Is homeopathy nonsense?

Seachmall

Johro wrote: »

but I'd be way more qualified in judging whether it helped me or not

Why? Are you a doctor?

5uspect

Johro wrote: »

Sorry, but I do. You, on the other hand, have no idea at all of the situation or 'the factors involved', simply because you weren't involved.
I get where you're coming from, but I'd be way more qualified in judging whether it helped me or not, and as I said, I'm usually fairly sceptical of such things.

So you managed to regrow a severed limb with the aid of homoeopathy?

EDIT: Also this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Johro

Seachmall wrote: »

Why? Are you a doctor?

Are you?
No, I'm not a doctor, I do however consider myself able to tell whether something helped me or not. What you say about whatever may or may not have helped me goes for EVERY medicine, if your GP gives you something in error it could still help because of a placebo effect or a beneficial ingredient, or just the act of tackling the issue. Look, I'm not stupid. I'm saying it helped me, believe it, don't believe it, I'm done with this now. Getting bored.

Johro

5uspect wrote: »

So you managed to regrow a severed limb with the aid of homoeopathy?

EDIT: Also this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Yes. Yes I did.
Obviously.

Gbear

I'm a spider.

I know that doesn't make any sense but I just am.

I know.

That's essentially what your argument boils down to. You're making a silly claim but it's grand, because you know that it's true.

Repeatedly asserting how sure you are doesn't invalidate the laws of physics and chemistry.

Capt'n Midnight

Johro wrote: »

According to you. Fair enough.

what dilution did the stuff have (if you remember) ?


There is nothing wrong with using placebos that work.

The problem is when some people make money by claiming that they are more than placebos.



IIRC There's a bit in Bob Geldof's Autobiography about a Protestant doctor recommending a trip to Lourdes for a family member.

nozzferrahhtoo

Johro wrote: »

No, I'm not a doctor, I do however consider myself able to tell whether something helped me or not.

No one here doubts it helped you. No one is really contesting that. Placebo is a powerful thing... more than you can imagine.... people have undergone whole surgeries under placebo painkiller and felt no pain. It is wonderful stuff placebo and our species has not invested enough time, money or resources in understanding it. It is a massive field and we owe it to ourselves to learn a hell of a lot more about it.

What we are disagreeing with is that there is anything more than placebo going on here. Did it help you? Yes, probably, I do not doubt it!

Is there any reason to think that it helped you for any more reason than placebo? No. Not a single, solitary, jot of a one. Nichts. Nadda. Nothing. Bugger all. Zilch. Crap all.

Johro

Blah blah placebo blah blah blah placebo blah blah placebo blah placebo blah blah oh f#ckin hell let it go....

Johro

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IIRC There's a bit in Bob Geldof's Autobiography about a Protestant doctor recommending a trip to Lourdes for a family member.

Well to be fair I'd recommend a trip to Lourdes to a few I can think of right now as well. One way.

Seachmall

Johro wrote: »

Blah blah placebo blah blah blkah placebo blah blah placebo blah placebo blah blah oh f#ckin hell let it go....

Rejects notion of scientifically recognised and often beneficial effect.

Accepts claims of scientifically disproven and universally laughed-out alternative "medicine".


I will never ever understand people.

Johro wrote: »

Well to be fair I'd recommend a trip to Lourdes to a few I can think of right now as well. One way.

But then how would we get hom... oh, I get it! lol.

mcmoustache

Taco Chips wrote: »

But homeopathy doesn't have any active ingredient to do anything in the first place. So a different process in your body that you may not have been aware of must have healed you.

Or my semen.

It's just as likely.

nozzferrahhtoo

Johro wrote: »

Blah blah placebo blah blah blah placebo blah blah placebo blah placebo blah blah oh f#ckin hell let it go....

Says the guy who claimed:

Johro wrote:

That's all I'll say on the subject, I'm not going to get drawn into discussions on its merit

And yet here you still are posting... posting again... and then going back and editing your posts 10 minutes later to improve them.... and worrying and fretting over whether they are just right

If you can not even be true to your own words.... do you actually expect anyone else to take them seriously?

Johro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Says the guy who claimed:



And yet here you still are posting... posting again... and then going back and editing your posts 10 minutes later to improve them.... and worrying and fretting over whether they are just right

If you can not even be true to your own words.... do you actually expect anyone else to take them seriously?

