Is homeopathy nonsense?

Gee_G

Ziphius wrote: »

Well if tax payers money is being spent on this I think it is doing harm.

???

GreeBo

franktheplank wrote: »

Sorry I've just replied to another poster on you're original comment.

The reason why healthy eating, exercise, sewage systems would be considered medicine within you're logic, is that you've implied any treatment or action which is beneficial to a person's health would be defined a medicine.

"Medecine" is defined (By the Oxford English Dictionary) as
"the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease"

So Im still not sure what your point is...

NegativeCreep

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Except when people replace actual medical care with these crackpot remedies. Then they are doing very very serious harm.

But sure that's their own business.

franktheplank

Ziphius wrote: »

Will I?

I am using a definition which sees medicine as the application of science to promote human health.

And therefore things like sanitation, hand washing, diet, and exercise can all be considered medicine. Just as much as vaccination, antibiotics, or statins.

Well that's a new interpretation to me.

I'm actually one of those that believe that medicine isn't actually a true science, as it's often based on people's interpretations of how they feel, cultural influences on how we live our lives, perceptions of healthy etc.

Gee_G

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Except when people replace actual medical care with these crackpot remedies. Then they are doing very very serious harm.

Well ok, doing no harm to anybody but themselves!

ZzubZzub

This answered all my questions, now I don't doubt homeopathy!

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

Biggins

Jelly 292 wrote: »

Still believe it?

Brilliant!

phelixoflaherty

http://www.badscience.net/category/complementary-medicine/homeopathy/

franktheplank

GreeBo wrote: »

"Medecine" is defined (By the Oxford English Dictionary) as
"the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease"

So Im still not sure what your point is...

So everything that promotes health is medicine, a new one to me.

MrGeneric

Gee_G wrote: »

I really don't See why this is sUch an ongoing thing on boards. Or why people get so worked up about it. Homeopathy, cures, bloody fortune tellers.....if you don't believe in it, don't use/buy it! But if people do, fair play. Its nice for some people To believe that these things work and they are doing nobody any harm

There is a harm. If you accept that the above have no basis in reality, then every person who ends paying money for a cure or a fortune is being scammed. It's not ethical. The alternative medicine industry preys on vulnerable people desperate for cures, selling them empty promises. It undermines science and the fact that it's so prevalent in this age is one of humanities many great embarrassments.

Teyla Emmagan

I have always suffered from rotten PMS. When I was in my teens I wanted to go on the pill (or take ANYTHING that would make it stop). Instead my Mam insisted I went to her homeopath. Sat in a room for about 2 hours telling her all about my childhood and my issues (such as they were) and at the end of it she gave me some pill and weedy water and told me it would all be okay.

Needless to say, it did nothing.

Ziphius

Gee_G wrote: »

???

You agree with wasting taxpayers money?

The NHS used to provide homeopathic remedies (I'm not sure if it still does). I think this is a waste of money.

pickarooney

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The pharmacy I was in today stocked false eyelashes, lynx deodorant and nail varnish remover, but it doesn't mean any of those have any medical merit. The clue is usually if you require a piece of paper from an actual doctor to get the item. If that's the case, it's real medicine.

You'd hope so, but the GP I brought my son to (once!) wrote a prescription for homeopathic 'pills'. I think it was a trillionth of a gram of chive per globule.

Ziphius

franktheplank wrote: »

So everything that promotes health is medicine, a new one to me.

I think you're missing the key word. Science.

AnonoBoy

NegativeCreep wrote: »

But sure that's their own business.

Gee_G wrote: »

Well ok, doing no harm to anybody but themselves!

Well if people who they trust are advising them to forgo actual medical treatment and rely on quackery instead then those people are endangering lives and some poor fools are not only being conned out of their money but their lives are being put at risk too.

Homeopathy should carry all sorts of warnings to be honest.

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

GLaDOS

At best it's well meaning folk who don't see the harm if a few people feel better as a result.

At worst it's scammers taking advantage of the gullible and desperate to line their own pockets.

My opinion leans more towards the latter.

Gee_G

Ziphius wrote: »

You agree with wasting taxpayers money?

The NHS used to provide homeopathic remedies (I'm not sure if it still does). I think this is a waste of money.

No, of course not. I just didn't understand what you meant.

mcmoustache

dirtyden wrote: »

Arnica has anti inflammatory properties.

Homeopathic preparations based on Arnica are usesless.

It depends what the pharmacist is selling, actual Arnica has benefits.

Exactly. Homeopathic preparations of anything are useless.

Whenever homeopathy comes up as a topic here, though, I always get the impression that a lot of people think that it's another word for herbalism or other alternative medicine. People seem to use the words interchangeably.

Homeopathy is something very specific which knasher and others have already explained so I won't bother here. I just think it's important that people know what it is and what it isn't.

franktheplank

Ziphius wrote: »

I think you're missing the key word. Science.

I don't think medicine is a pure science, no more than politics is, or counselling is.

Sure it uses scientific theory to a large degree but i still wouldn't classify it as a true science because it's subject is so often the human interpretation of a feeling or idea.

