It seemed to have reached a high water mark some time ago but I am wondering if you are treating any afflictions in this way and how much success you have had...
No not at all.
I'm a believer in both natural remedies AND modern medicine... although, I do think the pharmaceutical industry carries getting that profit margin high a little too far. I think there are too many drugs on the market that haven't been tested thoroughly enough, or are really unnecessary if we just fix the underlying problem by making changes within our lives.
The money, we must remember, is not in curing people, but in maintaining certain conditions, or masking certain symptoms. For example, I don't think we should need one pill to counteract the effects of another pill... of course, that all depends on what ailment the first pill is for... some ailments do require this type of thing.
I do better without all the steroids and other synthetic medications modern medicine recommends for my disease, but when coupled with the injuries I have to deal with, I'm very glad there are modern medicines for severe, chronic pain.
Personally, if there's a way I can avoid taking more medications, I'm all for it... for example, controlling bad cholesterol through diet is much better than having to take pills, which don't seem to do that much without changing diet, too. I know sometimes that high cholesterol can be more hereditary than dietary, so we have to weigh our options and do what's best for us as individuals.
Some homeopathy products, I think, are just fad ideas to rake in profit, too... the same as pharmaceutical... so we really have to research and decide, along with our doctors, what's best for each of us.
The saying does go, though... "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"... so, you decide.
"Homeopathy" needs to be better defined - there is just too wide a variety of medicinal treatments that go under that title.
Taking something like OTC Conjugated Linoleic Acid can be as effective as statens for controlling cholesterol, eating turmeric as effective as ibuprofen for reducing swelling, etc.
Then there is the whole field of medical foods that can seriously reduce allergic reactions, inflammations, autoimmune issues, etc.
And then there is Chinese/other Asian medicine, which runs the gam from rhino horn to Artemisinin for Malaria, which has, so far, proven to be far more effective than many western drugs.
I've heard many people use "homeopathic" when referring to natural, nutritional and herbal preventative maintenance, cures and symptom relief.
I'd rather live with the symptoms, than deal with the side effects many medicines cause.
Some medicines have so many side-effects that they have to use professional fast talkers to fit them into a relatively short commercial. May cause blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, don't use if you're blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, may cause blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah in patients with blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I've seen & used it my whole life, being part German (!), and am not particularly swayed by it. As David points out, the best aspects of it tend to be the un-chemically-tainted whole ingredients and common-sense use of herbals. I'm not as big a fan of the whole reductio-ab-absurdum bit (one thousandth eye of newt solution, etc).
Kneipp makes some lovely products like massage oils and bath salts. The quality of German/Austrian/Swiss health care products are aided by their very strict regulation of even over-the-counter medicinals, and their recognition that just because it's "herbal" as opposed to "allopathic" doesn't mean it isn't a strong compound and doesn't benefit from nominal oversight. (That worries me about some of the US "homeopathic" companies which seem pretty lax, as is the FDA.)
So: not too sure that a 1/10000 dilution of woodruff will cure my cold ... but I will say that my German grandmother made the hands-down best sore throat remedy in the world. Boil water, steep sage leaves in it for 5 minutes (fresh or dried), then gargle it as soon as it's cool enough. Relieves an aching scratchy throat like nothing else.
I have mildly mild depression cyclically (predictable) but didn't want the side effects of artificial medications. So I take St John's Wort. Totally self-administered and self-monitored. And it's successful without being intrusive. Ever read the side effects of the manmade meds?! Oy. I understand if one needs them, they need them, but the risks that have to be taken are astronomical!
Do I believe that sugar pills and water can cure disease? No. I believe in science based medicine, which homeopathy is NOT!
Many people think that herbal medications are the same as homeopathy and they are not. Nothing about homeopathy makes scientific sense, and I believe that it's only effect is placebo.
Here is a link that might be useful: Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake
I thought homeopathy was the practice of using a certain substance, that in larger quantities, would cause the symptoms complained of and that a homeopathic physician had to administer these substances. I treated with such a physician in 1996 when I developed some symptoms that I can only describe as feeling unwell after a bad cold (I thought I had leukemia). I saw all kinds of medical doctors, none of whom we able to help me. One said it was a virus that he had seen and that it tends to re-occur every five or six years, which made me absolutely paranoid as this feeling of being "unwell" had been ongoing for moths by the time I saw him.
Finally, someone suggested I see a naturopathic physician, which I did. I treated with him for about 6 months. The symptoms started subsiding and finally ended. All told, they were severe for the first 4 or 5 months and, after treating with the naturopath, subsided so they were completely gone after about another 4 months.
But, I lived in sheer terror for a few years of them recurring, which they didn't. I have no idea of whether the homeopathic medicine worked or whether I just got over it. But, I do know that western medicine did absolutely nothing to make it go away.
Here's the definition of homeopathy that is shown by Google:
ho�me�op�a�thy/ˌh�m�ˈ�pəTH�/Noun: A system for the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease.
More info �Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
below is from the National Institutes of Health (for my remedy I've claimed to work. It says that it works for some people and not for others, but how different is that say, from typical medications?). Far from quackery. I wouldn't be so hasty to write everything off. Do be judicious.
Here is a link that might be useful: St John's Wort
I date back to the Old Days before antibiotics, steroids and similiar stuff.
A lot of those old home remedies worked, if you gave them enough time. I think Time could be the major cure all for a lot of things, such a colds, sore throats, flu, etc. A body that is primarily healthy will cure it's self usually. Antibiotics are overused. And we are going to pay the price for it with antibiotic resistant bacteria
So, no, I don't think that the homeopathy path is the way to go in every instance. We need conventional medical treatment too many times to just ignore it.
I also date back to a time when people died or lost limbs because of infections that can be cured now. Homeopathy can't help a lot of problems.
You all realize that there are NO active ingredients in homeopathic "remedies"? The substances have been diluted so many times that no active ingredients are remaining. If you all want to throw your money away on sugar pills and water, go for it.
Here is a link that might be useful: Funny YouTube video: Homeopathic Emergency Room
Terriks: admirable rant, but I think we're actually all agreed with you here - nobody's defending the quack science of homeopathy.
Rob is referring to natural herbal drugs rather than processed ones, but that's a whole different beast from homeopathy.
Sorry that I didn't read the messages more clearly. What I read in the responses was that maybe homeopathic remedies worked in some cases.
The most dangerous "homeopathic" fad that I've seen lately is the so called HCG diet, in which people subsist on 500 calories a day, supplemented by homeopathic HCG drops.
I am lucky. I have the best of two medical services in one. My medical doctor also has a degree as a holistic physician. He does not offer me any Pharmaceutical meds until we have exhausted other treatments.
If I was not so paranoid about posting my pic on the web. I would post a pic and ask you to judge how old I am. I often get that I look 30 yrs younger than my age. I have to show my Drivers License often to get the senior discount.
What I have had success under his system without pharmaceutical drug.....Diabetic, Spinal Stenosis, Allergies and Cholesterol levels. Because my mother had demensia he has me taking some vitamins that are said to help stave off the development since I could have the genes of developing the same illness as a parent.
You do have to be careful where you buy your vitamin. Some may be as useless as the bottle. There is a lot of scams out there even in your local drug store.
Your doctor should do blood test. It will tell what your body is lacking. As we age and if we live in a colder less sunny climate they know we lose Vitamin D.
The last time I saw a homeopath was over a year ago. There was nothing the matter, but she gave me a general wellness remedy I guess. I felt even better after taking it. In the past I've taken homeopathic remedies for different things, and like others here, I don't know if they were effective or if I just got better over time.
I'm glad we have alternatives, and would definitely try homeopathic and other natural remedies in the future, depending on the problem.
Yes for certain remedies, for example :
Sunburn prevention on the beach :
Typically used in today's modern world -
Apply over exposed skin often...
Avobenzone 2% , Homosalate 13% , Octisalate 5% , Octocrylene 2% , Oxybenzone 4%, plus
Water , Sorbitol , Aluminum Starch Octenylsuccinate , VP/Eicosene Copolymer , Triethanolamine , Stearic Acid , Sorbitan Isostearate , Benzyl Alcohol , Dimethicone , Polyglyceryl-3 Distearate , Tocopherol - Vitamin E , Carbomer , Methylparaben , Propylparaben , Disodium EDTA
Homeopathy treatment :
Get a good umbrella
Didn't Methylparaben and Propylparaben play for the Dallas Cowboys in the 70's?
Or am I thinking of someone else?
Cute, but doesn't really pertain to the theory behind homeopathy.
Maybe if you cut the umbrella up into tiny pieces, threw it into a swimming pool, fished out a cup of the the water containing the "umbrella molecules" then threw that over your head while out in the sun, you might have a homeopathic sunscreen.
Samuel Hahnemann & his writings are the basis for homeopathy which many people confuse with naturopathy,
The law of similars & endless dilutions of dilutions of dilutions each one needing to be banged succussion was an endless problem for people with AIDS seeking exotic cures for what was once a hopeless disease, Water is water no matter what the original dilution started out as when it's been diluted 24 times it's water.
SOme of my Favorites
Anthracinum suum  Anthrax poison extracted from the spleen of affected sheep good for All types of furuncles (like Acne, carbuncles, malignant pustules), septic wounds, grangrenous degenerations, anthrax poisoning,[ 6X 30X
Natrum muriaticum sodium chloride table salt varied chronic uses; irritable, touchy, dislikes consolation 6c to 10M
Now Naturopathy can be quite beneficial & problematic 'This is a list from Sloan Kettering
Comfrey This herb has been linked to liver failure.
Kava There have been reports of liver damage from this herb. The French, British, and Canadian governments
warn consumers not to use it. The Food and Drug Administration has asked doctors in the U. S. to report cases of
liver failure that may be caused by kava.
Licorice This herb is used to treat peptic ulcers. It is also used as an expectorant. It should NOT be taken with
certain heart medications.
Lobelia Also known as Indian tobacco, lobelia causes vomiting. In high doses, it can cause coma and death.
Lesser effects include rapid heartbeat and breathing problems.
Pau d'arco This herb is used to treat cancer and infections. It contains toxic components and should NOT be
Pennyroyal Drinking pennyroyal oil has caused death in women and infants. Do NOT take this herb.
Red Clover This herb is known to have estrogen like activity. Don't use it if you are a breast cancer patient with
estrogen receptor positive (ER+) cancer.
St. John's Wort St. John's Wort stops the body from using many drugs, including chemotherapy. Do not take it
with ANY prescription drug.
Yohimbe This herb is billed as a body builder and an "enhancer of male performance." It has caused seizures,
kidney failure, and death.
I've used Olive Leaf extract for years & even my vet has prescribed it for our cats to clear up small skin ulcers.
I'm also an occasionally user of Rhodiola which I've even seen Dr Oz recommend.
Golden seal is good for bronchial infections.
I was gasping for air once & someone gave me homeopathic medicine did squat lucky I'm still alive.
Now ephedra did work for mild asthma attacks ma huang has been band in the US.
Chamomile helps me rest I swear it does.
Valerian knocks me out as does any hops preparations.
Water is water!
It pays to be careful when you start dosing yourself with 'natural remedys' I have a copy of Charles Millspaugh's "American Medicinal Plants" around the house somewhere which gives some hair raising specifics on the actions of various natural plant extracts. We tend to forget that natural plant material is still used in the Pharmaceutical industry and most of the ingredients in medicines are artifical creations of natural ones enhansed in some way.
Homeopathy relies in reality on the Placebo effect-not to be disparaged in any way actually. It is the strongest remedy there is if only you knew how to turn it on when you need it. Since the practioners of Homeopathy dont know how to do it any more reliably than any other doctor it would behoove you to have a backup plan if your complaint is serious or fatal.
terriks-I love the sunscreen/umbrella senario-perfect example of a homeopathic remedy.
