doses, and that the more extreme the dilution the more effective the dose. Subsequently, Avagadro's work on molecular theory proved that this was incorrect, and that doses of all but the very lowest dilutions would contain none of the remedy at all. It was then that explanations such as 'water memory', and so-on, were devised to preserve lucrative businesses.

Every idea in homeopathy, from the Principle of Similars, through potentization (dilution & succussion), proving, etc., is complete nonsense scientifically, and each idea is an entirely independent piece of nonsense; it's a remarkable achievement and a testament to the combined effects of the profit motive, gullibility, and the placebo effect, that it continues today.

One positive aspect of traditional homeopathy is the detailed consultation, which is known to enhance the placebo effect; the other benefit, particularly in the days when certified medicine involved large quantities of toxic substances and blood-letting, was that it is quite harmless, even when the remedy involved is extremely toxic.

See Homeopathy.

which might be where the dilution theory came from, people that got a more dilulted version seemed to be more likely to do well...mainly because they were getting less of what ever toxic substance the homeopathy aws made off heh.

 

[Mountainmike]

The licensing position is complex.

In general to claim efficacy for anything it has to be subject to the same trialling for efficacy, consistency, safety and contaminants. It is outrageously expensive for products to go into healthy people, ( eg separately checking over profiles of race age and gender) and patent times are too short, which is why drugs are expensive. That by the way is why there are no new antibiotics. It costs too much to develop and licence for the price at which they are sold,

The drug companies pressure FDA to try to enforce regulation on herbals to avoid cheap competition.

However they turn a blind eye to anecdotal efficacy claims, for herbs and cosmeceuticals provided it makes clear it is anecdotal, and side effects are noted - but it is not a legal waiver or no prosecutiin guarantee, FDA sometimes shake the tree if they think claims are excessive.

In Europe EMA publish a list on their site of known herbal studies and testing, which is positive for some herbs, whilst saying they have not been properly validated. So for most herbs and ailments EMA site is a very useful resource of knowledge to date. If I were to sell such things I would link EMA site and urge customers to read it, so FDA could not claim I was misleading anyone.

In assessing efficacy the power of placebo is so strong , it sometimes dwarfs active product. And that is the probable reason homeopathics seem to have efficacy.

i have found homeopathy to be much better than medicine - i have drug reactions and had to find alternative therapies

i read an article that drug companies can NOT patent herbs so they study herbs and isolate one property/element of the many properties/elements in a herb and then try to synthesize it

the next step is to overdose the test animals to find out at what level it causes death - and then cut the level back to 50% and market it

the problem with this is that the herb has many elements that work together to accomplish much good for many issues - and when one element is isolated it produces side effects - thus the death quotient

my experience is that eating real foods/herbs/essential oils is effective and cost effective

supplements can also work but are expensive

drugs are very expensive and not claimed as cures but as symptom management

 

[Lily of Valleys]

The very practice itself is flimsy...the assertion alone that a statistically negligible amount can heal anything is dubious at best.

If you look at the definition:
the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that, in a healthy person, would produce symptoms of disease.

This is a completely counter-intuitive practice that, to date, has never been able to produce any trackable positive results, only anecdotes of "so & so tried it and it worked!"

Wouldn't it be using a similar principle as how vaccination works?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wouldn't it be using a similar principle as how vaccination works?

No, not at all. Vaccination relies on the bodies natural processes. "Curing" colds with dilutions to nothing of items that only mimic some of the symptoms of colds would do nothing. Homeopathy seemed to work when it was first conceived because general "medicine" at that time was too often detrimental. One was better off with no treatment at all than many of the so called treatments of that time. It was long before the advent of modern medicine. Compared to today's medicine it is the ineffective copying of real medicine at best. In proper unbiased double blind studies homeopathy does not better than placebos.

When I see a product advertised as "homeopathic" I instantly know that it is saying "this product does not work". In fact in the U.S. homeopathic medicines now must state that they do not work:

Homeopathic Medicine Labels Now Must State Products Do Not Work

 

[Lily of Valleys]

It is a mistake to rely on a questionable source for a definition of what they are doing. I gave a link on homeopathy earlier that explained it. They have conned you. Did you check out the Wiki article that I linked on it? If you go to the company that you are buying from they have two "strengths" that I have seen them sell. The "weak" version (homeopathy is truly insane in their belief that they less medicine that they give you the stronger it is) has been diluted to one part in one trillion. They claim it is "6C". In homeopathy that means it has been diluted by a factor of 100 6 times. The "strong" version is "30C". That means it has been diluted by a factor of 100 30 times. or by a factor of 10^60.

If the principle of homeopathy is "the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease", maybe that's why it works on that particular skin infection. The reason why that infection can take up to four years to heal is because the human body does not realize there is an infection there and does nothing about it. So to heal that particular skin infection, the treatment should involve triggering the body to fight off that infection.