Yeah... because the credibility of homeopathy hangs on my posts in this forum. I just have a few tabs open and check back now and again, sometimes reply.
Worrying and fretting, my hole. Take an Aconite tab and relax.

Johro

Seachmall wrote: »

Rejects notion of scientifically recognised and often beneficial effect.

Accepts claims of scientifically disproven and universally laughed-out alternative "medicine".


I will never ever understand people.

I do not reject the notion of a placebo effect at all. I am well aware of how effective placebo's can be. I reject YOUR notion of a placebo effect in my case. There's a difference. Don't put words in my mouth. My 'blah blah placebo blah blah' post was in annoyance at your insistence it's placebo effect. The fact is you don't know that. You assume that's the case.

nozzferrahhtoo

Johro wrote: »

Yeah... because the credibility of homeopathy hangs on my posts in this forum. I just have a few tabs open and check back now and again, sometimes reply.
Worrying and fretting, my hole. Take an Aconite tab and relax.

Im not the one who said I would not argue or post any more. It was you. Yet that turned out to be as untrue as most of the rest of your posts. Just saying like.... if you want people to lend credence to the things you say... then perhaps start by living up to your own words, no?

But we are in danger of lowering the tone here. I still stand by my post #558 which I noticed you skipped over and ignored. I think it best sums up the difference between you and most of the other posters on the thread however.

Totofan99

It's water! That's all it is. Water.

janeo80

in a similar vein (to one post about placebos....), i work in a shop with natural cosmetic products and people are SO OBSESSED with "and this is all natural, yeah?" - obviously I have to say yes, all natural , but like........ who cares? arsenic and uranium are "natural", but you wouldn't go near them or put lead on your face... SPFs are usually (i don't even know... always?) synthetic but will do more for you than any 100% natural 100euro moisturiser. not unlike the people who just wish to waste time with flower water instead of a bitta paracetemol, i just find it so pointless!

although a good massage with a bitta arnica will help those bruises/hickeys (probably massage with any cream, but arnica does help i think!)

Sofaspud

Johro wrote: »

I do not reject the notion of a placebo effect at all. I am well aware of how effective placebo's can be. I reject YOUR notion of a placebo effect in my case. There's a difference. Don't put words in my mouth. My 'blah blah placebo blah blah' post was in annoyance at your insistence it's placebo effect. The fact is you don't know that. You assume that's the case.

It's been proven to either be a placebo, or to work at the exact same level as placebo. It's also been proven to contain absolutely no active ingredient, and actually brags about its effectiveness being increased as the active ingredient is decreased to mind-bogglingly low ratios.

There's a good reason for assuming your case to be a placebo effect, which is that no homeopathic remedies have ever been shown to be anything else.
Do you honestly think that you're the first person to ever take homeopathic preparations that did what they claimed, or that you're one of millions of people that succumbed to the (scientifically proven to exist and work) placebo effect? I know which is most definitely more likely, which you'll still sadly dismiss as "blah blah blah facts and statistics blah blah Occam's Razor"

aidan24326

It's disappointing that some people still try to defend what has been discredited and debunked as nonsense (yes, nonsense) a long time ago.
Still a fair few gullible idiots out there it seems.

Homeopathy came to prominence at a time when doctors were as likely to make you worse rather than better, because they didn't really know what they were doing. At least homeopathy couldn't make you worse since it doesn't do anything beyond placebo effect.

But modern medicine has relegated homeopathy to the realms of pseuodoscientific quackery and anyone who still buys into the myth of it deserves to be called an idiot.

Canis Lupus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet here you still are posting... posting again... and then going back and editing your posts 10 minutes later to improve them.... and worrying and fretting over whether they are just right

If I paid money for magic water I'd try to argue it cured me as well otherwise I'd have to face the alternative that I was.... a bit stupid....