The good thing about homeopathic treatments is that the only harm they can do you is to your pocketbook.
My answer is convoluted:
Homeopathy works because of the placebo effect.
And yes, I believe in the placebo effect.
Lenan-I think the Placebo effect needs a new name-something less..less? It is a powerful response to a medication medically effective or otherwise. If you could figure out how to turn it on reliably you would be on to something...I know researchers have been working on it for a long time but no joy so far.
Yes, homeopathy is beneficial sometimes.
I believe in it when used with alternative medicine. Homeopathy doesn't work for my but when you throw in alternative medicine and include diet for intolerances - definitely. I have been on medication since I was 13 years old (for autoimmune diseases) and have been medication free for two years now not even taking so much as an aspirin/tylenol for my arthritis. Skeptic, five years ago yes. Today, I would trust my life to it. All my conditions come back when I eat foods my body can't tolerate or don't take my supplements so it too much of a coincidence that my body just got over my autoimmune conditions. And I went rock climbing last night and fingers are feeling great - two years standing was difficult without using an aid.
Homeopathy is as effective as drinking a little water. Because that's what it is.
The principles behind homeopathy were simply made up and have no basis in science or even in empirical observation. They are the purest nonsense.
There is not even a plausible mechanism of action whereby some water that once had a little of a substance in it but no longer does can produce healing.
Personal anecdotes about responses to any therapy are meaningless.
The plecebo effect is often misunderstood to be healing produced by a patient's belief that they are employing an effective therapy even when they are not. The placebo effect does not produce healing. It merely causes the patient to convince themselves they feel better. But there is no true improvement in their physical condition at variance with the passage of time and the probabilities of a range of outcomes. The placebo effect will not clear clogged arteries, nor shrink a growing tumor. It will not restore organ function. It does not produce healing.
To be clear: Homeopathy is based on made-up principles with no basis, it consists of water or sugar pills with no active ingredients, it has never been shown to be effective in high-quality clinical trials, and whatever placebo effect it induces cannot and does not produce healing. It couldn't be more bogus. Those who push it prey on the hopes of sick people.
Cookie, have you read this recent article in The New York Times about juvenile arthritis? It is really well written.
Here is a link that might be useful: nytimes
Very similar to mine but I went years just moving through the pain/discomfort because my doctors always told us I was too young to have arthritis. When I finally got diagnosed in my early 30s I started the medications along with monthly blood testing as they are hard on your body so they do check for liver and kidney failure/distress. I also began having allergic reactions to the medications I was taking so that is what made me go holistic. I had a hard time with the adjustments because I still had doctors telling me it wasn't the diet/supplements so I kept cheating and not fully believing. It wasn't until I fully cut out the foods my body couldn't handle that it fully cleared from my system (along with my other conditions). I really wish it was an option given to more people. There is nothing to lose in a strict elimination diet for two weeks.
I don't think that this discussion on intestinal issues has much to do with homeopathy - look up the definition.
My medical Dr - not some quack - was a big proponent of intestinal health - at the link is a bit of info on just how large the surface area of an intestinal track really is. Then consider the garbage in the 'modern American diet', with the pesticide and chemical residues, preservatives, overly processed foods, high fat / low fiber diets, toss in some antibiotics and what not, and it really isn't all that far-fetched to think that treating the intestine would, in fact, ameliorate other conditions in the body.
In full disclosure, an eight year bout with an autoimmune issue was successfully treated via a course of 'medical food' and subsequent changes in diet.
Here is a link that might be useful: relative size of surface area
With a start date of April of last year, I was guessing this floated up due to spam. Either I'm wrong, or someone forgot to add the all-important link!
If by "placebo", we mean "mind over matter", then yes... the mind is a powerful thing and can have positive effects on our health... alone, one might call it "Christian Science". ;-)
But modern medicine and pharmacology can be life-saving.
Homeopathic, holistic, natural, etc...
Yikes! By the sounds of the responses on this thread, I run the risk of having things thrown in my direction, but yes, I do believe in homeopathy. I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind, you will believe what you believe, but I will tell you that I've used one remedy in particualr (sepia) that worked wonders for me. The condition that I was treating was not a subjective one (ie, a general feeling of being "unwell"), it was a physical one, more specifically, a skin condition. This is the type of thing that is either there or its not. There is no grey area. I'll tell you that I had this skin condition for 7 years. I tried everything to make it go away, and it never did. After 2 doses of sepia it was gone and hasn't come back since.
There is a lot more to homeopathy than most people think. Several remedies will treat the same condition, but if you are not using the one that is best suited to you, it will do nothing for you. At the risk of sounding even crazier, it's like each remedy has its own unique personality, and you have to use the one that matches your personality. I'll admit that I was in the "homeopaths are quacks" camp until I started reading about homeopathic personalities. When I found the one that matched me (sepia), it was like looking in a mirror.
A lot of people are also not aware of the fact that mint can counter the effects of a homeopathic remedy. So they pop a remedy, brush their teetch everyday with their favourite minty toothpaste, chew a piece of gum after their morning coffee (which can also counter the effects), and complain that their remedy isn't working. If you want to give the remedy a chance to work, it's actually a huge committment. There are short term lifestyle changes that you have to make in order to give it a chance. It also can take time, and you have to give it a chance to work and pay attention to your body. You really have to be in tune with what's going on. In my situation, I wanted my skin condition to clear up, but my body experienced a lot of other changes before it did. If I didn't know to look out for those things (each remedy will tell you what changes will take place), I probably would have thought it wasn't working.
Okay, I'm ready. Fire away!
Are you deeming homeopathy a component of modern medicine and pharmacology, and claiming that it can be life-saving? Not sure what you're saying here.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. There is homeopathy and then there is, for lack of a better word - 'alternative medicine'.
Homeopathy - snip - is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham; the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery, and homeopathic remedies have been criticized as unethical.
Hahnemann believed that the underlying cause of disease were phenomena that he termed miasms, and that homeopathic remedies addressed these. The remedies are prepared by repeatedly diluting a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on an elastic body, called succussion. Each dilution followed by succussion is said to increase the remedy's potency. Dilution sometimes continues well past the point where none of the original substance remains. Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories, considering the totality of the patient's symptoms as well as the patient's personal traits, physical and psychological state, and life history.
The low concentration of homeopathic remedies, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance, has been the basis of questions about the effects of the remedies since the 19th century. Modern advocates of homeopathy have suggested that "water has a memory" - that during mixing and succussion, the substance leaves an enduring effect on the water, perhaps a "vibration", and this produces an effect on the patient. This notion has no scientific support. Pharmacological research has found instead that stronger effects of an active ingredient come from higher, not lower doses.
Homeopathic remedies have been the subject of numerous clinical trials. Taken together, these trials showed at best no effect beyond placebo, at worst that homeopathy could be actively harmful. Although some trials produced positive results, systematic reviews revealed that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are precluded by the laws of physics from having any effect. Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions. The regulation and prevalence of homeopathy vary greatly from country to country.
I've had homeopathy work for problems that nothing else affected.
If I understand the theory behind it, homeopathy is similar to vaccination-
using a small amount of something-or-other stimulates the body to mobilize its own healing systems.
I don't care if scientific research affirms the effectiveness of anything that works for me.
No fire from me. I only suggest people find medical doctors that practice both because people taking certain pharmaceutical meds can make using some of the natural remedies dangerous.
I am lucky I have a medical doctor that have studied both and is certified as a medical doctor and have formal homeopathy training.
David, not sure if your post was in response to mine or not, but I was talking about actual homeopathy.
Although I'm sure the source you posted from is a credible one, I also have no doubt its a medical one. There's no secret that the medical profession does not support alternative medicine, including homeopathy. Especially when they're getting kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry.
Also, how can something be no more effective than a placebo on one hand, and "actively harmful" on the other?
My last doctor was an internist that practiced T'ai Chi, accupuncture, and homeopathic medicine as well.
He worked with patients that were open to all avenues of
healing and well being. I believe that prayer can also be
We don't know what we don't know in all cases--certainly to assume that what our collective feeble minds have discovered to date in the name of "science" alone is the pinnacle of knowledge, is short sighted and arrogant.
"We don't know what we don't know in all cases--certainly to assume that what our collective feeble minds have discovered to date in the name of "science" alone is the pinnacle of knowledge, is short sighted and arrogant."
Demi, mark this day on your calendar. I actually agree with you on something ;)
Posted by stephf 5a (My Page) on
Tue, Feb 12, 13 at 12:04
I imagine we agree on more than not, just not subjects discussed here!
I don't get the idea that Hoemopathy isn't western it's origin is 200 years old in Europe. Samuel Hahnemann.
You haven't really lived till you've seen the desperate dying chasing after it or countless other forms of err umnnn treatments! As for prayer.
I believe meditation & prayer (affirmation) guided imagery can be useful and are very personal. Some folks who do not believe in a deity shy away from it. Prayer need not be directed or a form of worship or petition.
I have used it for pain & stress for years without dire effects I did'n't need to go sit on a mountain I've done it in Subways, emergency rooms at work and it needn't take hours.
Eric Butterworth said (and I accept)
""Prayer is not a means of arousing God to action but the process of waking up from our drowsiness so we can see ourselves, not in a mirror darkly but face-to-face."
Illness can be stress induced & stress can come from illness. from avoidance.
I will tell you that I've used one remedy in particualr (sepia) that worked wonders for me....After 2 doses of sepia it was gone and hasn't come back since.
Here you commit the classic Post Hoc fallacy. Others may take the remedy, and the condition gets worse. Others take the remedy, and it stays the same. Others don't take the remedy, and it gets better. Others don't take the remedy, and it gets worse. Others don't take the remedy, and it stays the same. These are all reasonable scenarios. By carefully conducting a well-designed and controlled study with sufficient numbers of subjects, some conclusions about the efficacy of the remedy may be drawn. Relying on an anecdote is simply an error in thinking. When those studies are performed and analyzed, no causal relationship between homeopathic remedies and positive outcomes exists.
No. You have perceived an improvement subsequent to taking a homeopathic remedy. Again, the Post Hoc fallacy; see above.
Incorrect. No such theory underlies homeopathy. Furthermore, in many homeopathic remedies there is none of the "something-or-other" at all -- not a single molecule. It's just water. This is not an opinion; even homeopaths agree with this fact.
Embedded fallacious assumption -- that the remedy "works", as opposed to the condition simply improving due to the passage of time and the normal variation in disease progression. And, it is extremely sad that you reject the core tenets of science.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Because one thing precedes another does not indicate a causal link between them. Homeopathic remedies have nothing in them but water.
There's no secret that the medical profession does not support alternative medicine, including homeopathy.
"Alternative medicine" is medicine for which there is no scientific evidence of efficacy. Of course the medical profession does not support it. Therapies that have scientific support are, by defintiion, not "alternative". They are simply "medicine".
Especially when they're getting kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry.
Ah, the Pharma Shill gambit. Kickbacks are illegal. Do you have evidence of a specific crime you wish to post?
He worked with patients that were open to all avenues of
healing and well being.
Everyone should be open to all avenues of healing by being willing to carefully examine all available scientific evidence of efficacy. But there are many who are closed-minded about medicine, and they will not consider evidence that runs counter to their preconceived ideas, as when they reject the voluminous data showing the homeopathy is as effective as water. Because it's water.
I believe that prayer can also be
Does God abstain from helping a dying child because of insufficient prayer on her behalf?
The argumentum ex silentio fallacy coupled with a straw man. The fact remains that homeopathy is based on made-up principles that have no basis in logic, science, or empirical observation, and that homeopathic remedies may contain none of the supposedly therapeutic substance by design, and that decades of studies show no efficacy. Yet, people are ignorant of the difference between correlation and causation, and the valuelessness of anecdote, and they are deeply influenced by bias and wishes, so they continue to use these valueless therapies, often forgoing other measures with demonstrated efficacy, to their ultimate detriment on balance. It's really very sad.