I personally do not have investment in homeopathy. I use different ways of treatment on different conditions. Not one way is always the best, though I usually prefer the most natural treatment with the minimum side-effect. I have discovered this combination of treatment method on that particular skin infection by trial and error, experimenting different ways on two of my family members. What matters to me is what works and what doesn't. My principle is, just take whatever that works and leave those that doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the principle of homeopathy is "the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease", maybe that's why it works on that particular skin infection. The reason why that infection can take up to four years to heal is because the human body does not realize there is an infection there and does nothing about it. So to heal that particular skin infection, the treatment should involve triggering the body to fight off that infection.

I personally do not have investment in homeopathy. I use different ways of treatment on different conditions. Not one way is always the best, though I usually prefer the most natural treatment with the minimum side-effect. I have discovered this combination of treatment method on that particular skin infection by trial and error, experimenting different ways on two of my family members. What matters to me is what works and what doesn't. My principle is, just take whatever that works and leave those that doesn't.

First off, it does not work. There are no proper double blind studies that show homeopathy works. And in homeopathy you do not usually even get any of the original "medicine'. Water does not have a memory, which is lucky for us.

And you appear to have an emotional investment in homeopathy. One reason that people get fooled is that even without any medicine people tend to get better. When they get better they will sometimes give the credit to the wrong agency. That is why the double blind study in medicine is the gold standard. It eliminates personal prejudice.

 

[Kylie]

They all died.

But not from dehydration.

 

[Kylie]

God did not make pesticides...

Actually he did.

A pesticide is any chemical which is used to kill pests. Most plants are capable of doing this naturally. 99.99% of Pesticides We Eat Are Produced by Plants Themselves | American Council on Science and Health

 

[Kylie]

Just out of curiosity, would that be similar to injecting a person with the flu virus to prevent the flu?????? Or with polio to cure polio???

yes - i am also wondering about this all too - i look forward to more info to help me understand what everyone is talking about

i love learning new stuff

No, neither of these is homeopathy.

Vaccines are not just the same virus that causes the illness. They are parts of the virus (such as only the part which triggers an immune response without the part that causes the symptoms) or a dead version of the virus. The aim is to train the body to produce defenses against the virus without producing an actual illness.

It is possible to feel a bit sick after getting a vaccine, but this is often a result of the immune reaction rather than the vaccine itself.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

First off, it does not work. There are no proper double blind studies that show homeopathy works. And in homeopathy you do not usually even get any of the original "medicine'. Water does not have a memory, which is lucky for us.

And you appear to have an emotional investment in homeopathy. One reason that people get fooled is that even without any medicine people tend to get better. When they get better they will sometimes give the credit to the wrong agency. That is why the double blind study in medicine is the gold standard. It eliminates personal prejudice.

I don't see not having a negative view towards homeopathy equates emotional investment. I tried using homeopathic medicine for hay fever for myself and it did nothing whatsoever. However, I tried using homeopathic medicine in conjunction with herbal topical cream on a particular type of skin infection on someone else and it worked, not once, but every time. Keep in mind that it is a skin infection that most people have little success with to reduce the length of its duration if you search it up online.

So I don't see homeopathy as all bad or all good. Neither is Western medicine and Eastern medicine. Our family has different types of immunity disorders that do not have cure by standard Western medicine. It is not practical to wait for any new findings of double blind studies to come out before we try other alternative treatment in order to keep the conditions under control.

I would reconsider my position if there is a double blind study on the particular combination of treatment I use on that particular skin condition (one using that particular homeopathic pill and one without), if there is one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see not having a negative view towards homeopathy equates emotional investment. I tried using homeopathic medicine for hay fever for myself and it did nothing whatsoever. However, I tried using homeopathic medicine in conjunction with herbal topical cream on a particular type of skin infection on someone else and it worked, not once, but every time. Keep in mind that it is a skin infection that most people have little success with to reduce the length of its duration if you search it up online.

So I don't see homeopathy as all bad or all good. Neither is Western medicine and Eastern medicine. Our family has different types of immunity disorders that do not have cure by standard Western medicine. It is not practical to wait for any new findings of double blind studies to come out before we try other alternative treatment in order to keep the conditions under control.

I would reconsider my position if there is a double blind study on the particular combination of treatment I use on that particular skin condition (one using that particular homeopathic pill and one without), if there is one.

The problem is that you are not able to properly judge the efficacy of a medicine. Neither am I. Anytime that one gets ill it is highly personal. It is far too easy to give the wrong agency the credit for the cure. In personal health anecdotes, which is what you gave, is never evidence. The evidence clearly says that homeopathy is totally ineffective. I am against people swindling other people, even if they think that they were "cured" by a substance.