Also, I think you're interpretation of medicine as anything that promotes health is well dodgy.

Example. Don't go to your doctor or he'll give you Thalidomide.

Is that medicine?

AtomicHorror

Deleted User wrote: »

Ugh, I can't believe how close-minded you all are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Watch. Very good, if you can tolerate the cheesy music (and if you can't then that's not very open minded, is it?).

TheUsual

I checked with my local wizard and he says they are a "load of old cobblers".

So that's that.
He did give me 4 slugs though for my stomach ulcers. Which was brilliant.

Biggins

Gee_G wrote: »

Well ok, doing no harm to anybody but themselves!

...And people who are fooled into sometimes coughing up daft amounts of money for the rubbish!

Ziphius

franktheplank wrote: »

Example. Don't go to your doctor or he'll give you Thalidomide.

Is that medicine?

Yes, I don't see why not, assuming I suffered from an illness for which it would be an effective treatment and was not a pregnant women.

Thalidomide was shown promise as a treatment for various diseases such as cancer, leprosy, and AIDS (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalidomide/HQ01507).

That it causes birth defects in pregnant women does not mean it can't be used in other patients.

AtomicHorror

Biggins wrote: »

...And people who are fooled into sometimes coughing up daft amounts of money for the rubbish!

Also allows argument from majority- if X number of people are doing it there must be something in it, right?

Ziphius

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't think medicine is a pure science, no more than politics is, or counselling is.

Sure it uses scientific theory to a large degree but i still wouldn't classify it as a true science because it's subject is so often the human interpretation of a feeling or idea.

Also, I think you're interpretation of medicine as anything that promotes health is well dodgy.

This isn't my interpretation of medicine.

franktheplank

Ziphius wrote: »

Yes, I don't see why not, assuming I suffered from an illness for which it would be an effective treatment and was not a pregnant women.

Thalidomide was shown promise as a treatment for various diseases such as cancer, leprosy, and AIDS (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalidomide/HQ01507).

That it causes birth defects in pregnant women does not mean it can't be used in other patients.

Oh come on you're clutching at straws, so what you're saying is that whenever medicine is right it's medicine and when it's not it's something else?

For somebody advocating a 'scientific' perspective, there's a pretty obvious gaping hole in your logic.

Canis Lupus

franktheplank wrote: »

Well that's a pretty simplistic view of acupuncture but to my knowledge there has been research supporting it. Of course there has been research against it also but it's not unknown for vested interests influence research either.

I've found it very good for certain things, I'm sure it's not a cure but what is?

I tried it initially because a friend of mine, a professor of medicine with a few books and hundred's of paper's to their name recommended it.

From what I've read I believe there's little solid evidence to prove anything other than a placebo effect. At this stage I tend to be skeptic on a treatment which is based on energy flows within the body...

Biggins

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also allows argument from majority- if X number of people are doing it there must be something in it, right?

Aye. That (daft) thinking by others makes this lot look right - as they were all doing it! :eek:

http://brainz.org/10-most-notorious-suicide-cults-history/

AnonoBoy

Nobody has ever proved homeopathy works.

Anyone who can gets 1 million dollars.

franktheplank

Canis Lupus wrote: »

From what I've read I believe there's little solid evidence to prove anything other than a placebo effect. At this stage I tend to be skeptic on a treatment which is based on energy flows within the body...

Think of it as stimulating the nervous system and it starts to make a lot more sense. And i'll still go with my mate's take on it, guy was a feckin genius but yes he would also have said it's not a cure for everything as I'm sure most honest practitioners would.

Ziphius

franktheplank wrote: »

Oh come on you're clutching at straws, so what you're saying is that whenever medicine is right it's medicine and when it's not it's something else?

For somebody advocating a 'scientific' perspective, there's a pretty obvious gaping hole in your logic.

I'm saying that medicine should be informed by scientific evidence. Homeopathy has no supporting evidence therefore it is not medicine.

franktheplank

Ziphius wrote: »

I'm saying that medicine should be informed by scientific evidence. Homeopathy has no supporting evidence therefore it is not medicine.

Actually I'm pretty sure that's just not what you said.

Liamario

Biggins wrote: »

...And people who are fooled into sometimes coughing up daft amounts of money for the rubbish!

.... and those who decide to stay away from real life saving treatment and go with quackery instead.

Ziphius

franktheplank wrote: »

Actually I'm pretty sure that's just not what you said.

I'm not surprised.

Miss Lockhart

As I said, I have zero belief in homeopathy. However, I would never underestimate the placebo effect and there are studies out there that show that the effectiveness of the placebo effect can be related to cost. On that basis, I don't think banning homoepathy or banning charging for homeopathy is the answer. However, I think there needs to be some regulation and I think it needs to be seen ONLY as a complementary therapy and never as a replacement for proper medicine.

Canis Lupus

franktheplank wrote: »

Think of it as stimulating the nervous system and it starts to make a lot more sense. And i'll still go with my mate's take on it, guy was a feckin genius but yes he would also have said it's not a cure for everything as I'm sure most honest practitioners would.