Capt'n Midnight

janeo80 wrote: »

arsenic and uranium are "natural", but you wouldn't go near them or put lead on your face... SPFs are usually (i don't even know... always?) synthetic but will do more for you than any 100% natural 100euro moisturiser.

http://influx.uoregon.edu/1999/makeup/history.html

During the Italian Renaissance, women wore lead paint on their faces. The damage inflicted by the lead was unintentional—but arsenic face powder wasn't. Aqua Toffana, named for creator Signora Toffana, was a face powder designed for women from rich families. The container directed women to visit the signora for proper usage instructions. During the visit, women would be instructed never to ingest the makeup, but to apply it to their cheeks when their husbands were around. Six hundred dead husbands (and many wealthy widows) later, Toffana was executed.

PS.
SPF's , Zinc Oxide isn't synthetic , but it is very white



And of course the Daily Mail has this :rolleyes:

ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2104453/Cadmium-mascara-lead-lipstick-arsenic-eyeliner-The-ugly-secrets-beauty-industry-isn-t-telling-you.html

According to eMaxHealth, eyeliner and concealers contain cadmium, powders and blushers are not nickel-free, beryllium is found in bronzes and eye-shadow and mascara and foundations even include arsenic.
...
The Ontario-based researchers analysed the products for the presence of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, beryllium, nickel, selenium and thallium - the latter four of which are banned in cosmetics in Canada.

ZeRoY

Johro wrote: »

The reason a lot of people say it's crap is because they either haven't tried it and jump on the bashwagon or they have tried it and found it didn't help their symptoms.

No its because there is no science to back the claims up.

Oryx

I have a friend who paid good money and took a lot of time to train as a homeopath. She believes in it utterly and makes the claim that it works on horses and children so it must be true.

Whenever the subject comes up when I'm in her company I have to bite my lip and resist the urge to go toe to toe and argue about the fact that it is a therapy built and perpetuated on nonsense. Someday I will and it will be bye bye friendship. Unfortunately anyone who has faith in this takes it as a personal slight when you challenge them. (As seen here)

philologos

I'm hugely skeptical of homeopathy. I think in the cases where it does provide the expected results it is the placebo working rather than anything inherent in the pill. Belief that one will be better by taking pill X can actually have dramatic affects.

Personally, I'd rather have the medicine.

Sofaspud

philologos wrote: »

I'm hugely skeptical of homeopathy. I think in the cases where it does provide the expected results it is the placebo working rather than anything inherent in the pill. Belief that one will be better by taking pill X can actually have dramatic affects.

Personally, I'd rather have the medicine.

And when Philo demands evidence for something, you know it must be bollocks!

(No disrespect intended Phil, you're good people!)

Johro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Im not the one who said I would not argue or post any more. It was you. Yet that turned out to be as untrue as most of the rest of your posts. Just saying like.... if you want people to lend credence to the things you say... then perhaps start by living up to your own words, no?

But we are in danger of lowering the tone here. I still stand by my post #558 which I noticed you skipped over and ignored. I think it best sums up the difference between you and most of the other posters on the thread however.

Excuse me, but how the hell did I ignore that post? :D:D
I nearly fell over when I saw you posted this crap. Haha. My very next post was all about your use of the 'p' word in just about every sentence when I've repeatedly told you it was not so. Yes I get that you think it's all placebo effect. I don't. Just get over it. I only argued because all I did was explain the theory as told by homeopaths and relating my experience with it, yet it seems I did something unforgiveable there, and I replied to posts, even though I didn't mean to at first, simply because they pissed me off by being so vehement and argumentative.
YES I said that I didn't want to argue the point and then I went ahead and did anyway, but if that, in your book, means I'm no longer credible in anything I say that says a lot more about you then it does about me. Read your own post there and just see how pedantic ya look. I'm done now. Goodbye.

Dave!

Johro wrote: »

Yes I get that you think it's all placebo effect. I don't.

Why?

Johro

Johro wrote: »

Excuse me, but how the hell did I ignore that post? :D:D
I nearly fell over when I saw you posted this crap. Haha. My very next post was all about your use of the 'p' word in just about every sentence when I've repeatedly told you it was not so. Yes I get that you think it's all placebo effect. I don't. Just get over it. I only argued because all I did was explain the theory as told by homeopaths and relating my experience with it, yet it seems I did something unforgiveable there, and I replied to posts, even though I didn't mean to at first, simply because they pissed me off by being so vehement and argumentative.
YES I said that I didn't want to argue the point and then I went ahead and did anyway, but if that, in your book, means I'm no longer credible in anything I say that says a lot more about you then it does about me. Read your own post there and just see how pedantic ya look. I'm done now. Goodbye.