Do you understand how one can't judge oneself which medicines worked for them or not?


And the fact that some disorders do not respond to medicine, and there are many examples of that, does not give any legitimacy at all to alternative medicines. There is a way to test medicines to see if they work or not. Once again, personal prejudice in regards to medicine allows people to mislead themselves far too often. Double blind studies eliminate those prejudices.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Wouldn't it be using a similar principle as how vaccination works?

No, not even remotely close to the same thing.

Vaccines are taking an inactivated strain of the virus so that your body's immune system can develop an immunity to it...but it is by no means diluted.

Homeopathy is suggesting that taking a vert diluted preparation of something that would cause a disease in a health person, would cure said disease in someone who already has it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is possible to feel a bit sick after getting a vaccine, but this is often a result of the immune reaction rather than the vaccine itself.

Also, it should be noted that in the majority of cases where the person claims "the flu shot gave me the flu", it's actually a case where they were in contact with people who had it, that reminded them to get the flu shot, and they just weren't aware that it takes nearly 10-14 for the antibodies to build up and for the shot to be fully effective.

So, they come in contact with people who have it on a Monday, they think "Oh man, I'd better get a flu shot on Tuesday", and then when they come down with flu symptoms on Thursday (since people typically get symptoms 48-72 hours after coming in contact with people who have it), assume that it was the flu shot that did it, or that the shot isn't effective at prevention.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

which might be where the dilution theory came from, people that got a more dilulted version seemed to be more likely to do well...mainly because they were getting less of what ever toxic substance the homeopathy aws made off heh.

Hahnemann's original thinking on dilution seems to be that if a high dose is toxic, and lower doses less toxic, then extremely small doses could have 'negative toxicity'. This was long before any ideas about the immune system (e.g. immune priming), and doesn't seem to be related to progressive habituation (and many popular 'medicines' were cumulatively toxic, e.g. lead, mercury, arsenic, etc).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't see not having a negative view towards homeopathy equates emotional investment. I tried using homeopathic medicine for hay fever for myself and it did nothing whatsoever. However, I tried using homeopathic medicine in conjunction with herbal topical cream on a particular type of skin infection on someone else and it worked, not once, but every time. Keep in mind that it is a skin infection that most people have little success with to reduce the length of its duration if you search it up online.

So I don't see homeopathy as all bad or all good. Neither is Western medicine and Eastern medicine. Our family has different types of immunity disorders that do not have cure by standard Western medicine. It is not practical to wait for any new findings of double blind studies to come out before we try other alternative treatment in order to keep the conditions under control.

I would reconsider my position if there is a double blind study on the particular combination of treatment I use on that particular skin condition (one using that particular homeopathic pill and one without), if there is one.

There are several reasons why an individual using an ineffective remedy might think that it has been effective. The most common is probably 'regression to the mean'; i.e. a natural recovery is attributed to the remedy. Most maladies become worse over time to a certain point, then begin to recover as the body tackles the problem. Remedies are typically taken after symptoms have become annoying or distressing, which may be fairly close to, or after, the start of recovery (the body's healing response, e.g. fever, inflammation, severe itching, etc., is often the trigger for taking a remedy).

If the same malady arises again, the same remedy is likely to be taken in the same way 'because it worked last time'; chances are, the same thing will happen - natural recovery will be attributed to the remedy, and the placebo effect will probably be involved too. Cognitive biases, such as choice-supportive bias, confirmation bias, the band-waggon effect, etc., will tend to reinforce the mistaken belief in the efficacy of the remedy.

In other cases, it may simply be the placebo effect.

Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' has good information on this kind of thing.

 

[loveofourlord]

There are several reasons why an individual using an ineffective remedy might think that it has been effective. The most common is probably 'regression to the mean'; i.e. a natural recovery is attributed to the remedy. Most maladies become worse over time to a certain point, then begin to recover as the body tackles the problem. Remedies are typically taken after symptoms have become annoying or distressing, which may be fairly close to, or after, the start of recovery (the body's healing response, e.g. fever, inflammation, severe itching, etc., is often the trigger for taking a remedy).

If the same malady arises again, the same remedy is likely to be taken in the same way 'because it worked last time'; chances are, the same thing will happen - natural recovery will be attributed to the remedy, and the placebo effect will probably be involved too. Cognitive biases, such as choice-supportive bias, confirmation bias, the band-waggon effect, etc., will tend to reinforce the mistaken belief in the efficacy of the remedy.

In other cases, it may simply be the placebo effect.

Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' has good information on this kind of thing.

it's esentially what placebo is about, either thing s like pain that are notoriously hard to tell due to bad memories, or if you did nothing you get the exact same results.