I'm just glad that there are no homeopathic airplane engineers/designers.
Here is a link that might be useful: Just for fun - the Homeopathic Emergency Room
I perceived an improvement?
Yes I did.
& not only are you shockingly rude to dismiss my "perception", you have no business & no reason for declaring that my perception is anything but absolutely correct.
I take about a half dozen anti-oxidants mfg. by Puritan. Does that count?
I don't think much of homeopathy, but do think there are lots of herbs, supplements, and "alternative" therapies (those which are not drugs or surgery) that work well.
I have insomnia, and have tried all manner of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatments. Calms forte which is a homeopathic remedy did nothing. Then again, Ambien didn't do much either.
What has worked best to produce a semi-normal night's sleep? A low dose of an SSRI (Lexapro) which is a prescription drug, and Midnite, which is a combo of herbs and melatonin.
Facto, you asked for proof that it happens?
Here is a link that might be useful: Proof
Here is a link that might be useful: More proof
And more still.
Here is a link that might be useful: You asked for it
Well, I will say that straight homeopathic solutions aren't enough for my body. I wouldn't dismiss it though and I do use it even though it (on it's own) didn't help me get to where I wanted to be but I will still use the formulas my ND puts together for me when I think I am slipping on my diet plan. Yeah, I did pull the subject off topic a bit but I will advertise it (alternative medicine) to anyone who suffers with arthritis or autoimmune conditions to try it. It may not work for everyone and many might not be interested but it worked so well for me (and my youngest son at the moment) that I will put it forth any chance I have.
Terrene, I have been sleeping an average of 4-6 hours for several years. I refuse to take medication and nothing else seemed to help.
One thing has helped me to get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer the last few months is a sound machine.
Although I sleep with a fan on high, the sound of the waves, rain, or babbling brook sends me off right away and if I have to get up during the night, I go right back to sleep.
I have purchased and given these as gifts to friends over the last few months and everyone has commented how much it helps.
This one is inexpensive, has different sounds, has a timer for 15, 30 and 60 minutes if desired, is small, and travels well.
It is $19.99.
Since the word belief is present. My disbelief from personal experience overcomes any thing else that can be said.
I grew up with lot of home remedies but that's not water diluting water.
StephF I feel this can be a can you top this outrage approach so here goes.
Here is a link that might be useful: gross negligence
Labrea, I'm not outraged at all. In fact in my first post I admitted that a lot of things that have to do with homeopathy sound crazy and that I wasn't out to change anyone's mind. Facto asked for proof that pharmaceutical kickbacks happen, so I provided several sources. That's all. You can believe what you believe, and I'll believe what I believe and we can all live as one big happy family here on HT.
"Are you deeming homeopathy a component of modern medicine and pharmacology, and claiming that it can be life-saving? Not sure what you're saying here."
No. The space and separate lines would indicate separate thoughts. Without that space, I could envision some confusion.
Homeopathy is defined as: 'A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself.'
Or... 'A nontraditional system for treating and preventing disease, in which minute amounts of a substance that in large amounts causes disease symptoms are given to healthy individuals. This is thought to enhance the body's natural defenses.'
I would not place it in the same category as modern medicine and pharmacology, no... hence the space.
The Proof raised outrage in me then again I rage out easily over drug companies big pharma, Hospital administrations.
The certainty of Doctors & the rare apologies when mistakes are made..
I never underestimate the placebo effect.
You misunderstand. I didn't say your perception of an improvement was wrong. What I said was that your characterization that the homeopathic medicine "worked" is wrong. You committed a basic fallacy of reasoning: assuming that because one thing (taking the homeopathic remedy) precedes another (a perceived improvement), that the first thing caused the second thing.
I just clapped my hands five times, then rolled a die. It came up 5. Do you conclude the clapping produced the outcome of the roll? What if I did it a thousand times, and one-sixth of the time the outcome matched the clapping. Would you conclude that one-sixth of the time, clapping influences the roll of a die?
You miss the point completely. Do you have proof of a kickback scheme intended to suppress homeopathy?
If homeopathy worked at all, those greedy pharmaceutical companies would be trying to sell as many homeopathic preparations as they could. After all, they cost essentially nothing to produce (being just water), and they have no negative side-effects (being just water), making them astonishingly profitable. They would be pushing for the FDA to regulate them as prescription drugs so they could force out small producers and engage in those lucrative kickback schemes to get doctors to prescribe them, and they would have zero liability because, well, the remedies are just water. There's just one little problem...
...they don't work.
Why do you believe that therapies for which there is no scientific evidence work well? Which herbs, supplements, and "alternative" therapies specifically do you believe work well, and on what basis do you make that judgment?
You say you don't think much of homeopathy. Do you mean that you believe it is only mildly or occasionally effective? Or do you believe it is absolute nonsense?
Well, I will say that straight homeopathic solutions aren't enough for my body. I wouldn't dismiss it though
Why not? It's made of water with none of the supposedly active ingredient still in it, there is no plausible mechanism of action, and there is no scientific evidence of efficacy despite decades of testing. What would it take to dismiss a therapy?
No Facto, YOU missed the point. Your argument is completely circular because you keep coming back to "they don't work". However, it is the medical profession releasing all of these "studies" that say that homeopathic remedies (or other forms of alternative medicine) don't work. Why? Because when people believe they don't work, they ask for a prescription instead which makes the pharmaceutical companies rich and puts a little extra money in the doctor's pocket.
You DO realize that most prescription drugs are based on some sort of alternative remedy don't you? Pharmaceutical companies altered them so they COULD charge for them. They can't push unaltered alternative remedies because a lot of them are completely free and readily available to everyone. You can't govern what people grow or harvest on their own properties, unless they were to make all alternative remedies illegal...
Chew on 2 teaspoons of Willow Tree Bark and call me in the morning.
Short answer: no.
Rob if you are still following this thread, one of the best things you can do for yourself re: depression is to be in natural light with your eyes open, for ten minutes a day, regardless of the weather - unbroken ten minutes outside. Even with a very deep cloud cover, the kind of light necessary gets through, I try to be sure my whole body is exposed although I suspect that just hitting my open eyes is probably enough.
A doctor told me a study had been done on this and for the more biologically based depression, it can shorten the length if on meds, lengthen the time between cycles and often times cut way back on the times it hits. I make sure that even in extreme cold, I bundle myself up and sit outside in a comfy outdoor chair first thing in the morning after my workout every single day, I feel positive it makes a substantial difference in how I feel, certainly in the dark days of winter.
I hope this info is of some value to someone. It is not a cure nor will it take the place of medication if that is what is deemed necessary by your doctor at the time - but it can help, and can aid in prevention, especially when combined with at least 30 straight minutes of exercise a day.
Water with a memory doesn't work for me!
This is a somewhat more creative set of logical fallacies. You have a convoluted argumentum ex silentio -- we can't rely on science's conclusion that homeopathy doesn't work, therefore it follows that it does work, as well as begging the question, wherein you reason that homeopathy works, so "the medical profession" will suppress the evidence that it works, and therefore you conclude from the absence of scientific evidence that homeopathy works. You've also tossed in an ad hominem component, whereby you label the medical establishment as corrupt, and therefore you conclude that the opposite of what they say must be true.
Your point about not being able to make money off non-prescription medications is simply wrong. Non-prescription meds are quite lucrative, and drugmakers push for the FDA to allow them to sell prescription drugs over the counter (see V!agra and Claritin, for example). And your belief that there is a vast global conspiracy among drugmakers and researchers to produce decades of research that shows that homeopathy is not effective is simply absurd, and you will be unable to produce any evidence whatsoever that these studies are rigged.
You DO realize that most prescription drugs are based on some sort of alternative remedy don't you?
A citation would be appreciated. Note that an "alternative" remedy is one which has failed to demonstrate a therapeutic effect in clinical trials but which people promote nonetheless.
Pharmaceutical companies altered them so they COULD charge for them. They can't push unaltered alternative remedies because a lot of them are completely free and readily available to everyone.
Please provide the free, readily available unaltered alternative remedies that are the basis for the commonly-prescribed medications.
You can't govern what people grow or harvest on their own properties, unless they were to make all alternative remedies illegal...
You need to brush up on your law. Do you grow psilocybin mushrooms?
While i would never underestimate the power of the mind to heal the body, I would say that there are way too many instances where it simply wouldn't do any good, and would take a lot more in the way of modern medicine, to heal, or to save a life.
I think one of the most important aspects of modern medicine is in finding knowledgeable, competent doctors or specialists dedicated to their work, to their patients, that take their Hippocratic oath seriously. Similarly, those in the pharmaceutical arena, and the scientists and researchers that bring us new medicines and methodology need to be professional, knowledgeable, competent, and dedicated to the patients their work serves.
Greed has so infiltrated health care and medicine that it too often seems as though profit comes before people, and patients are treated more as cattle being pushed through a system wherein the object is to charge as much as possible... much to the detriment of the individual patient and his or her health issues. And I think a lot of people are turning to nontraditional or old fashioned or natural remedies and treatments because of the gap in care, ethics, and communication, among other reasons. Affordability comes to mind.
Personally, I think a combination of the right diet, the right doctors, and a logical, reasonable approach to knowing about the medications one takes can make modern medicine less daunting. We research before accepting...
Hold everything... Skyfall is starting and I'm not missing it for a HT discussion. Sorry, people... today is a special day for me. Later...
so if I understand this correctly, factotum is right & everybody who has another opinion is wrong?
Sunlight really does help;
when I go anywhere, I sit outdoors or by a window, & it reallly does help.
The other very best thing I've found for depression is oxygenated blood;
much as I hate the word "exercise", it's the best thing you/I can do, not only for depression but for generally improving brain function.
Aerobic exercise, doesn't matter if it's dancing or chopping logs or running (hurts my knees just thinking about running...), will make those synapses fire more efficiently.
The trick is to get going;
depression makes you want to pull the covers up & not move at all.
The best way I found to get myself to move was to obligate myself;
I joined a jazzercise group & "car-pooled" with a friend who didn't drive.
Since somebody relied on me to drive every time, I *had* to go.
ate less, slept better, felt better.
To whom is this addressed?
I discussed facts. I don't dispute the facts you offered -- that you took a homeopathic remedy and some time later a condition improved. I pointed out that it is a fallacy of reasoning to conclude a causal relationship between the two events. Merely wanting there to be a causal relationship does not, of course, make it so.
Homeopathic preparations may be identical to plain water from a molecular composition standpoint; that is, they are made of water molecules. I would be interested in learning why you believe that pure water can cure disease. An anecdote or two provides zero evidence, because they contain no information about a causal link.
Facto, I'm not claiming I have proof that these studies are rigged, but I don't think it's logical for people to blindly trust a profession just because they have 2 letters in front of their name when we KNOW that things like pharmaceutical kickbacks occur. I would rather find out for myself than form an opinion based on a study by a profession that has proved time and time again to be corrupt. Does it mean for sure that the studies are rigged? No. Does it mean I'm going to question them? Absolutely.
You claim that by its very definition alternative medicine doesn't work, but let me ask. Is it just herbal and homeopathy that you have a beef with, or is it accupuncture and chiropractic care as well?
You asked me to give you an example of a prescription drug based on an alternative remedy. Jarsin is a prescription drug sold in Germany containing Hypericum (aka, St. John's Wort). You can take my word for it or look it up yourself.
I find it hilarious that you say I have to brush up on my law considering what I do for a living. I'm not sure what mushrooms have to do with anything since I did specify that they would have to make ALL alternative remedies illegal to grow. Do you grow purple coneflower?