Ah don't go

Can you explain why you're so sure the effect you felt definitely wasn't the placebo effect? How do you know?

Genuine question.

Edit: Didn't mean to pile on after the poster above, didn't see his post.

Con Logue

So, where's all those rampaging homeopaths ramming remedies down the throats of those who don't want them? Must have missed that.

janeo80

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://influx.uoregon.edu/1999/makeup/history.html


PS.
SPF's , Zinc Oxide isn't synthetic , but it is very white



And of course the Daily Mail has this :rolleyes:

ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2104453/Cadmium-mascara-lead-lipstick-arsenic-eyeliner-The-ugly-secrets-beauty-industry-isn-t-telling-you.html

I wasn't talking about make up exclusively, only lead make up. The others I were just saying was like..... Some people only want to consume (wear/eat/whatever) "natural" products, and I was just pointing out all these bad things are "natural" you wouldn't ingest them because they're natural, but people won't take "real" medicine over homeopathic remedies because they're synthetic.... Dunno if I'm explaining it properly!

Capt'n Midnight

janeo80 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about make up exclusively, only lead make up. The others I were just saying was like..... Some people only want to consume (wear/eat/whatever) "natural" products, and I was just pointing out all these bad things are "natural" you wouldn't ingest them because they're natural, but people won't take "real" medicine over homeopathic remedies because they're synthetic.... Dunno if I'm explaining it properly!

point is that yes in the past there was some really nasty stuff floating around

but health and safety have done away with the dangerous stuff


asbestos is also natural

tobacco is also natural as are all the other toxic chemicals plants and animals use to protect themselves


And yes there are some very potent substances like ricin and polonium that act in tiny amounts. Fatal doses are 3mg and 1mg respectively. And ricin can be detected by the antibodies produced against it, and polonium is radioactive, both are fairly undetectable unless you know what you are looking for. (both are natural)



Homoeopath dilutes less active things many many more times.


Has anyone used antibodies to test if the body has actually experienced anything with homoeopathy ?

Dani Pacheco

lazygal wrote: »

I think it is, but a friend of mine swears by the 'medicine' from her homeopath.

It is pure nonsense.
Placebo effect and sin é.
I find it strange that there's even a discussion about this but I suppose some people believe astrology is accurate as well. Madness.

philologos

Sofaspud wrote: »

And when Philo demands evidence for something, you know it must be bollocks!

(No disrespect intended Phil, you're good people!)

Where did I demand anything in that post?

I've just said that I'll take the medicine over homeopathic treatments.

Claiming there is any similarity between this debate and the God question is silly as far as I can tell.

lazygal

I know when I need guidance on how to live a 2,000 year old book advising me on marriage, slavery and the wearing of mixed fabric really hits the spot. Never mind homeopathy, supernatural help is where its at.

5uspect

philologos wrote: »

Where did I demand anything in that post?

I've just said that I'll take the medicine over homeopathic treatments.

Claiming there is any similarity between this debate and the God question is silly as far as I can tell.

The same scepticism leads me to doubt both the existence of gods and the efficacy of homoeopathy. There is nothing silly about it.

philologos

Funnily enough skepticism actually led me out of agnosticism to consider Christianity

Dave!

I don't think that's what actually led you to Christianity, but that's probably a discussion for another thread...

Dani Pacheco

philologos wrote: »

Funnily enough skepticism actually led me out of agnosticism to consider Christianity

And after you considered it, what then ... ?

philologos

Dani Pacheco wrote: »

And after you considered it, what then ... ?

What do you think happened

Anyhow I think this issue is entirely separate to the debate on homeopathy and that there is no relationship between them whatsoever.

Dave!

Con Logue wrote: »

So, where's all those rampaging homeopaths ramming remedies down the throats of those who don't want them? Must have missed that.

Strawman. Noone is suggesting that. People are free to take sugar pills if they want. But it's a consumer protection issue if homeopaths are able to make or insinuate health claims without supporting them with evidence. Consumers should know that they are spending money on a product with no active ingredient whatsoever.

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

What do you think happened

Anyhow I think this issue is entirely separate to the debate on homeopathy and that there is no relationship between them whatsoever.