 

[USincognito]

Wouldn't it be using a similar principle as how vaccination works?

Not to be too flippant about it, but two of the sillier claims of homeophathy is that the more you dilute the more powerful it becomes, but only when it's succussed or shaken. The shaking is tremendously important for potentizing the dilution.
The Thought Behind the Action - Potency: What it is and what it means | National Center for Homeopathy

How is all this possible? In a world where "extra strength" painkillers and cleansers crowd the shelves in stores and homes, it seems preposterous to assert that something so dilute could act so powerfully. The key is not in the dilution but in the combination of dilution and succussion. Experiments have shown that dilution alone does not produce a potentized medicine; nor does succussion alone. In fact, to characterize homeopathic remedies as "dilute" is a distortion, because they are not merely dilute. They are qualitatively different from their original state.​

He is literally claiming that because of the dilution and the shaking it somehow transforms it into a different substance than diluted water.

Also we've been talking about Avogradro's number (called a "Mole") which we'll keep simple as 6x10^23. Or six followed by 23 zeros. When a dilution is diluted (and succussed) to 12C or 24X the concentration is 6x10^24 meaning statistically there will be zero molecules of the supposed "like" substance. As that page shows, there are dilutions up to 1M or 1000 dilutions of 1 part substance to 9 parts water and then 1 part dilution to 9 parts water, wash, succuss, repeat.

 

[Kylie]

Also, it should be noted that in the majority of cases where the person claims "the flu shot gave me the flu", it's actually a case where they were in contact with people who had it, that reminded them to get the flu shot, and they just weren't aware that it takes nearly 10-14 for the antibodies to build up and for the shot to be fully effective.

So, they come in contact with people who have it on a Monday, they think "Oh man, I'd better get a flu shot on Tuesday", and then when they come down with flu symptoms on Thursday (since people typically get symptoms 48-72 hours after coming in contact with people who have it), assume that it was the flu shot that did it, or that the shot isn't effective at prevention.

Quoted because this should be in the thread twice.

 

[Kylie]

Not to be too flippant about it, but two of the sillier claims of homeophathy is that the more you dilute the more powerful it becomes, but only when it's succussed or shaken. The shaking is tremendously important for potentizing the dilution.
The Thought Behind the Action - Potency: What it is and what it means | National Center for Homeopathy

How is all this possible? In a world where "extra strength" painkillers and cleansers crowd the shelves in stores and homes, it seems preposterous to assert that something so dilute could act so powerfully. The key is not in the dilution but in the combination of dilution and succussion. Experiments have shown that dilution alone does not produce a potentized medicine; nor does succussion alone. In fact, to characterize homeopathic remedies as "dilute" is a distortion, because they are not merely dilute. They are qualitatively different from their original state.​

He is literally claiming that because of the dilution and the shaking it somehow transforms it into a different substance than diluted water.

Also we've been talking about Avogradro's number which is called a "Mole" which we'll keep simple as 6x10^23. Or six followed by 23 zeros. When a dilution is diluted (and succussed) to 12C or 24X the concentration is 6x10^24 meaning statistically there will zero molecules of the supposed "like" substance. As that page shows, there are dilutions up to 1M or 1000 dilutions of 1 part substance to 9 parts water and then 1 part dilution to 9 parts water, wash, succuss, repeat.

Funny, isn't it?

He claims that experiments have shown that dilution alone does nothing, and succussion alone also does nothing. He then claims that both together will have an effect.

Given his apparent belief that experimental evidence is important enough that he relies on it as a way to determine the effectiveness of dilution and succussion, I wonder if he has any experiments that show that both used together is effective? I'm guessing not, at least none of any decent quality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

it's esentially what placebo is about, either thing s like pain that are notoriously hard to tell due to bad memories, or if you did nothing you get the exact same results.

The placebo effect is an explanation for the experiential efficacy of homeopathy, i.e. how it made the individual feel. Regression to the mean is a likely explanation for the narrative efficacy of homeopathy, i.e. how it changed the course of their sickness.

The memory of experience, particularly pain, is a fascinating topic - it works according to the 'peak-end' rule, where the length of a painful experience is ignored and the experience is evaluated in retrospect according to the rough average of how the most intense pain felt and how the end of the experience felt. So a long period of intense pain that has a very mild ending may be rated as less unpleasant than a shorter period of less intense pain that has a more painful ending.

This may partly explain why people often willingly repeat lengthy painful experiences that finish pleasurably (e.g. childbirth, endurance sports).

This difference between the experiential self (that experiences the events in the moment) and the narrative self (that generates the story of what happened, effectively ignoring the timescale) also helps explain a number of other oddities of memory, such as why boring stretches with only a few interesting events can drag at the time, but seem more interesting in retrospect (Test cricket comes to mind!).