Demi, I do have several relaxation CDs, and they ARE very relaxing, but the only CD player that currently works in the house is a CD walkman. No speakers. I purchased a cheap CD player from Best Buy, but I could hear a humming sound as well as the mechanical noises of the player itself, which was distracting, so I returned it. A Bose CD player would no doubt have excellent sound quality, for only $500! Does that sound machine have a good sound quality?
Facto, I've tried a couple homeopathic remedies over the years, such as the Calms Forte, which did not seem effective. Like I said above, the sleep aid "Midnite" which is a combination of melatonin and several herbs, does work well for insomnia, without any side effects, morning drowsiness, or risk of dependency (unlike prescription drugs like Ambien and bezodiazepenes).
Chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, and herbal remedies as well as other supplements have worked for certain conditions. Years ago I used garlic cloves to treat a yeast infection, which worked better than Monistat! I could cite many personal examples of "alternative" therapies that are NOT drugs or surgery that have been effective to some degree. But they are anecdotal and I couldn't tell you what the scientific data is pertaining to these therapies.
I have severe cat allergies. 16+ years ago I acquired a cat (I know, I know~~ it was supposed to be for one night!). Anyway, a homeopathic treatment was recommended to me, one I was certain would not be effective. These are sublingual drops made by "BioAllers". My cat was dx'd two years ago with kidney disease and given only weeks to months to live. I discontinued the drops and over time daily symptoms recurred rendering life pretty miserable. I resumed the drops about three months ago and symptoms again dramatically decreased. I have a fairly strong reaction once every week or two so it hasn't been a cure all (for me), but symptoms are dramatically reduced with the drops.
I only mention this to possibly help anyone else who might be in search of allergy relief (I know the company makes drops to assist with other types of allergies but I only have experience with the pet dander drops).
I also have good results with 5htp for insomnia but not sure this is considered homeopathic.
Sounds like your cat's still with us. Great; and if that treatment helps you, I say go for it.
Facto, I'm not claiming I have proof that these studies are rigged, but I don't think it's logical for people to blindly trust a profession just because they have 2 letters in front of their name when we KNOW that things like pharmaceutical kickbacks occur.
Straw man plus utopia fallacy. You attack a position not held (that we should "blindly trust a profession just because they have 2 letters in front of their name") and conclude that because of some improprieties occur, the truth must be the opposite of what the decades of science say. Have you actually read any of the studies of the efficacy of homeopathy? Have you read any of the reviews of the literature? Have you read analyses of the designs of these studies and of the data collected? On what basis do you dismiss the huge body of evidence collected? Do you discard all the studies? Do you believe some of them were not rigged? If so, why do you reject the findings of all of the studies?
I would rather find out for myself than form an opinion based on a study by a profession that has proved time and time again to be corrupt.
A study? Or dozens or hundreds of studies? Do you believe that every study of homeopathy was rigged and despite the thousands of people who have been involved over the decades there is no evidence of rigged studies that you can produce?
You say you'd rather find out for yourself whether homeopathy (and presumably any medication) works rather than examining the science and forming a judgment. If you have even an elementary grasp of statistics and the various issues involved in assessing a drug as objectively as possible, I don't know how you can possibly go about doing your own science on this. Of course, collecting a few anecdotes produces nothing of probative value (either way), as I'm sure you will appreciate. Clap five times, roll a five; it works! Clap twice, roll a four?...may not have clapped correctly. You get the idea.
Does it mean for sure that the studies are rigged? No. Does it mean I'm going to question them? Absolutely.
You should question every study and every claim for anything. But you're not questioning -- you're rejecting out of hand without investigating. That displays bias. I encourage you to question the scientific studies of homeopathy by actually reading them, or at least reading about them. But dismissing them all just because of some bad acts by pharmas and docs is closed-minded and irrational. And biased.
I never said I had a beef with medications derived from herbs, and there is nothing alternative about herbal medications that have been demonstrated to be effective. Each substance must be assessed on its own merits. Some are effective, some are not. Substances must also be evaluated for safety, which homeopathy does not, because it's just water. Acupuncture (note spelling) is a therapy based on a made-up principle of life-energy meridians, so it certainly gets off on the wrong foot. Studies have shown that it is about as effective as sham acupuncture and that it produces a significant placebo effect. Chiropractic is, in my opinion, mostly nonsense, but there is some therapeutic effect from the massage-like activities involved in "adjustments". I consider chiropractors to be essentially physical therapists with delusions of grandeur, to borrow a phrase.
I was looking for a drug sold by a Pharma in the U.S. so we could analyze why a patient might be best served by using the approved medical formulation. But even with St. John's Wort, the dosage control and purity of a medication allows safe and accurate administration (I will note that evidence for the effectiveness of SJW is weak, and SJW packaged as supplements have had serious dosage problems).
Let's review. You wrote,
"You can't govern what people grow or harvest on their own properties"
Yes, you can. Laws and regulations can govern what people grow on their own properties. As a concrete example, in most places in the U.S. you cannot grow psilocybin. True or false?
If you are an attorney, I am rather surprised you would believe that homeopathy works, and even that it could work, given that it's made of water with none of the supposedly active ingredient still in it, there is no plausible mechanism of action, and there is no scientific evidence of efficacy despite decades of testing. Do you believe you could prevail in a court case where you had the burden to prove that homeopathy works? If so, lay out your evidence.
I think this discussion has stumbled due to a consistent misunderstanding that conflates actual homeopathy with any other natural, herbal, or alternative medicine.
Homeopathy: This discipline "was developed in Germany at the end of the 18th century. Supporters of homeopathy point to two unconventional theories: "like cures like" -- the notion that a disease can be cured by a substance that produces similar symptoms in healthy people; and "law of minimum dose" -- the notion that the lower the dose of the medication, the greater its effectiveness. Many homeopathic remedies are so diluted that no molecules of the original substance remain." NIH summary
"Alternative" or herbal medicine: studies show varying but demonstrably real efficacy of many of these substances (St John's Wort, Melatonin, etc etc). And yes, some of these substances form the basis for what we call allopathic or "prescription" medicine, i.e., compounded drugs. I don't think anyone would dispute that fact.
But the OP is NOT about all herbals, it's about HOMEOPATHY.
Here is an example of a homeopathic analysis and prescription of Petroleum, just as one example, which is available in dilutions from 6x to 1millionx.
This post was edited by circuspeanut on Tue, Feb 12, 13 at 22:32
Like MD's, Chiropractors are not created equally... it's important to find the right one... but I swear by the guy I go to. He definitely keeps my bones in proper order... and if you knew what my skeleton looked like, you'd understand that I need all the help I can get! I can feel the difference usually by the day following an adjustment.
I'll be the first one to acknowledge a quack as a quack... but Chiropractors perform a very real and often necessary service.
As for laws that govern... laws only work if everyone follows them... otherwise, they're just words on paper.
Sylviatexas, I would like to point out that the sun in the daylight is actually not necessary, this was underscored by my doctor. It is the natural light which exists and comes through even on a dim day with a heavy cloud cover, that is the light which makes the difference in the chemical composition of a depressed brain - although I would certainly agree that there is something about an actually sunny day in Winter when sunny days have been as rare as found gold that can lift the spirits to great heights.
DH, my two dogs and I enjoyed the benefits of a sunny late afternoon for the last two days as we all went for a brisk walk paused only by an exploratory session at what I have renamed "Scratch And Sniff Corner" - an area at a nice sized park right around the corner from our home where they like to pause to explore. They lightly scratch the ground with their paw and sniff at whatever delightful aroma the scratch releases. Their joy at this recreation is similar to the joy I experience when I enter a Neiman Marcus dept store and do a similar version of the 'scratch and sniff' exploration, myself! ;)
And you are absolutely correct- brisk aerobic exercise as advised by my doctor is the ticket for me too: my treadmill is in the garage as I walk between 4:30 and 5:30 every single morning when its still dark at 4 mph for an hour seven days a week ( plus lighter weight work for muscles toning) and sometimes some other organized aerobic activities a few days a week at a gym close by with some friends. But, I really do prefer my main workout to be solitary, with my earbuds in and my music going.
I hope our experiences will help someone who is reading this thread and maybe needs extra ideas to help along with meds, or someone who maybe experiences a lighter feeling of lack of enjoying their life to the fullest during these dark winter months - something that is a recognized as a treatable condition with great successes - and these self help therapies can do a lot of good alongside what it is your doctor will advise to be the best course of treatment.
There is no reason or point to suffering from depression from any source, especially when so much help is available. Never self diagnose or self treat, only a professional can evaluate you and know the best course of treatment to provide relief.
Fort Those Interested in Herbs Sloan Kettering Hospital has an extensive listing of herbs some of the listings contain studies made by physicians.
Here is a link that might be useful: Sloan Kettering
Cookie, good that you were able to find and eliminate the food that were bothering you. I agree, more people should be aware of this connection.
As a follow up to this and David's post on gut health, earlier this year I got the horrible cold that was going around. I have been following Green Med Info online and they published an article about probiotics reducing the severity of respiratory infections. I have some probiotics in the fridge - Primal Defense, so I took one. About a half hour later, my runny nose cleared. It was shocking how quickly that happened. Green Med Info is,"The World's Largest, Open Access, Natural Medicine Database with 20,133 study abstracts indexed and growing daily. "
One of the reader comments posted on the NYTImes article I linked caught my attention: "Odysea33Miami
As a medical doctor, I am so moved by this story. My son at five was on steroids for asthma. I took him to my acupuncture physician who said lung disease was mediated by the gut in Chinese medicine. He took him off gluten, dairy, sugar, corn, soy and citrus, the common allergens. I went off them too. Within 3 days, his symptoms of asthma went away, as well as his chronic, severe constipstion, and he came off steroids. My morning 'arthritis' and longstanding fatigue also disappeared."
It is good to get a more complete picture of how our bodies work.
Stephf, I haven't been following the other half of your discussion with another poster, but from what I gleaned from your posts, I thought you might be interested in the following about publication bias in medical literature.
I realize nothing in this about is about homeopathy, but I think the posts have been that way pretty much from the beginning.
Here is a link that might be useful: publication bias
There is no reason or point to suffering from depression from any source, especially when so much help is available.
Do you really believe that? Not only is help not available to some people, or they can't afford good help, but the treatments for depression are not "one size fits all". Then there are some extremely traumatic life events that people never get over, and there are sensitive types who don't get stronger if it doesn't kill 'em...they just go on with life mortally wounded.
Here's a blog post that discusses Joe Mercola's activities. I recommend it, and I agree with the author that Dr. Mercola is a vigorous promoter of quackery. However, Ben Goldacre, the gentleman in the particular article you linked at Mercola's web site, is an intelligent critic of bad science as well as a very important watchdog for corruption in the pharmaceuical industry and the health care field in general.
Indeed, you might be interested in his website, "Bad Science", and more specifically, one of his posts that gives some of his views on homeopathy, as that is the present topic. So I thank you for bringing Goldacre into the conversation.
thanks, mylab, for the reminder.
It reminds me, too, of a wonderful "cafe" concept in Finland, where the winters are very long & very dark & depression is a sort of natinal malady..
You can go into one of these places & get your coffee & read your book under full-spectrum lights.
I had a bad cold in December. One afternoon, a strong gust of wind finally dislodged an dead, dangling branch from a large tree in my backyard. About a half-hour later, my runny nose dried up. It was shocking how quickly that happened.
An anecdote of unknown accuracy from an anonymous source. Completely meaningless for getting a more complete picture of how our bodies work.
Interesting that Sloan Kettering site does list Homeopathy in it's list. Of course you'd have to have read all the studies linked which I haven't
If changing one's diet (removing gluten, dairy, sugar, corn, or soy like the story above) results in the problems clearing up, does it matter whether science has hard evidence of how it works or how digestive problems can result in respiratory illnesses?
Sure, it's anecdotal evidence only, but there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence.