Indeed and yet in trials randomly whacking needles into a person produces almost the same result as the 'qualifed' acupuncturist.... funny that....

Ziphius

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

As I said, I have zero belief in homeopathy. However, I would never underestimate the placebo effect and there are studies out there that show that the effectiveness of the placebo effect can be related to cost. On that basis, I don't think banning homoepathy or banning charging for homeopathy is the answer. However, I think there needs to be some regulation and I think it needs to be seen ONLY as a complementary therapy and never as a replacement for proper medicine.

Interesting. Never knew cost had a role, though I have read that the placebo effect can be dose dependent. So two sugar pills are twice as effective as a single sugar pill.

earlyevening

I love this

franktheplank

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Indeed and yet in trials randomly whacking needles into a person produces almost the same result as the 'qualifed' acupuncturist.... funny that....

I don't trust these trials tbh.

For me there's a logic to it and my medical friend who is far smarter than you or I also believed it had credence.

I can see how the pharmaceutical industry would want it to be hokem, but I can also see that the same could be said of a lot of alternative therapies, many of which are clear nonsense.

Sky King

A mate of mine forgot to take his homeopathic medication one time and as a result he died of an overdose.

coolhull

If I had an accident and was lying on the ground in agony, surrounded by sympathisers, I wouldn't want to hear someone at the back shouting out '' Let me through, I'm a homeopath ''

Canis Lupus

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't trust these trials tbh.

For me there's a logic to it and my medical friend who is far smarter than you or I also believed it had credence.

I can see how the pharmaceutical industry would want it to be hokem, but I can also see that the same could be said of a lot of alternative therapies, many of which are clear nonsense.

And see that's where we run into problems. People like you have some mistrust of modern medicine and point to things like thalidomide (sp?) and seem to think that makes the rest of medicine, a huge field, somehow illegitimate. It's all about 'big pharma' EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!

Frankly, having a friend you think is intelligent and your own belief that there is some logic to acupuncture doesn't legitimise the practice in anyway.

fearcruach

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't trust these trials tbh.

For me there's a logic to it and my medical friend who is far smarter than you or I also believed it had credence.

I can see how the pharmaceutical industry would want it to be hokem, but I can also see that the same could be said of a lot of alternative therapies, many of which are clear nonsense.

Just because something should work by logic doesn't necessarily means it will. The human body is spectacularly complicated and saying x effects y doesn't necessarily mean that y will react the way you think. X could also effect z and w which could effect y.

This is why the pharmaceutical industry has such high costs. They identify a drug that logically think should have a good effect but depending on what else it does in the body then it might be worthless. You can only find out by experiment.,

holystungun9

Rhetorical question is rhetorical.

timmers

Homeopathy is bollox of the highest order.
For the record, someone saying something worked for them or they know someone it worked for are simply wrong in the case of homeopathy. A persons opinion of anything is subjective and open to bias. Only unadulterated experimentation can PROVE these things.
'Double blind' scientific studies are the gold standard for proving anything to 'work' or 'not-work'. Homeopathy has failed this type of experimentation time and time again.
It is dangerous to legitimize any bogus therapy like Homeopathy as it opens the prospect of those who dont know any better going to them to be treated for a serious illness leading to extended illness and in extreme cases death!

NIMAN

It is of course a free world and if people want to buy this nonsense then thats up to them, but what bugs me is when the likes of Boots etc actually stock it. They should have their own shops to sell their mumbo jumbo, and it should never see the shelf of a chemist, ever.

sheikhnguyen

Of course it is nonsense. Not only that, is is obviously bollox or we would all be using it.

I live in Asia and am constantly bombarded with locals telling me how good traditional asian medicines are. I just nod and smile all the while thinking to myself "If this ****e worked people would be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to come here and be treated with ground up mushrooms and deer antlers instead of going to the Mayo Clinic in America to get their cancer treated"

The excuse given time and again by the con artists who sell this crap is that there is a "conspiracy" by the drug companies to stop information getting out. You always know something is bolloxs when the tin foil hats come out.

kowloon

People with real problems burn through money on 'alternative cures'.

A humourous look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qkXR9mflOo

frfintanstack

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't disagree with you that homeopathy is nonsense but I think that kind of ideology is nonsense too.

By that logic healthy eating, regular exercise and modern sewage systems would be medicine too?

It is....its called preventative medicine

franktheplank

Canis Lupus wrote: »

And see that's where we run into problems. People like you have some mistrust of modern medicine and point to things like thalidomide (sp?) and seem to think that makes the rest of medicine, a huge field, somehow illegitimate. It's all about 'big pharma' EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!

Frankly, having a friend you think is intelligent and your own belief that there is some logic to acupuncture doesn't legitimise the practice in anyway.

Actually I think modern medicine is great in a whole lot of ways.

I've certainly never said that the rest of medicine is somehow illegitimate. I just happen to believe it has it's limits and dangers. Surely that's not so radical?

And it wasn't just the fact that my friend was very intelligent. I found it relevant that he was a professor of medicine, with a vast number of papers published and several books. (He was also quite skeptical of 'big pharma' )