We could merge the topics

By the standards that Homoeopaths use, I'm Jesus. Or at least, not allergic to him.

http://rsloan.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/03/2768580-the-odds-that-youll-breathe-a-single-molecule-of-air-that-once-traveled-through-the-lungs-of-jesus

nozzferrahhtoo

Johro wrote: »

Excuse me, but how the hell did I ignore that post?

You replied with "blah blah blah". That... for me... is ignoring a post. Anyone can post that reply to any post on this entire forum. Make you feel big and clever did it? Well it was not big, and it was not clever.

You entered this thread espousing nonsense, declaring you would not get drawn in by your own nonsense, and have been posting ever since.

So Excuse you indeed... on your way out. And back in again. And out again. And in again.... even you do not seem to know if you are coming, going or staying.

Johro wrote: »

I'm done now. Goodbye.

Yeah right. See you when you get back. Again.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Funnily enough skepticism actually led me out of agnosticism to consider Christianity

Is this another one of your famous posts where you tell us that your entire argument for Christianity is that it "makes sense to me"?

ToddyDoody

If your not in U cant win

Canis Lupus

Lulz, phil enters homeopathy thread and much like water to wine the thread magically turns into a debate about god

Con Logue

Dave! wrote: »

Strawman. Noone is suggesting that. People are free to take sugar pills if they want. But it's a consumer protection issue if homeopaths are able to make or insinuate health claims without supporting them with evidence. Consumers should know that they are spending money on a product with no active ingredient whatsoever.

Still puzzled as to why something, usually promoted by word of mouth, is such a big deal to those who would have nothing to do with it anyway. There is no mass promotion of homeopathy except when those who have an objection to it write letters to the papers and what not.

Dave!

Con Logue wrote: »

Still puzzled as to why something, usually promoted by word of mouth, is such a big deal to those who would have nothing to do with it anyway. There is no mass promotion of homeopathy except when those who have an objection to it write letters to the papers and what not.

Homeopaths have done so well to conflate notions of "natural" and their product that I suspect their most common customer is a well-intentioned person who walks into a "health store" and asks for a "natural" treatment for whatever ails them, and walks out with a homeopathic remedy that does nothing. The sales assistant just fires a load of natural-sounding buzzwords at them, relieves them of their cash, and off they go.

There has also been controversy in the UK (where homeopaths get funding from the NHS) where homeopathic pills have been recommended for protection against malaria and other tropical diseases, when the customer was about to travel to the tropics.

Oryx

Con Logue wrote: »

Still puzzled as to why something, usually promoted by word of mouth, is such a big deal to those who would have nothing to do with it anyway. There is no mass promotion of homeopathy except when those who have an objection to it write letters to the papers and what not.

Its not promoted by word of mouth, it is a huge industry.

It is sold in pharmacies as legitimate medicine, which it is not. Confusion abounds about it (as seen in this thread) with many people not realising it is a different thing to other alternative remedies which are not diluted to the point of oblivion.

So it is a big deal. It is misinformation on widespread scale. And I cannot understand how or why anyone who has looked into the history and theory of homeopathy can still believe it can work on anything other than placebo level.

Con Logue

Oryx wrote: »

Its not promoted by word of mouth, it is a huge industry.

It is sold in pharmacies as legitimate medicine, which it is not. Confusion abounds about it (as seen in this thread) with many people not realising it is a different thing to other alternative remedies which are not diluted to the point of oblivion.

So it is a big deal. It is misinformation on widespread scale. And I cannot understand how or why anyone who has looked into the history and theory of homeopathy can still believe it can work on anything other than placebo level.

Good lord, you must go to radically different chemists than the ones I go to in North Kildare.

As for "huge industry", "widespread scale" etc, can you point out the homeopathic equivalents of Pfizer so I can take your comparison with any degree of seriousness?

Ask the average person in this country outside alternative circles about homeopathy and they will think you are talking about something other than medicine. It simply doesn't register. Other forms of alternative healing have a far higher profile than homeopathy.

Now, why would so many skeptics want to chuck around jackhammers to crack that particular nut?

Jimoslimos

Con Logue wrote: »

As for "huge industry", "widespread scale" etc, can you point out the homeopathic equivalents of Pfizer so I can take your comparison with any degree of seriousness?

Boiron