Just because science doesn't understand how it works - yet. - doesn't mean that there isn't some benefits to the various methods (Chinese medicine, special diets, alternative therapies, homeopathy, old wives tales) employed in these stories.
The "Literature Summary and Critique" at the Sloan Kettering site contains no assertion of efficacy for homeopathy, unsurprisingly.
Althea, I'm very surprised that more doctors do not begin with diet and nutrition... so many of our health issues are directly tied to what we ingest and what passes for our general food source today!
Jodi, they don't even ask about diet on the health history forms you need to fill out. They ask about your personal health history - diseases, drug consumption; sometimes alternative health care including whether you take vitamins; your family health history, but not such an important aspect of health as your day to day diet. It's as if my sister's high blood pressure is more indicative of my current and future health than what I eat regularly. I find the fact that diet is omitted mind boggling.
No doctor has never mentioned gut health for my conditions. If I never ventured into alternative medicine who knows where I would be physically. My GP still doesn't attribute my healing to natural cures, my Rheumatologist accepts it with a "keep doing what you are doing as it is working for you". He is a good doctor so a stay with him for monitoring. As far as my ND goes, I take whatever tincture, powder he offers me. He helped me get to where I am so I trust him even though I know food intolerances have a lot to do with it. There is definite intestinal issues so I take a bitters tincture before eating to get the digestive system started and I will take a powder form of plantain, glutatamine, bittersweet, drink my tea concoctions and not question it. Oh, and coconut oil pulling got rid of my tooth sensivity and naturally whitens my teeth (sorry, now branching to ayurvedic).
Hoot Cookie, I oil pull with sesame! I stumbled across this a couple of years ago googling something totally unrelated. It was the strangest thing I've ever heard, so I started right away, with coconut because that is what we had. Switched to sesame and have stayed with that. My homeopath hadn't even heard of that one it's so unusual.
Our doctor has told us repeatedly that diet and nutrition is not an area of in depth study in medical school. It's more of a specialty... even though it IS directly tied to our health in so many ways.
I was diagnosed with Lupus over a decade ago, and I couldn't believe what conventional medicine wanted to throw at me to "alleviate or control" symptoms! Most of the medications are more harmful than the actual disease, and have oodles of nasty side effects! No, thanks!
I began looking into what I could do, myself, in order to avoid taking all the steroids, anti-inflammatories, and other nasty medicines, and my research led me to change my diet... and I feel so much better!
Diet is not a cure for every health issue, but it is linked tightly to so many issues that it should be an area of much more concern for doctors and patients.
Allergies, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, digestion issues, stomach and acid issues, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and so many more issues can be exacerbated by poor diet... and the average American diet is pitiful!
By detoxifying my body of all the chemical, processed, artificial, over sugared and salted, unnecessary food items I've taken away a lot of the things that made me feel worse. I still experience many of the normal symptoms of Lupus, but I feel better, my blood pressure and cholesterol numbers look good, my weight is normal, and my health is very manageable,
One of the very first things our doctor talked to us about was diet. What do we eat? How often do we eat that way? And do we know what we're really consuming? Then, he explained all the things that can complicate health, and how we could control them simply by changing how we eat.
Some issues are genetic in nature, and some are not linked to diet... but when we look at the average diet, it's not hard to see where changes could be made that can have a big impact.
We're big believers in "we are what we eat"! I think that a lot of folks don't even realize what it means to feel really good... sluggishness, pain in the joints, digestion or stomach issues, indigestion, trouble sleeping well... a lot of times, these issues are tied to what we consume daily... fast foods, over processed foods, high amounts of corn sugars and sodium, artificial products, chemical laden foods, fatty foods, etc... too much soda, too much fat and grease... not enough natural food, like fruits and veggies, lean meats, whole grains, a good balance of real foods, everything in moderation...
But... in America, profit is king... and the money is in health maintenance, not in a cure.
Have a problem? Throw a pill at it. The pill causes issues? We have another pill for that!
But continually putting bandaids on problems instead of getting to the bottom of it all is not helpful in the long run.
Begging the question fallacy here, tied to a Post Hoc fallacy. You assume the problems cleared up due to the change in diet, because one followed the other. I clapped five times and the die came up 5.
"Anecdotal evidence" is really an oxymoron with an embedded fallacy -- that an anecdote can be used as evidence. It can't. And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
There are a lot of anecdotes, because of the law of averages. When millions of people do something, there will be a large number of positive anecdotes as a result due to mere randomness of outcome. Add in the lack of blinding, the bias, inaccurate reporting, placebo effects, a range of deception from exaggeration to frank fabrication, and you get a lot of positive anecdotes. Then consider all the "nonecdotes" -- stories that never get told because there was nothing to tell. Perceived positive effects are anecdotally reported at a dramatically higher rate than are no-effect/negative effect stories. Then there's publication bias. Don't overlook the fact that alternative medicine is a billion-dollar industry, depsite efforts to portray it as beyond the hold of greedy companies because there's no money in it. Homeopathic preparations aren't something you make yourself, and they aren't free, either -- despite the fact that they are really just water. There's a lot of profit available there. So positive anecdotes get eagerly spread by marketers of such products.
You could perform a two-week study with 1,000 people who have a condition that, untreated, resolves by itself in two weeks in 1/4th of the sufferers. No matter what you give them (including plain water), you can generate 250 anecdotes about how the treatment worked, and probably far more than that due to placebo effects if the study is not blinded.
Anecdotes are less than worthless as evidence; they're downright misleading. And widespread ignorance of probability and statistics causes people to be misled not only by others' anecdotes, but especially by their own. The human -- and even animal -- mind is always aggressively seeking patterns and causes in furtherance of survival, but this trait can also lead one seriously astray due to its susceptibility to the Post Hoc fallacy (confusing correlation with causation, in sequenced events). Skinner's head-bobbing pigeons come to mind.
Again, the fallacy of begging the question. You first assume these therapies work, then say that science doesn't know how they work, then conclude that just because science doesn't know how they work it doesn't mean there's no benefit, and therefore there may be some benefit. Do you see the logical error here?
You are addressing the mechanism of action issue. It is absolutely true that the specific mechanism of action of a therapy does not need to be identified for a therapy to be shown to be effective. Indeed, medical science has never said otherwise; no medications have been rejected because they work but scientists haven't figured out exactly how. So the whole line of argument is a straw man.
However, homeopathy is in a special category of therapies, because for it to work -- or more accurately, for it to have any effect at all of any kind, positive or negative-- the laws of physics and chemistry would have to be spectacularly wrong, given that homeopathy claims that two pure water molecules -- H20 -- can be different, with one bearing disease-specific therapeutic characteristics, and the other not. If I may editorialize a bit, it couldn't be crazier.
Begging the question fallacy here, tied to a Post Hoc fallacy. You assume the problems cleared up due to the change in diet, because one followed the other.
Well, let's take the above example of Jodi and her changes in diet.
When she follows her modified diet for her problem... in this case, Lupus, her symptoms are alleviated.
She has mentioned before that if she strays back into bad eating habits, her symptoms come back.
Then when she again sticks to her modified diet, she gets relief from her symptoms again.
Now, I understand that there is a possibility that a change in diet is not the cause of the relief from her symptoms... but when the symptoms wax and wane accordingly with her sticking to the diet and straying from it, isn't it logical to conclude there is a connection?
Sure, we could say it's a placebo effect. I give you that, and I believe that is a possibility. But in this case, it's not a phantom, unmeasuable disease. It's Lupus....it's not fading just because she unconsciously wills it to go away.
Do you not find it a possibility that yes, these things could be having an effect, that perhaps Lupus and it's full range of causes and symptoms just are not fully understood, nor the effect of diet (or natural medicines or alternative therapies, what have you) on this disease?
Exactly. I get off my diet and I get all the symptoms of Psoriasis, Psoriatic Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, Lupus, and Reynauds Syndrome all with bloodtests confirming through ESR, WBC, CRP and the like. This happens after 4-6 days of poor eating and I don't mean pizza, burgers, cake. I mean a sandwich, a tomato, too many legumes. I don't eat junk food at all. Off the diet these numbers are through the roof. On, under control. I also don't play around with my conditions. There is a lot of pain, debilitation and discomfort involved and it was the scariest thing to go off medication because I did trust the medical (science) system so much - too much.
Some of our most acclaimed medical institutions have bought into homeopathy too. The Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Columbia Presbyt, NYU Langone, and others have centers that integrate homeopathic and other alternative treatments with traditional medicine,
it is inarguable that diet affects health, and may affect disease progression or severity. This is well-established. Given the large number of alterations Jodi made to her diet, it becomes impossible to isolate the cause or causes of her perceived or actual improvement, however. So no judgment can be made, and that is even apart from the small sample size and lack of controls on her self-administered diet changes. A person's story is not a study.
Now, be careful not to conflate the idea of diet affecting health -- which is long-established, and which by no measure is in the realm of "alternative medicine" -- with such therapies as homeopathy. Anyone believe homeopathy is effective (beyond placebo)? If so, why? And how could it be possible?
it is inarguable that diet affects health, and may affect disease progression or severity.
Well then, we're kind of back to my initial point. If changing one's diet (removing gluten, dairy, sugar, corn, or soy like the story above) or some other non-traditional method results in the problems clearing up, then it really doesn't matter if science has yet to find the hard evidence of the whys and hows it's happening.
Patients can continue alleviating their problems with their non-pharma, dietary, alternative methods and leave the scientific community to figure out why those methods work.
Just let us know when they get back with an answer on that, K?
Massive straw man: You take the position that "changing one's diet" to alleviate or address conditions is "alternative or "non-traditional" medicine, and is therefore not supported by the medical profession. That is flatly false. I don't even understand why you would make such a claim; did your("traditional") doctor tell you that there is no such thing as food allergies, or that gluten is not associated with celiac disease? Or do you have a citation you can post that classifies dietary changes as "alternative" or "non-traditional" medicine? in any case, I am glad to be able to correct that misapprehension.
Now, back to the topic: does anyone believe homeopathy is effective (beyond placebo)? If so, why? And how could it be possible?
This post was edited by Factotem on Wed, Feb 13, 13 at 15:55
"Patients can continue alleviating their problems with their non-pharma, dietary, alternative methods and leave the scientific community to figure out why those methods work. "
Unless a holistic approach is taken it will never be figured out. Studies are based on a group, they won't take in individual reaction. That is why it took me so long to figure myself out. I was using books and following what others were doing. It wasn't until I took the time to document everything I did, ate, reactions for symptoms, any patterns occurring that I got it figured out. It is bleak when you start out because even though it is just food, you have to retrain yourself, restrain yourself and it isn't easy. Unfortunately, medications are an "easy" way out and I say that very lightly and I don't mean it to be offensive. Plus alternative medicine is expensive. I wish doctors were more into it so it could be more accessible (insurance coverage and support and the like).
Do you take any supplements?
I also have RA and had an allergic reaction to MTX. After that reaction I began to look to a more holistic approach because I didn't want to take the biologics.
So far, so good.
You take the position that "changing one's diet" to alleviate or address conditions is "alternative or "non-traditional" medicine, and is therefore not supported by the medical profession.
I never once said that. You're stuggling hard to try and make it seem that way though. Ticked you off just a bit that you had to concede that that this anecdotal evidence has a possibility of being sound advice.
Now, back to the topic:
In other words... let's change the course of this conversation...I understand.
Sorry cookie, I just noticed that you did mention up thread some of the things you take.
Terrene made a very valid objection to my statement, it was not a statement I should have made, especially since I, myself, was extremely drug resistant and after having endured more than a year and a half of trying different meds with no response except to the side effects, it had so severely deepened and was so pervasive that I was not functionable and I was hospitalized.
Several doctors in a team interviewed me, decided on a different course of drug treatment to try, put me on the highest doses possible until I felt a true improvement and then backed me off that high dose until the correct minimal dose that remained effective was hit upon.
It was a horrible experience which did forever change a part of me:
but I was fortunate to have a team of three doctors who saw me frequently for two years - during which time the psychologist saw me twice a week to evaluate my slow but steady progress - all paid for by a combination of insurances we are fortunate enough to have which gave us such excellent coverage that our outstanding bill was easily handled.
But not for that coverage combined with the available doctors of which I could choose among for my treatment, I greatly fear what would have become of me. Nothing good.
Single payer universal insurance for every American should be the standard for every citizen. There is no disease that should ever go untreated or poorly treated due to poor or no insurance. Such a thing should never be tolerated from ourselves as a people.
We are our brother's keeper.
Not all depression is the same by any means nor is the treatment the same, individual response is different ( as illustrated by my own case) but all depression needs to be treated by professionals.
Like diabetes, you can't just snap out of it.
"You take the position that 'changing one's diet' to alleviate or address conditions is "alternative or "non-traditional" medicine, and is therefore not supported by the medical profession."
No struggle is necessary. Here's exactly what you wrote:
If changing one's diet (removing gluten, dairy, sugar, corn, or soy like the story above) or some other non-traditional method results in the problems clearing up, then it really doesn't matter if science has yet to find the hard evidence of the whys and hows it's happening.
So, it is clear you are claiming that "changing one's diet" is a "non-traditional" and "alternative" method.
Are you now saying that "changing one's diet" is traditional and mainstream medicine? If so, we agree, so that question is outside the scope of the topic of the effectiveness of "non-tradtional" or "alternative" therapies.
Ticked you off just a bit that you had to concede that that this anecdotal evidence has a possibility of being sound advice.
Yet another obvious straw man argument. I have never expressed the position that positive outcome anecdotes necessarily indicate that a therapy does not work. I have explained -- repeatedly -- that positive outcome anecdotes do not represent evidence that a therapy does work (I note again that "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron). An anecdote can be good advice or bad advice, or anything in-between. The point is that anecdotes are not per se good advice, because of their essential nature, any more than a single roll of a die predicts which number will come up the next time, or confirms that the coincidentally correct prediction influenced the outcome or actually foresaw it.
A person who doesn't realize they have celiac disease tries eliminating gluten from her diet to alleviate her symptoms. Her symptoms abate. She tells a friend who seems to have some similar symptoms, and her friend eliminates gluten from his diet, too. If he has celiac disease, his symptoms may too abate. That could be considered "sound advice" based on an anecdote, though of course it has a scientifically-shown basis behind it, unbeknownst to the sufferer. Or, if he does not have celiac disease, his symptoms could remain stable, or worsen. In that case, it would be "bad advice" based on an anecdote. Or his condition could coincidentally improve for reasons having nothing to do with guten; was eliminating gluten "sound advice" because of the outcome? Another person may have cancer, and she tries a homeopathic remedy. The tumor regresses, as it might naturally. She tells a friend that homeopathy is curing her cancer, and he should try it for his cancer. If his cancer regresses, as it might naturally, was it "sound advice"? If it advances, was it bad advice? How would you know?
So, every story someone tells about a personal experience with a therapy, regardless of whether it is backed by mountains of science or nothing at all, is an anecdote. Some of these stories happen to contain "sound advice" because there really is a causal relationship between the remedy and the outcome, which may or may not yet be known to medicine. Some contain what appears to be sound advice but is really just normal disease resolution or placebo effect, etc. That, of course, gives absolutely no support to the claim that anecdotes are evidence. They're worse than useless because they lead hopeful and sometimes desperate people on paths of unknown value (and sometimes towards real danger).
The rather small comment that I am ticked off and as a result I concocted a distortion is disappointing.
"Now, back to the topic:"
Yet another straw man, and a rather dismaying one at that. I have no problem discussing the questions you are bringing up; why would I? I am also interested in pursuing the topic of the thread, so I would like more discussion if it is to be had.
What's your assessment of homeopathy? There are thousands of anecdotes about its effectiveness. What does that say about homeopathy? And what does it say about anecdotes?
Quite right, Hamiltongardener! First hand, from my experience as a reasonable, logical thinking adult complete with the skill set to solve problems, there most definitely IS a valid connection between what I ingest and the severity of pain and other symptoms I experience as part of my disease!
One of the ways I can be sure of it is... nothing else changes; only diet. If I changed other things at the same time, I would have to wonder whether diet is, in fact, a consideration... but since diet is the only thing that changes, and the results are constant and relatively fast... as fast as the body digests and uses foods... diet would be the logical culprit. Any rational thinking, problem solving person would look at the facts and reach the same conclusion. Diet makes a big difference!
I'm not one to hold things on pure faith. I want solid proof that I can see, feel, touch, taste, or hear. I don't believe a god exists, and I know that what I consume is directly related to how I feel. As added confirmation, my doctor agrees.
Diet and nutrition ARE part of conventional medicine. Diabetics are charged with keeping to what are often very strict diets, else they risk great imbalances in blood sugar, which can be harmful or even deadly.
The original question was... are we believers in Homeopathy?
The dictionary defines Homeopathy as: "A nontraditional system for treating and preventing disease, in which minute amounts of a substance that in large amounts causes disease symptoms are given to healthy individuals. This is thought to enhance the body's natural defenses."
Is diet and nutrition homeopathic?
What are we using as a definition for conventional medicine?
Not at all, not once did I claim that. You are certainly trying hard to extrapolate that from my words though.
Unfortunately, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
But speaking of straw man arguments, it's interestign that you attributed a position to me (without my having taken that position), then sent me on one of your "fetch" missions that you have half the forum on right now to prove that position which I did not take.
It's like the old George W. Bush tactic: If you repeat a lie often enough and with enough conviction, it become the truth.
Or as my mother used to say, baffle 'em with bulls**t. lol
Jodi; "...in which minute amounts of a substance that in large amounts causes disease symptoms..."
If I am following you right, that's so simple that it's beautiful. Those "minute amounts of substance" might just be in the food you are eating that subsequently makes you feel good. I like it ;D
I suppose it could be, if those minute diluted substances are food related.
Interesting related note: McMaster University is conducting tests with peanut allergies right now, giving minute amounts to peanut allergic kids, observing them in hospital, and having them get a dosage on a regular schedule.
I believe the intent is to eventually up the dosage over and over, with the ultimate intent to sort of "immunize" them against their reactions to peanuts.
Is that homeopathy? It seems to fall under the description, although once it's being done in a clinical setting, it seems it's no longer considered "homeopathy" and moves into the "conventional medicine" realm.
Part of the problem is that people all seem to have different ideas about what is conventional, alternative, homeopathic, traditional, non-traditional...
So, you may use them whichever way best suits the point you are trying to make. ;)
In the end, if whatever method you are using is easing your symptoms, it does not matter whether you can cite studies or link to medical journals.
Keep doing what you are doing and scientific studies can catch up to you later.
But I assume that there are actual peanut particles in those minute amounts. Unlike homeopathy, where it would be like filling a swimming pool with water, tossing in one peanut, taking a cup of that water and diluting it in another swimming pool of water. Then giving the patient a single drop of that water with the "memory" of the peanut.
It's about as effective as pixie dust.
I dunno, terriks,
People have posted a modern definition for homeopathy. Others have posted a definition from what I understand to be how homeopathy was practiced in the 1800's. Is homeopathy still practiced the same way as back in it's beginnings?
Given by what some have posted, it seems to match their descriptions... I think what this comes down to is, as I said above, a matter of different people having different ideas of the definition of all these therapies.
If your definition is the correct one, then it would depend on whether that therapy actually helped the patient. If it does, then great! if not, time to try something else until they find what works.
terriks: "But I assume that there are actual peanut particles in those minute amounts. Unlike homeopathy, where it would be like filling a swimming pool with water, tossing in one peanut, taking a cup of that water and diluting it in another swimming pool of water. Then giving the patient a single drop of that water with the "memory" of the peanut."
I don't know; sounds like some science is behind this.
Here is a link that might be useful: Society of Homeopaths
sounds like some science is behind this.
I'm getting the feeling that their biggest beef is the dilution rate. I've tried looking at different site on homeopathy and some seem to have these high dilution beliefs and some don't believe the dilutions have to be that high.
I suppose it's a matter of how much exposure the patient gets.
If I'm understanding this correctly, homeopathy seems to be a form of very low dosage exposure therapy.
Seems to be what the site at the link says, Hamilton. What do I (we?) know?
At least we're not bloviating about that which we don't have expertise in. ;D
At least we're not bloviating about that which we don't have expertise in.
Hey, you never know. Some forum members may be doctors or employees of pharmaceutical companies.
Besides, isn't that what this forum is all about? Armchair experts bloviating on their favourite topics?
This has been an interesting thread, I've learned a lot!
"It's about as effective as pixie dust."
which has been proven by scientific method, double-blind studies, etc?
As someone said, just keep doing what you're doing & science will catch up.
I once read a story about Pasteur or Jenner vaccinating a whole ward full of children against smallpox because he couldn't stand the idea of vaccinating half, knowing that the other half would surely die.
Almost all of the children lived.
which led his detractors to jeer that his results were meaningless because he hadn't used scientific method.
Back in the late sixties, a rumor arose that aloe vera sap, squeezed straight from the plant, was good for burns.
Nobody believed it.
People thought that "medical" remedies had to come out of a tube.
I don't think I know anybody today who doesn't use aloe to treat minor burns.
"What's your assessment of homeopathy? There are thousands of anecdotes about its effectiveness. What does that say about homeopathy? And what does it say about anecdotes?"
I'm forced to agree with Factotem. :-)
Homeopathy is basically unscientific woo, for the reasons Factotem discusses.
Homeopathy became extremely popular in the 19th century. It failed because it could neither explain disease nor could it factor in genetics.
It seems to be built into humans to passionately "believe" in something that appeals to them or sounds plausible, even if those things really don't pan out, logically speaking. This is why we are easy prey for propagandists and throw healthy skepticism to the wind. Other times it's because we desperately want to believe in something.
However, I would defend your right to practice whatever you want on yourself, based on whatever belief system you possess. If you try to drag others (underage family members, unwilling associates) into it, then it's an issue because homeopathy can cause grave bodily harm in extreme cases. At the very least, it can lead to depriving someone of effective treatment, which would constitute negligence if you are legally or morally responsible for another person.
One reason there's only anecdotal evidence is that there's no money to be made.
(If anyone has done scientific studies in the hope of developing a profitable substitute for a succulent plant that anyone can grow on the front porch, I haven't heard of it.)
This post was edited by sylviatexas on Thu, Feb 14, 13 at 10:56
What I would consider homeopathic by the dictionary definition given has been around for a long time... when I was a child I had hayfever so bad that my parents would occasionally have to rush me to the nearest ER for treatment!
Our family physician, an older gentleman, suggested to my Mother that she should ply me with a daily tablespoon of honey... supposedly to put INTO my body the very pollen that caused my allergic troubles, only in smaller doses.
Did it work? I don't really know. I'm not sure if I grew out of such a severe reaction to certain pollen, or if the honey did, indeed, contribute to my body being able to more easily process certain pollen. As an adult, hayfever is no longer an issue. I don't even take over-the-counter allergy medication anymore... and as late as my teen years, I lived on Allerest and other brand names of medications throughout the fall season until a good, killing frost took out ragweed, Goldenrod, and other common weeds.
Diet could, for all intents and purposes, be borrowed by both conventional and homeopathic forms of medicine.
Conventionally, diabetics normally keep a close eye on the foods they eat, testing blood sugar levels, maintaining diet to maintain health.
Of course natural foods contain exactly what our bodies require to be healthy... and this is most likely why I feel so much better when I eat a natural, organic, not processed or chemical laden diet. I think it would make me feel better even if I didn't have Lupus to contend with.
Take into consideration what we know about various items that pass for food, the various processes and chemicals used in their production, and the various health issues associated with the average or general "American Diet"... the most common of which would be obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and probably stomach and digestive related issues... though the list certainly doesn't end there.
I would agree, HG... we haven't nailed down definitions of conventional, traditional or nontraditional, or alternative medicines... and without doing so, we have no solid parameters for discussion.
I think "are you a believer" puts a certain spin on the discussion, too.
Would any of us ask "are you a believer in laser surgery?"
I wouldn't describe myself as a "believer" in...most things.
but I'm usually open to trying things that have worked for other people.
Sylvia, my mother believed it about the aloe vera plant -in the early 70s she was a member of the garden club and they had a speaker who praised the plant for various reasons include its ability to take the sting out of burns that didn't require any medical treatment. The speaker handed out small aleo vera plants to all the garden club members to take home.
My mother was a gifted woman in many ways. She had such an innate flair and interest in fashion and design that she studied it for four years at LSU, she was an incredible seamstress making all of her own and our own clothing ( all those beautiful smocked dresses when we were little girls) as well as lined curtains for every house we lived in ( a lot due to my father's military career) and would buy old sofas, easy chairs, tuffets ets that she knew had "good bones" and refinish, re-spring and recover them with beautiful fabric and they would look like a fine, expensive piece when she was finished.
What she was not, however, was a very good cook. She could make a few of the basic southern dishes she grew up on, but had no interest in the cooking process or even much the finished product unless company was coming for dinner - then she put out her full effort. But otherwise, well there were just so many other far more interesting things to do with her time! The point of getting the evening meal on the table was to get it off as quickly so she could get back to whatever held her attention at the time. Small kitchen burns were not unusual for her to sport on a frequent basis. Especially when the first of the glue guns were sold - I had my fair share of burns from that thing too, until I learned the art of handling one.
The garden club speaker had talked about how aloe vera could be applied to a cleaned burn and it would take the sting out of the burn. She tried it with her new aloe vera plant on her next burn ( didnt have to wait long to test the theory!) and from that point she was a true believer.
She had me use it on my next burn ( a burn from a glue gun Im sure as for awhile I had one in use for something at all times) and though I remember thinking that there was actually some relief, it was too short lived imo and I never much bothered with it again. She, however, had an aloe vera plant in her kitchen for the rest of her life.
Jodi, shortly after we moved here and our allergies became much worse, I tracked down the source of the nearest place that kept bees for honey and made it a business - at the time it was important that the honey came from bees as close to where you lived as that would be most effective in reducing the allergy symptoms. I had us take a teaspoon of honey twice a day for ten years. My husband thought he did better with his allergies but I never really did. When I decided to remove all sources of sugar from my diet, of course honey had to go. I never felt stopping the twice daily dose of honey made any difference.
Just a year or so ago, maybe longer? I read where a big study had been done regarding the honey theory and it was found that honey really wasnt an effective treatment for allergies. I thought that to be too bad. Allergy suffers had something they could try when honey was considered a viable option but the study removed that very cheap treatment anyone could afford. Which is what I think homeopathy is great for, it provides another option for those who might not be able to afford or trust in treatments which have been double blind tested and scientifically proven to be a reasonable treatment.
Even if sometimes the downside is that 0.15 % of patients on the medication have been found to grow an ear directly in the middle of their forehead as a direct result of ingesting that specific medication.
One reason there's only anecdotal evidence is that there's no money to be made.
(If anyone has done scientific studies in the hope of developing a profitable substitute for a succulent plant that anyone can grow on the front porch, I haven't heard of it.)
Begging of the question fallacy employing a well-worn falsehood, concluding with an argumentum ex silentio fallacy.
- You are assuming what you are trying to prove: You start by assuming these therapies work (begging the question)
- You then claim that scientific evidence is lacking because there is no profit to be had. This is false (ever seen how many products tout that they include aloe?), but let's assume it arguendo
- You then conclude that because there's no profit, scientific studies are therefore biased towards negative outcomes, so it follows that the therapies are effective (which you had assumed in order to get to this point in the argument), but the evidence is being supressed (argumentum ex silentio).
Consider a therapy that does not work. At all. Something that not even its inventor thinks works. An intentional scam; um, "Martian Curing Water".
It is scientifically tested. The testing shows no evidence of efficacy.
It is promoted vigirously, and people try it. A subset of the users anecdotally report improvement in their condtion which they interpret as a causal consequence, for all the reasons previously articulated.
So, now what do we have? No science, and a pile of positive anecdotes. And a useless therapy.
How can we distinguish that situation from one where a therapy is effective, the scientific community conspires to supresses that information, and all we are left with is some anecdotes?
We cant. Therefore, we can conclude absolutely nothing from anecdotes.
Back in the late sixties, a rumor arose that aloe vera sap, squeezed straight from the plant, was good for burns.
Nobody believed it.
Completely false. Commercial burn ointments based on aloe were used to treat victims of atomic bomb tests. Edited to add: Aloe was widely prescribed by doctors as far back as the 1700s.
There so so much misinformation about health and medicine it's like bailing the ocean with a thimble. I wish more people took the time and effort to perform some research before issuing baseless declarations like this.
This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Feb 15, 13 at 14:12
It is not. Homeopathy does not use low-dose exposures to substances which the subject is allergic to.
Homeopathy uses substances that produce symptoms similar to the symptoms of the disease. So a plant that produces nausea might be used as the basis for a homeopathic preparation to treat a disease (not caused by that plant) which has nausea as a symptom. Furthermore, in homeopathy, the less of the substance in the preparation, the more effective it is, including the case where there is none of the substance at all -- not a single molecule.
It couldn't be more absurd, really.
No. There is no science behind it.
If you like, select one of the studies that supposedly show that homeopathy works, and read it. Then, post about it, and I will see if I can provide an analysis.
How can plain water with nothing in it treat a disease better than, say, plain water with nothing in it?
Begging the question. Causation cannot be established based on anecdote.
If you clap five times and then roll a die and it comes up five, do you conclude that the clapping produced the outcome?
Humans' capacity for self-delusion is extraordinary.
"So, it is clear you are claiming that 'changing one's diet' is a "non-traditional" and "alternative" method."
Once more, I will simply post your own words, which leave no doubt:
Patients can continue alleviating their problems with their non-pharma, dietary, alternative methods and leave the scientific community to figure out why those methods work (emph addedd).
Failed tu quoque fallacy, followed by an ad hominem and begging the question. That leaves no logic left at all.
This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Feb 15, 13 at 12:55
Not even remotely. The definition you give is generally accurate as far as it goes but it is incomplete. But note that even that defintion excludes diet and nutrition, as the substances involved in diet and nutrition are not selected because they "cause disease symptoms."
I think what this comes down to is, as I said above, a matter of different people having different ideas of the definition of all these therapies.
Not true. The definition of homeopathy is not a matter of opinion, though some may have an incorrect understanding of the definition.
This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Feb 15, 13 at 21:41
False dichotomy (excluded middle) fallacy. Though there can conceivably be specific therapies that some might claim are nontraditional and others might say are traditional, it does not follow that therefore no therapy can be classified to the agreement of all.
Homeopathy is non-traditional, alternative medicine.
Which is what I think homeopathy is great for, it provides another option for those who might not be able to afford or trust in treatments which have been double blind tested and scientifically proven to be a reasonable treatment.
Homeopathy is terrible for those people. First of all, homeopathic preparations aren't free, and they are not covered by health insurance. And as they are indistinguishable from plain water, they have no positive effect on disease. But they do give people false hope and lure them away from other therapies that might help them.
What, are you a member of some pharmaceutical group, or something?
It's my opinion that modern medicine is not always the ticket, and more often than not is a form of maintenance to keep the patient coming back, spending oodles of money without ever being cured of their ailment.
There are certain things I think modern medicine is great for... and others that I think are nothing more than hoaxes designed exclusively for profit's sake.
Cancer is a prime example. In the past 50 or more years, we haven't really accomplished very much through modern medicine or pharmacology towards cures, have we? While a few types of cancers are down, statistically speaking, others have continued to rise significantly. Billions are spent annually on medical and pharmaceutical treatments, but the survival/cure rate is still atrocious. That tells me something.
It's my belief that we are what we eat... that if we properly fuel our bodies and treat them as we should, we'll remain healthy. But very few people, or even doctors, know the proper amounts of vitamins and minerals that the human body needs in order to heal itself... and the body is a wonderful machine that can heal itself of many issues... if we treat it properly.
I think if something works for you, that's what you should do. There is no right answer to the question... it's up to the individual.
Jodik, the survival rates for breast cancer have improved greatly over the last two or three decades. At least, I'm putting my hope it that since I am currently being treated for my second breast cancer. :(
Seriously, though, there's too much money to be made in treatment, so we're never going to find a real cure for most cancers unless some maverick happens to find it on his own. The pharma companies certainly won't have anything to do with real cures. :(
BL, Im so very sorry to hear of this second battle you are facing and I offer you my very best wishes for a great outcome.
Although there have been real strides on the cancer front on this I do agree with you Jodi and BL also.
I can recall some morning news show in the very early 80s which had a guest on who spoke on this subject. He said that cancer would never be cured as long as people believed that every effort was being made by the scientific community to do so. He said that cancer was a cash cow for the medical field across the board and only when people became suspicious that the community was only interested in expensive treatment rather than an actual cure,.would cures begin to be rapidly found.
I was still naive enough to believe that of course this could not possibly be true because some of these peoples relatives - or they themselves would continue to die from cancer.
I am not a person who gives much weight to conspiracy theories, but I never forgot what the guest had to say and have thought about his words all through the years.
I now believe it to be likely that he was on to something and it wouldn't be all that difficult to achieve either, I don't believe. Only a very few would have to have the whole picture and agree with it for something to be worked out.
I have actually never bought into a big conspiracy theory that I can think of - I believe that no three people can all keep a big secret - but I actually do believe that when it comes to cancer, its more likely than not that something truly evil is going on with a suppression of some sort, controlled by a very, very few. I dearly hope Im wrong, am certainly open to reasons why I could be wrong or arguments for why I am wrong.
I don't believe in homeopathy, although, it apparently 'worked' for me once when I was in Paris and saw a homeopathic doctor.
I agree big Pharma doesn't want a cancer cure. My friend has brain cancer and her out of pocket expense for pills every month is almost $2000 and this has been for a year. Her insurance pays the other $8000!!!
And I thought that I was a cynic...
"I have actually never bought into a big conspiracy theory that I can think of - I believe that no three people can all keep a big secret - but I actually do believe that when it comes to cancer, its more likely than not that something truly evil is going on with a suppression of some sort, controlled by a very, very few. I dearly hope Im wrong, am certainly open to reasons why I could be wrong or arguments for why I am wrong."
That was brave. Sadly, I don't disagree with you about this.
Mylab, the unfortunate thing is that profit still rules over people, and until that changes... and it won't... It is my belief that modern medicine and pharmacology, not to mention a lot of other industries, will continue to milk the system for every dime it and the people are willing to give up.
There's really no conspiracy to it... it is what it is. We constantly discuss the many ways that wealth disparity continues to grow in this nation, and we are always bombarded by the same rhetoric. A tiny percentage get wealthier and wealthier, while the rest of us are told that if we deregulate, use austerity measures, allow the status quo, etc... it will all somehow trickle down upon us and jobs will be created... yet, we see little to no investment in our nation, and the blame is consistently placed upon the same various groups including welfare queens, immigrants, the poor, those without personal responsibility (because we all know that only those making fortunes are personally responsible), and on and on.
The big picture is that industrial and corporate America have the wealth and power to influence legislation, which in turn places full advantage in their hands to do what they want.
Cancer, alone, is a huge cash cow in this nation, worth billions annually... and various other ailments are, as well... some with treatment costs totaling 5 digits per month, per patient.
As far as I am aware, medical science has been tackling cancer and other illnesses for decades upon decades, and the numbers of cures are low in comparison to the number of treatments and medicines that simply maintain the illnesses. Cash cows, indeed.
There's no conspiracy... it's very elementary... if something is making you huge amounts of profit, you keep doing that thing. And if that's what industry and government agencies tell the public is safe and effective, that trusting public will continue as consumers.
We assume that just because doctors have attended medical schools that they are right in their assessments and ordered treatments. How many people really go for a second or third opinion, or look into other methodologies? How many deeply question what their doctors tell them? How many actually do the research on their own?
Or is more likely that we take what doctors tell us at face value, bring our little pieces of paper to the pharmacy, pay to have them filled, and mindlessly begin the regimens we're given?
It's a known fact that medical schools do not include in depth teaching of diet and nutrition as part of the medical field. It's something most doctors must learn separately on their own, or specialize in the field as a nutritionist.
In a world where money is king, we each have to decide through our own learning process and the choices out there which direction we'll take when it comes to our health. And for me, personally, diet and proper, natural nutrition makes my body feel the best. Every pill or treatment I've been given for my particular disease either does nothing, or makes me more ill with more side effects. This speaks to me loud and clear. How I fuel and treat my body directly affects how I feel.
It is my contention that the public is too often lied to in the name of large money.
Ah, you have resorted to a pathetic attempted ad hominem attack, which is, of course, a fallacious argument tactic. This is typically deployed when you have no actual facts or reasoning to offer, as is clearly the case here.
Your opinion does absolutely nothing to provide evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. Do you have any facts to offer?
You seem to hold the position that there are therapies that can cure diseases that "modern medicine" will not produce or recommend. Please list these therapies, the diseases they cure, and the evidence for these therapies' efficacy and safety.
If you are a rational person, you have a logical basis for making such a serious charge. What specific hoaxes are being perpetrated by "modern medicine". Please be specific, and provide the evidence for your position. Such hoaxes are, of course, felonies, and should be pursued. Help us pursue them. An evasion or bail-out will be reasonably taken as a retraction.
As you fail to articulate what this "tells you", we are left to infer that it tells you that "modern medicine" knows how to cure cancer but instead is perpetrating a global hoax to suppress this cure or cures. The essential assumption that must underlie such a theory, and which is necessary (but not sufficient) to support it, is that there is a cure for cancer.
Now, let's consider a hypothetical disease -- we'll call it "uncurabilitis" -- which really cannot be cured, or which is extremely difficult to cure, and then only in a small percentage of cases. it's a serious, deadly disease, with many forms. The medical establishment tries, sincerely, for 50 or more years to find a cure, but it doesn't really accomplished very much. While a few types of uncurabilitis are down in mortality, statistically speaking, others have continued to rise significantly. Billions are spent annually on medical and pharmaceutical treatments for uncurabilitis to provide some measure of relief and lengthen survival, but the survival/cure rate is still atrocious.
What would that tell you? That uncurabilitis is really, really hard to cure, of course -- which it is, because that was a given in the hypothetical scenario. Therefore, it follows that failing to make great progress on finding a cure for a disease for 50 years while still producing some therapies with benefits does not imply that the work towards that goal is a hoax, because it may really be that it's a really, really hard problem. To put it succinctly: Your logic is completely faulty; it's based on a begging-the-question fallacy.
Do you have some specific evidence regarding the curing of cancer with the administration of "the proper amounts of vitamins and minerals"?
I think if something works for you, that's what you should do.
Either begging the question or circular reasoning; take your pick. Of course an individual should partake of a therapy that is effective; no one argues otherwise. The problem you have is the definition of "works" that you are employing; what you seem to be saying is that if a person perceives that a therapy is effective, it "works", as opposed to it actually being effective -- which might be two different outcomes. The placebo effect can cause a person to perceive that a therapy "works", even when it does not by objective measures. This is crucial to understand, though most people do not know it -- the placebo effect does not produce healing, it produces a belief in improvement without actual improvement. So, there is great danger in relying solely on what one believes "works", as it can cause a person to continue an ineffective (or dangerous) therapy and to reject potentially effective ones.
There is no right answer to the question... it's up to the individual.
There is a set of right answers, and a set of wrong answers. Individuals, especially those with a paranoid mindset and who are prone to fabricating conspiracies, are terrible judges of effectiveness of therapies due to their extreme bias. This is starkly demonstrated by people who drink a tiny amount of water and believe they are being healed, also known as homeopathy. There is perhaps no greater proof of people's capacity for self-delusion.
Do you believe homeopathy is effective (beyond placebo)? If so, why? And how could it be possible? A direct answer would be appreciated, as opposed to an evasive, "well, if it works for you, no one can tell you that it's not effective..." sort of reply.
So you know that there is a cure for cancer?
How much money is there in a cure for cancer, and how much money is there in not producing a cure for cancer?
Actually, since you put forth the claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence for it.
What is your evidence that a very, very few people have for decades been controling the minds of thousands of scientists in cancer research laboratories the world over without any one of those individuals ever having any inkling that their very thoughts are being manipulated by this tiny group of greedy people in such a way as to continually steer them away from making progress on curing cancer?
By what mechanism do you propose this mind control is being exerted?
Begging the question. On what basis do you assert that a cure for cancer could be found if "big Pharma" "wanted" to find it? Do you have evidence that such a cure was found and a global conspiracy was deployed to so completely supress it that not a single person has ever exposed it?
How much would a pharmaceutical company earn from a cure for cancer, and how much would they earn from not having such a cure to sell?
Do you believe the cost of cancer treatment is itself proof that there is a cure for cancer? If so, can you explain your logic?
It is sad, but for a different reason. I don't see how it is "brave" -- is there a concern that the global pharma conspiracy hit squad will come after you for stating this belief?
What evidence do you offer for the position that a tiny number of people control the thoughts of thousands of cancer researchers the world over and have done so for decades? Surely not just because cancer treatment is expensive, because that's irrational.
What is your evidence that a pharmaceutical company would make less from a cure for cancer than from medications that are less effective (though still somewhat effective)? This is an underlying premise of all these attacks, yet no evidence is ever offered. What is your evidence? If you have none, your argument is void.
Specifically which legislation backed by the pharmaceutical industry discourages the finding of a cure for cancer?
How much would a pharmaceutical company earn from a cure for cancer? if you have absolutely zero evidence on this question, you therefore cannot make a claim that it is against every pharmaceutical company's interests to release such a cure.
As far as I am aware, medical science has been tackling cancer and other illnesses for decades upon decades, and the numbers of cures are low in comparison to the number of treatments and medicines that simply maintain the illnesses.
Do you claim that finding a cure is just as easy as finding therapies which extend survival? If so, please lay out your evidence. If you have no such evidence, then the vague ratio you offer is devoid of evidentiary value and your point is completely unsupported.
Cash cows, indeed.
How much cash would a pharmaceutical company make from a cure for cancer? If you have no data on this question, your implied comparison with the value of not finding a cure is baseless and your argument fails.
There's no conspiracy... it's very elementary... if something is making you huge amounts of profit, you keep doing that thing.
Provably false. Companies making "huge amounts of profit" nonetheless continue to innovate to find ways to make more profit. How much is a cure for cancer worth to a pharmaceutical company? If you don't know, your reasoning fails.
And if that's what industry and government agencies tell the public is safe and effective, that trusting public will continue as consumers.
Neat -- two ad hominem arguments all in one sentence. Double logical failure.
We assume that just because doctors have attended medical schools that they are right in their assessments and ordered treatments.
Straw man. Yawn. Oh, utopia fallacy, too. Zero logic content.
How many people really go for a second or third opinion, or look into other methodologies?
Millions, sadly, judging by the profits of GNC and its kin, not to mention the presence of homeopathic "remedies" on pharmacy shelves.
How many actually do the research on their own?
As you are demonstrating, far too few. People think homeopathy can do something. Obviously, they have not done any research. Well, any intelligent research, anyway.
Return of the straw man. ZZzzzz. With an ad hominem chaser. Do you have some actual evidence and reasoning you'd like to offer?
It's a known fact that homeopathy works.
See how that whole "known fact" thing "works"?
Have you attended medical school?
Every pill or treatment I've been given for my particular disease either does nothing...
Ah, so you've tried homeopathy.
or makes me more ill with more side effects. This speaks to me loud and clear. How I fuel and treat my body directly affects how I feel.
Have you had cancer?
Please be specific and cite a few of these lies currently being told to the public regarding cancer medications. An evasion will reasonably be taken as a retraction.
Facto, what I gave was my point of view. I cheerfully, freely admit that I have absolutely no facts whatsoever to back it up. Not a smidgen. But it is what I do believe, no matter how irrational the belief might strike one to be.
If I were presented with facts that struck me as more likely than not to be true in that that every dime directed to cancer research went exactly where it was supposed to go and that when it got there it was used - every dime - to ensure that every stride actually was being made to eradicate every known cancer, I would happily change my mind, gloriously secure in the idea that perhaps in this one area, corruption had not infiltrated, causing untold suffering for humanity.
Im not being sarcastic in my reply though it might read that way. Like most people, I've lost loved ones to cancer. It would give me great peace of mind to know that everything possible is being done to prevent others from that same awful journey down the cancer highway.
Well, let's be more specific: the belief strikes you as irrational, as you have admitted, because you have "absolutely no facts whatsoever to back it up." Of course, you are perfectly free to believe things for which you know of exactly zero evidence. Why you would adopt a belief based on abolutely nothing is beyond baffling, but I appreciate that you admit you engage in this process. I assume you are aware that you cannot cause something to be true simply by choosing to believe it is true; given that, it is impossible to understand why, then you would select a belief with no basis whatsoever. But at least you are open about that.
How strange. You first admit that you have simply decided to adopt a belief for which you know of absolutely no evidence whatosever, and then you say that to change your belief, you require evidence for a very specific set of facts. This, indeed, is profoundy irrational, and additionally it reveals an extreme bias which must be considered when asessing the value of your positions.
Im not being sarcastic in my reply though it might read that way.
Quite the contrary; it explains a great deal to know that your statements above are completely sincere.
Like most people, I've lost loved ones to cancer. It would give me great peace of mind to know that everything possible is being done to prevent others from that same awful journey down the cancer highway.
Why don't you then simply choose to believe that, as you admit you select beliefs with absolutely no supporting facts? That way, you would have great peace of mind.
This post was edited by Factotem on Sat, Apr 20, 13 at 3:03
At least we know who owns who the biggest soup spoon.... are we at 150 yet?
I don't understand what some of you are saying. You really believe that there's a big conspiracy by pharma companies to not find a cure for cancer? I can't believe anyone can believe that it's possible for an enormous pharma business made up of multiple companies to keep the already found cure as a big secret? You don't think there's a huge amount of money to be made in finding a cure for cancer?
What do you say about vaccines that prevent many diseases? Wouldn't it have been more profitable to just keep people sick and provide treatment?
And they don't give Big Pharma credit for developing vaccines that have made many diseases virtually non-existent. When was the last time you heard of a Polio outbreak? Do we see pictures of Polio stricken children in iron lungs these days?
How about the advances in prosthetics ? People who have lost legs can now walk. How about the advances in cardiology? They would rather believe in some "magic water".
Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Sat, Apr 20, 13 at 6:17
At least we know who owns who the biggest soup spoon
A completely content-free insult. As you have failed to support your earlier claims, but instead have posted this ad hominem attack, your claims are taken as retracted.
Very revealing that you wanted to post that you were laughing at someone being insulted. Contrast that behavior with this hollow claim:
I do nothing but offer my opinion about topics.
I guess by now I shouldn't be disappointed in, or surprised by, this sort of hypocrisy.